Autonomous Rights Over One's Body

Slimy Lusts

The following article has appeared in the NZ media:

Young pregnant teens don't have the mental maturity to understand the implications of an abortion, new research suggests.  Parents should be involved in the abortion decision, rather than giving all girls, no matter what their age, the right to consent, Otago University masters law student Michael Morrison said.  The current "clumsy" legislation that allows teens to chose to have an abortion without their parent's permission is outdated and should be repealed, he said.   "We're relying on an ancient piece of legislation."
Morrison's law and ethics essay, which argues this case, has won second place in an international academic writing competition.  The paper has been published in the latest edition of the Asian Bioethics Review.

In New Zealand children aged under 16 generally need their parent's permission to undergo medical procedures, except when it comes to abortions.  This legislation means girls can consent to an abortion as long as they are sexually mature.  The abortion law came into effect in 1977 before experts had a full understanding of how a young person's brain works, Morrison said.

However, he said international experts now agree a teenager's brain only develops the ability understand a decision between the ages of 14 and 17.  About 50 girls aged between 11 and 14 have an abortion each year. There are also 2000 abortions in the age group 15 to 19.

Morrison said for the young girls who don't tell their parents, they may not understand the long-term implications of their decision.  "The child is trying to process a very significant procedure alone."  Parents should be involved in the decision, something research has also shown most young people would want, he said.  "Children really do want their parents involved."

The current law was developed with good intentions to protect children, but Morrison said it goes too far.  "It is incredibly clumsy and it is not based on our current knowledge on when children have the capacity to consent."  A test case in the English courts found a child should have the right consent when they have the ability to understand the implications, which varies between teens.  The law allowing a young teen to consent to an abortion has never been tested here. [Stuff]

It's good to see anything that challenges our horrible abortion-on-demand law.  It's great to see that the essay has been given widespread promoting, having been published in the Asian Bioethics Review.

Both Christians and secularists agree that abortion is a watershed issue.  Both are prepared to "die in the ditch" as it were over the killing of innocent unborn children.  One reason is that the foundations of the two respective religions (Christianity v. secularism) are at stake.

To illustrate how secularists regard their position as absolute, before which everyone must bow, consider the following commentary upon the article above by a prominent NZ blogger:

A difficult issue. My views are:

• Regardless of age, the final decision has to rest with the pregnant girl. She should not be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, against her will.


• However if they are aged under 16, parents should be involved. I don’t think a parent can be doing their job if their under-wage daughter is having to make this decision, without their knowledge.


• There will be some circumstances where it will be in the best interests of the pregnant girl to not have their parents informed – if they are likely to be abusive, or there may be incest etc.


• Overall I favour doctors being required to inform parents if someone aged under 16 wishes to have an abortion, but with the ability for a family court judge to give waivers. Ultimately though the wishes of the pregnant girl should prevail over their parents, if they don’t agree.  [Kiwiblog]

The "right" of a woman to control her own body is a secularist absolute law, before which everyone and everything must bow.  But really?  Well, let's see how this rolls?  The right of a woman to control her own body cannot be a gender-exclusive right.  It would have to be gender neutral: all human beings must have an autonomous right to control their respective bodies, which really means their own lives, right?  The right to a pregnant woman to have autonomous control over her own body must be a particular application of a more general secularist truth.

Here we approach the heart of secularist theology: the ultimacy of the autonomous will of the individual with respect to itself.  Regardless of age, we are told, the final decision to abort or not must rest with the pregnant girl, be she ten, fifteen or sixty-five.  "She should not be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, against her will." Moreover, "ultimately . . . the wishes of the pregnant girl should prevail over their (sic) parents . . . " [Emphasis, ours.]

How about youth suicide?  Secularism--unless it be riven with special pleading and gross hypocrisy--must also argue the autonomy of the individual human will to take its own life.  That's what control over one's own body really means.  So, let's say a thirteen year old male is contemplating suicide.  Parents must be prevented from interfering.  The will of the lad must prevail over the will of his parents, if secularism is to be taken seriously.  Moreover, the state has a duty to set up facilities to enable the deed to be done--lest the state be seen to be denying the lad's fundamental human rights.  Better to suicide in a controlled safe environment than in some dirty, dark back alley.

But, quixotically, in our secularist society, teen suicide is considered a terrible blight upon our communities.  Secularism cannot have it both ways.  If the will of a pregnant teen trumps the will of her parents or caregivers to get an abortion, the will of the suicide freely to take his or her own life must be vehemently defended.  It's all to do with having control over one's own body, non?  The will of the individual must be autonomous, and defended as such, in both cases. Or, if not, then the claimed right of a woman to control her own body is a hypocritical fiction.  A manufactured right of convenience to buttress a murderous trade. 

Or how about something more mundane, like going to school?  Here too the act involves physical exertion.  Control over one's body is in the frame.  The law says that parents are responsible to ensure their children attend school.  They can be fined if their child is a truant.  But the secularist must argue that the law is an ass--worse, it is morally wrong, let alone unjust.  Such a law violates the right of the pupil to an absolute control over his own body.

It's probably at this point that the secularist will commence mumbling with a mouth full of cotton wool.  The religion of secularism is a mere vanity, a cosmetic system of belief covering over a bucketful of slimy lusts.  Those who espouse it conscientiously need to rethink their position on such matters as abortion.  Let the death of a thousand qualifications commence.  Or, if not, let the ridicule of secularism flow down.