Scholars insist minors should be forced to abort using 'sedation and restraint'

The authors of an article recently published in "Ethics," the University of Chicago Press's peer-reviewed journal, proposed that pregnant minors be forced to undergo abortions, even if they must be restrained.

Key Takeaways:

• Authors Alyssa Izatt and Kimberley Brownlee published a journal article arguing that pregnant minors should be forced to have abortions.

• They argue that abortion, even against her will and under sedation and restraint, is in a minor girl's best interest.

• The authors can't seem to decide whether the "impregnation" of minors is a bodily violation or a "bad choice." They present it as both.

• They insist that abortion must be the only choice; adoption is unacceptable because the minor might "love" her child if he or she is allowed to be born, and both adoption and parenting at a young age would cause her harm. They ignore the possibility that forced abortion might harm her.

• The authors claim that abortion "honors" the "carefreeness" of childhood.

• They also seem unaware of the fact that forced or coerced abortion is actually illegal.

The Details:

In Justice for Girls: On the Provision of Abortion as Adequate Care, Alyssa Izatt and Kimberley Brownlee of the University of British Columbia's Department of Philosophy asked, "What do adults owe to an impregnated girl?"

Their answer: "Her caregivers should view her impregnation as a malady and take steps to terminate it."

If it sounds callous and cold, that's because it is. And the ill intent is cloaked in the guise of medical care.

'Even if she doesn't want it, force her'

The authors claimed that, since a pregnant minor is still a child (seemingly the opposite of the abortion industry's position) and abortion is "adequate medical care" (an inaccurate assessment), abortion should be the only option afforded to her. They claim "her best interests are of the utmost priority." But that's clearly not the case because they say that even if the girl has an "aversion" to abortion, she should be forced to undergo one:

Providing abortion care to such a girl is an admittedly grim prospect, especially since she might resist the treatment. Providing care might then require sedation or physical restraint, which could be traumatizing, especially since this is a girl who most likely has already had her bodily integrity violated by someone. Compelling abortion care for an unwilling girl thus might seem to compound the harm she has already endured.

Then, the authors compare killing the innocent baby in the womb of his or her mother to eradicating cancer:

Here, it is worth considering that, while it may be distressing for parents, medical caregivers, and the patient herself, the use of restraint (chemical or physical) on children to provide lifesaving or life-altering treatment is used in other areas of medicine, including in procedures such as surgeries and cancer treatment, and is justified as a last resort when it is necessary to provide adequate care.

In other words, since children may have to undergo chemotherapy or other medical treatments (for which they may have to be sedated or restrained, specifically in cases of surgery) then it is ethical to restrain or sedate a teen for the alleged "health care" of abortion against her will.

But abortion is not health care. It is the direct and intentional killing of a human being.

1st Trimester Abortion | Suction Dilation and Curettage (D&C) | What is Abortion?

Izatt and Brownlee admitted that there would be "unpleasantness of the abortion or the use of restraint," but that it would still be better than continuing the pregnancy, based on the false claim that abortion is safer than pregnancy (highly questionable claim) and the false idea that motherhood prevents women from finding success in their education and career (also a dubious claim).

Abort to avoid "anticipated love"

They also claimed that, through "social or religious" pressures, a girl "might believe that by having an abortion she is killing her baby" — and in such cases, restraint and sedation should still be used, because there is only "one acknowledged party in a pregnancy" — the mother.

They even dubbed it "antigirlism" to not force an abortion on a girl — as if forcibly aborting her baby is not mistreatment — and they said to allow a girl to keep her baby is discrimination against her.

In addition, they argued that the abortion should happen "as quickly as possible" to avoid "anticipated love," because apparently, mothers "do not currently love their fetus," but they "will love the baby to whom they give birth."

If they are allowed to have (and therefore, love) their babies, they will "confront an awful dilemma of either giving up for adoption a baby they know they will love or trying to mother even when they know they are ill-equipped to mother the baby they will love."

Killing preborn children 'honors childhood'... but we can't define childhood

Every mother needs support, yet Izatt and Brownlee argue that teenage mothers will likely be abandoned, with no possibility of being good mothers. Beyond that, they claim abortion "honors" the "carefreeness" of childhood.

And despite their fervor in insisting that every pregnant minor must have an abortion, the authors struggle to even define what a child is.

They say puberty cannot be the turning point between childhood and adulthood, because puberty happens to even young girls. The age of 18 can't be the door to adulthood either, they argued, because "no precise date shifts [childhood] into [adulthood]." They wrote that it is "best... to specify a paradigm without drawing tight definitional borders around that specification."

On this, the authors seem terribly confused; on one hand, they claim that teens who become pregnant are merely children and don't know what's best for them, while on the other hand, some minors might not actually be children.

They further explained, "While almost all people under age eighteen will indeed be children, the paradigm case approach allows for exceptions." This sounds eerily like the classic "you're so mature" line that abusive men use to trick minor girls into sexual relationships. It opens the door to the legalization and acceptance of pedophilia.

Regardless of how childhood is defined, the authors argued that since children cannot refuse to attend school, cannot have full time jobs, cannot drive, cannot adopt children, and cannot undergo in vitro fertilization (IVF), letting them give birth would be "a warped form of adultification in which a child is held to account like an adult for a bad choice she made precisely because she is not an adult" (emphasis added).

But really, isn't the idea of minors having sex a form of "adultification" in the first place?

Yet, girls and boys have been told for decades (by Planned Parenthood and sex ed classes) that sex prior to adulthood is normal and natural for them. They have been encouraged to participate in dangerous sexual activities, and they (largely just the girls) are only shamed and punished for having sex when they get pregnant.

Oddly enough, the authors can't seem to decide whether the "impregnation" of minors is a bodily violation or a "bad choice." They present it as both.

Adults put children in the position of getting pregnant by giving them free rein with dating and sex, while only telling them to practice "safe(r) sex," which is an illusion.

How is forced abortion the solution to all of this brainwashing?

SEXED: Dangerous Sex Advice for Kids - Undercover At Planned Parenthood

A glaring problem

In the end, the authors argued, forcing an abortion on a pregnant girl will free her from any regret or remorse she may have felt in the future if she had come to the decision to abort on her own.

The message here is a long-winded, "Parents, forcibly kill your grandchildren against your daughters' wishes."

But there's another glaring problem here that these authors don't mention: coercing someone to abort her child — even if she is a minor — is illegal.

The Justice Foundation's Center Against Forced Abortion, which provides resources for women who are being coerced to abort, notes:

... [E]ven in states which allow voluntary abortion, all decisions about her pregnancy belong to the pregnant woman—even if she is a minor. See e.g.; D.C. Code Mun. Regs. tit. 22-B § 600.7(a) (giving the mother the sole right of consent to an abortion); N.M. Stat. § 24-1-13.1 (giving the mother the sole right to consent to an abortion); La. Child. Code § art.603(2)(d) (criminalizing a forced abortion). 

Why It Matters:

Legalized abortion created the "option" for teenage girls to abort their babies. That "option" soon became the expectation, and now Izatt and Brownlee want it to be a requirement.

Apparently, they haven't learned from history that compulsory reproductive measures are unethical. And they claimed there's no data "on girls' experiences of compelled abortion care," so therefore, it must be fine.

Did they even look for evidence?

Numerous women and girls have been forced or coerced into abortions. Each one is devastating, and research shows that it can harm a woman's mental health. Even an abortion after sexual assault can be damaging. One woman, Christine Longhead, explained:

"In my mind, those days when the doctors dismembered my child in my body they not only killed my child, they raped me in the process. After I said no they ripped open my legs and inserted things inside me. So much for bodily autonomy. […] 

Institutionalization was pretty bad. Rape was pretty bad too. But the abortions were the worst."

Research shows that women who undergo abortions can experience symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, including increased risks of:

• depression

• alcohol use

• drug use

• suicide

One study found that 20 percent of women struggled with clinical depression after an abortion, and a study from the Charlotte Lozier Institute, “Effects of Pressure to Abort on Women’s Emotional Responses and Mental Health,” found that women who reported being pressured into an abortion by either their male partner or a family member had statistically significant levels of negative emotions surrounding the abortion, interference with daily life, intrusive thoughts, abortion flashbacks, feelings of grief about the abortion, and increased levels of stress when answering questions about their abortion.

I Regret My Abortion - Serena's Story | Can't Stay Silent

The Bottom Line:

Forced abortion is abuse. It is not a valid medical treatment. It is the unethical act of directly and intentionally killing a living human being.

By arguing that girls are old enough to have sex but not old enough to be mothers, and must be forced into abortion, the authors are exposing the warped views society has regarding sex and parenthood. People who aren't old enough to parent children should not be engaging in activities that can biologically produce children. But killing those children once they are conceived is not a valid solution to the problem of minors engaging in sexual activity.

Sexual abusers benefit from abortion, using it to control their victims and destroy evidence of abuse. They know they can bring their victims to Planned Parenthood for coerced abortions.

Mandatory forced abortions for pregnant teens would benefit abusive men most of all.