"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State"
About this Quote
Edward Abbey frames abortion bans as a radical form of state coercion. By calling forced continuation of pregnancy "compulsory maternity", he emphasizes that pregnancy is not merely a moral abstraction but an intense, embodied labor with health risks, pain, and lifelong consequences. Consent is the hinge of his argument. If a woman is denied the ability to end a pregnancy, the state effectively claims the right to use her body for ends she did not choose. The deliberately shocking phrase "rape by the State" fuses sexual violation with political power, insisting that compulsion over a body without consent is a violation, regardless of who imposes it.
The rhetoric fits Abbeys broader iconoclastic, libertarian streak. Known for blasting bureaucratic overreach and defending individual autonomy, he wrote during the post-Roe era when battles over reproductive rights shaped American politics. He commonly cast state power as invasive and violent; here he pushes that logic to its moral extreme, portraying anti-abortion laws as a form of institutionalized assault.
Philosophically, the claim speaks to a core principle of bodily autonomy often invoked by thinkers like Judith Jarvis Thomson: even if another life depends on your body, you are not morally or legally obligated to provide that use. Abbeys phrasing makes that abstract principle visceral. It also reframes the debate from the status of the fetus to the sovereignty of the pregnant person, reminding readers that the state would be compelling not just a decision but an arduous, intimate process.
The passage is intentionally polarizing and invites objections. Those who prioritize fetal personhood will argue that protection of unborn life justifies legal limits and that the rape analogy misfires. Abbeys point, however, is about the nature of compulsion. When government power overrides personal consent in matters as fundamental as reproduction, he argues, it crosses a moral line from policy into violation, turning law into an instrument upon the body itself.
The rhetoric fits Abbeys broader iconoclastic, libertarian streak. Known for blasting bureaucratic overreach and defending individual autonomy, he wrote during the post-Roe era when battles over reproductive rights shaped American politics. He commonly cast state power as invasive and violent; here he pushes that logic to its moral extreme, portraying anti-abortion laws as a form of institutionalized assault.
Philosophically, the claim speaks to a core principle of bodily autonomy often invoked by thinkers like Judith Jarvis Thomson: even if another life depends on your body, you are not morally or legally obligated to provide that use. Abbeys phrasing makes that abstract principle visceral. It also reframes the debate from the status of the fetus to the sovereignty of the pregnant person, reminding readers that the state would be compelling not just a decision but an arduous, intimate process.
The passage is intentionally polarizing and invites objections. Those who prioritize fetal personhood will argue that protection of unborn life justifies legal limits and that the rape analogy misfires. Abbeys point, however, is about the nature of compulsion. When government power overrides personal consent in matters as fundamental as reproduction, he argues, it crosses a moral line from policy into violation, turning law into an instrument upon the body itself.
Quote Details
| Topic | Human Rights |
|---|
More Quotes by Edward
Add to List
