Published March 30, 2026
So much for choice.
Ethics, a top-tier philosophy journal, just published an article arguing for mandatory abortions for all underage pregnancies, even if this requires “sedation or physical restraint” of mothers who do not want their babies killed.
Written by Kimberley Brownlee and Alyssa Izatt, respectively a professor and grad student in the University of British Columbia’s philosophy department, the article insists that children don’t get a choice. If a girl gets pregnant, then “her adult caregivers should view her impregnation as a malady and take steps to terminate it,” even if this means tying her down for a third-trimester abortion. The only exception would be if “an older adolescent is credibly deemed to no longer be a child”—an independently wealthy 17-year-old might not be subjected to a forced abortion, but for any other girl, it’s her body, their choice.
This pivot from choice to coercion is supposedly necessary because having a baby is risky and laden with responsibility. It’s also true that the authors exaggerate the risks. For instance, though their legal and cultural focus is on the United States, they rely on global data about pregnancy risks. This exaggeration is critical to their argument, for as Izatt put it in an interview: “Seeing impregnation as a serious medical harm clarifies that adults responsible for a child’s care have a duty to intervene, just as they would with other threats to her health and future.” She added that, “In no other context do we ask children to make decisions of such magnitude.”
Click here to continue reading.
Nathanael Blake, Ph.D. is a Fellow in the Life and Family Initiative at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. His first book, Victims of the Revolution: How Sexual Liberation Hurts Us All, was published by Ignatius Press in Spring 2025. As a cultural commentator, Dr. Blake has published hundreds of articles at outlets including Public Discourse, World Opinions, The Federalist, Catholic World Report, and the University Bookman.
