There are three main facets of the bodily autonomy argument: 1) the idea that there is no significant relationship between the pregnant person and the fetus, 2) the idea that denied access to abortion is equatable to “forced organ donation,” and 3) the idea that “consent can be revoked at any time.” If we can make our way through these points while remaining consistently pro-life for BOTH the mother and child, we can come to the logical conclusion that supporting one’s rights to bodily autonomy is not synonymous with supporting abortion. In fact, it is synonymous with being against abortion, because abortion robs someone of their right to life AND their right to their body.
Argument 1: The Parent/Child Relationship
Biologically speaking, a fetus is the “offspring” (or child) of the pregnant person. This means that by default, pregnant persons are biological parents. Since we know that a child’s life begins at the moment of their conception, we can conclude that parenthood also begins at this point. The law dictates that parents should not only refrain from intentionally causing harm to their children (which is the case in most abortions), but are also obligated to provide what resources they reasonably can to keep their children alive and safe from harm, unless and until they can transfer them to another’s care. A healthy, non-life-threatening pregnancy is not an unreasonable feat of provision, and since parenthood begins when pregnancy begins, that’s when the principle of parental obligation should begin to apply. Anything less constitutes an inconsistency in the legal system.
Argument 2: Pregancy =/= Organ Donation
When presented with Argument 1, many pro-choicers argue that parental obligation does not require parents to give organs or blood against their will. They then make the case that in order to be pro-life, one must be in support of forced organ donation. But the difference between pregnancy and organ donation is like that which is between me giving my child a ride somewhere in my car, and handing them the title to the car. Pregnancy is a temporary sharing of resources between a mother and her child, and is not comparable to the permanent removal and loss of an organ. It does not deprive a mother of the use of any of her organs. In fact during and after pregnancy, her organs continue to serve their natural purpose for both her AND her child while remaining wholly hers. The fact that she cannot kill her fetus to stop the sharing of her resources with him/her does not diminish her ownership of her body.
Argument 3: “Consent” as an Excuse for Negligence
After being presented with Arguments 1 and 2, some may still make the counterclaim that the “consent” a fetus requires to remain in their mothers’ uterus (where they were forced by her and their father to be in the first place) is a continuum which can be revoked by the mother “at any time for any reason.” However in the case of abortion, “revoking consent” involves ending the life of one’s child by intentionally denying them resources which the parent is able to give, until they die. While this cannot legally be considered murder, it IS child neglect, and should not be legal under any circumstance. And since there is no significant difference between a child who is in the womb, and the same child after they’re born, anyone who is going to make this argument must also justify a parent’s “right” to neglect their born child with the intention of letting them die.
· · ·
I too believe that everyone should have the right to control their bodies, which is why I am against abortion. No one should have the right to crush a child to death to absolve themself of parental obligation.