Those in the pro-abortion camp tout “bodily autonomy” the most for their
support of “a woman’s right to choose” to kill her son or daughter who
resides in her womb. The problem with this argument is that bodily
autonomy is not absolute.
Absolute bodily autonomy assumes that you are in complete control of your
body and that you can do with it whatever you want. This includes using
one’s body to perform violence against others and violence against the self.
The only circumstance where this might be applicable is in an anarchistic
society. Obviously we don’t live in an anarchistic society, but we live in a
democratic republic where violence against others and violence against self
is condemned in most circumstances. Even in cases of violence through
self-defense, the person defending is extensively investigated, and
sometimes even prosecuted to prove guilt or innocence in the court of law.
In many states, people who self-harm or have suicidal ideation are
transported against their will to a hospital where they receive care from a
doctor in the form of a psychological evaluation, a treatment plan, and
possible placement in a behavioral health facility. These occurrences are
deemed as behavioral health emergencies and require intervention,
whether wanted or not. This is a clear violation of absolute bodily
autonomy. More weight is placed on the individual’s life than on the
individual’s autonomy and desire to self-harm or commit suicide.
In pregnancy, a new human life, the son or daughter who is an embryo or
fetus, resides within another human, his or her mother. The new human
has no will yet, and because of this, the idea of killing this son or daughter
cannot logically be viewed as self-defense, as he or she cannot purposely,
intentionally, or maliciously harm the mother. If pregnancy does, in fact,
pose a threat to the mother’s life, it would be considered a medical
emergency, not a need for self defense, and there are lifesaving
procedures that remove the son or daughter that give both mother and
baby the best chances of survival. This is not an abortion, the intentional
killing of a son or daughter in the womb to end a pregnancy.
Successful abortion always results in a death; a lifesaving procedure, if successful, saves both mother and baby.
It is only partly successful if the procedure saves the mother. An operation or procedure should never be deemed successful if it results in a death.
This is why abortion is not healthcare.
Pockets of people who support abortion are beginning to admit that the
embryo and fetus are human beings; however, they are claiming that these
humans cannot use a mother’s body without ongoing consent, and likens
an unwanted pregnancy to being raped. This is wrong on many levels. On
the legal level, there are no federal laws that deem the unborn as human
beings, and being such, have a right to be killed through abortion by non-
consent of the mother. What I am not saying here is that if the law reflects
their position, it is acceptable. What I am saying is their views do not
represent law, and if they really believe the unborn sons and daughters are
human beings and should be able to be killed at the will of the mother, they
should push for legislation that allows for such, instead of cowering behind
laws like Roe vs Wade that don’t reflect their position.
Such a cowering is hypocrisy.
On a logical level, it is hypocrisy to use “ongoing consent” as a
hostage negotiation for a human that can’t willingly meet any demands. It is
the ultimate slavery: “if I don’t like you at any point, if you make me
unhappy for any reason, I can and will kill you”. Said to the most vulnerable
human who can do absolutely nothing. He or she just exists.
Contrary to the propaganda, consent to sex is, indeed, consent to the
possibility of becoming pregnant. This is evident because of two facts:
1) When a sperm and egg combine, it starts a chain of events that everyone
knows as pregnancy.
2) All forms of contraception and birth control have a
risk of failure. This is basic sex education. If you consent to sex, even with
contraceptives, you are agreeing to the risk of pregnancy.
Revoking that consent once a new son or daughter is created, after already consenting to
that risk, is not only illogical, but also immoral and unjust; the human is
already there in the womb and killing that human is depriving that person of
the right to life, a human rights violation.
Bodily autonomy is not absolute because it denies us the freedom to harm
ourselves and (unjustly) harm others. Because abortion harms and kills
sons and daughters in the womb, the argument for abortion based on
bodily autonomy is invalid.
Pro Life Man