It’s usually easy for me to argue with people when I’m trying to convince them that an unborn child is a human being and deserves equal protection under the law… But every once in a while I come across that person that DOES acknowledge the humanity of the child but endorses abortion anyway, without even pulling that flimsy “mother’s choice” card.
One person on tumblr stated, “If we are “equals” why should the fetus have rights over my body that no one else has?" And of course their logic is cold and makes me sick to my stomach, but I can’t think of anything other than an emotional appeal to argue against this point. The full argument goes as follows -
There is a concept called bodily automomy. It’s generally considered a human right. Bodily autonomy means a person has conrol over who or what uses their body, for what, and for how long. It’s why you can’t be forced to donate blood, tissue, or organs. Even if you’re dead. Even if you’d save or improve 20 lives. It’s why someone can’t touch you, have sex with you, or use your body in any way without your continuous consent.
A fetus is using someone’s body parts. Therefore under bodily autonomy, it is there by permission, not by right. It needs a person’s continuous consent. If they deny or withdraw consent, the pregnant person has a right to remove them from that moment. A fetus is equal in this regard because if I need someone else’s body parts to live, they also can legally deny me their use.
By saying a fetus has a right to someone’s body parts until it’s born, despite the pregnant person’s wishes, you’re doing two things.
- Granting a fetus more rights than other people’s bodies than any born person.
- Awarding a pregnant person less rights to their body than a corpse.
I suppose one could argue “But abortion is directly killing, not just removing.” But then would that imply it would be okay to remove the child from the uterus without having any way to keep it alive? Even though Catholic teaching permits removal of the fetus from the uterus in case of life-threatening medical situations (with adequate action taken to save the child if possible) I’m pretty sure that we wouldn’t dare condone the removal of a non-viable fetus from the uterus for trivial reasons… right?
… If they ever do invent artificial wombs, do you think that would decrease the number of children slaughtered in abortion? o__0 That’d be an interesting topic for another thread.