“No one has a right to use your body to sustain their life. A mother’s right to bodily autonomy supersedes an unborn baby’s right to life”
One of the most common arguments that you will hear is rooted in the concept of bodily autonomy. While it may seem like a compelling argument, it falls flat when examined closely (much like every other pro-abortion argument.)
Per usual, let’s start with defining our terms.
Bodily autonomy: The right to make decisions about your body free from force or coercion.
Interestingly enough, at the onset of this conversation we find a degree of common ground with our opposition. We all inherently understand that bodily autonomy is a good thing. None of us wish to be forced against our will to use our body in a way demanded by others.
In fact, most of us take great offense to the idea that the government might try to compel us to do certain things (an example might be taking an experimental medical injection.)
Where the pro-life and pro-abortion positions diverge is simply on the limits of bodily autonomy.
Primarily, the pro-abortion claim says bodily autonomy has no limit. It is said to be absolute.
So much so that at the core of this argument they do not have to deny the fact that the unborn is an innocent human being, they don’t care. We have been told in hundreds of debates and conversations with abortion advocates that it does not matter that the unborn baby is a living, innocent human being because the mom cannot be forced to use her bodily or resources to provide for the life of another being.
Often, abortion advocates will attempt to illustrate their point by correctly observing that it would be immoral to force a woman to donate a kidney to save the life of someone on dialysis. Even though her kidney would save someone’s life, she ought not be forced to give up her body or resources for someone else. If she wishes to donate a kidney, she must do so without force or coercion.
Thus far the pro-abortion position seems reasonable, but why do they stop there? Let’s apply their position to its logical conclusion.
If in fact bodily autonomy is absolute and a mother can refuse to use her body or resources to care for her unborn child, there is no reason this would not also be true of her born children as well.
To highlight the absurdities of an absolute right to bodily autonomy let’s review a few hypotheticals:
- If a pregnant mother is stranded in a remote cabin in the wake of a snow storm and gives birth with no one else around and no way to get formula or help until rescuers arrive, can she refuse to breast feed her baby and allow the child to starve to death then claim her absolute right to bodily autonomy justified what she did?
- Is it moral for a pregnant mother to knowingly take hard drugs and consume large amounts of alcohol while pregnant?
- If a mother is holding a newborn baby in her arms and she no longer wants to hold the baby, can she cease to use her body to support the child and simply drop it?
If bodily autonomy is truly absolute, the answer to these questions must be yes.
Obviously however, the answer to all these questions is NO. It would not be moral for a mother to intentionally starve her child, do drugs while pregnant, or drop her newborn baby. Clearly bodily autonomy must have limits.
The response that you may face from pro-aborts is the following: “So if a mother must use her body for 9 months to preserve the life of her baby, must she also be required to give up her blood, organs, or etc. to preserve the life of her born children or even strangers?”
This is a reasonable question. The pro-abort is attempting to do the same thing that we just did by challenging the boundaries of our view. After all, if bodily autonomy is not absolute, why can’t we be forced to donate organs, blood, etc.?
The answer is fairly simple. Parents are obligated to provide basic care to their children.
Parents have no obligation to feed, clothe, or house every random stranger off the street, but they do have an obligation to care for their children. These parental obligations are unique and a result of the special relationship between parent and child and the reason we pass laws prohibiting parental neglect.
However, there are also limits to parental obligations. Parents are expected to provide the ordinary, not the extraordinary.
No parent is obligated to buy their child a Ferrari when they turn 16 or clothe them in all Gucci clothing with Rolex watches.
Parents are however morally obligated to provide for the ordinary, basic needs of their children until they become adults. This includes things like feeding their children, providing shelter, and providing their child with clothes. Fulfillment of these obligations can happen, if need be, by lovingly placing a child into the custody of another.
A mother providing for her child in the womb is meeting the most ordinary and basic needs of her child. A mother being forced to donate a kidney to her adult child is an extraordinary requirement.
Bodily autonomy, though good, is not absolute and it clearly does not justify the killing of innocent children.
As we continue to expand our growing catalog of pro-life answers to pro-abortion arguments, please feel free to submit suggestions at info@lifeissues.org. We will happily refute any arguments that you need help with.
Leave a Reply