Close Menu X
Navigate

Pastor Jay's Blog

A New Abortion Argument: The Priority of Bodily Autonomy

 

 

With the abortion discussions heating up more than ever, I want to make sure each person can give the best defense possible on behalf of their unborn neighbor who is under such great threat.  One of the latest arguments that has gained a lot of traction in the pro-choice movement is the notion of Bodily Autonomy.  Since the science of the fully-human fertilized egg is becoming more and more understood throughout society, the argument is shifting away from “the-embryo-is-not-a-human/person” and is shifting toward “the-mother’s-bodily-autonomy-cannot-be-encroached upon.”

The bodily autonomy argument goes like this; No authority should force people to use their bodies in ways against their choosing.  For instance, no one is required to sacrifice their body to save the life of another person.  There are thousands of people who die every year because of needed organs that could be supplied by people around them, yet those surrounding people are not forced to provide those organs against their will.  Therefore, you cannot force a pregnancy, demanding women carry babies in their bodies that they do not want to carry.  That would be denying women their bodily autonomy.  Each has the exclusive rights to her own body and how it will be used, and no law should compromise this autonomy.

Here is that argument in illustration form with an explanation. 

If I drive drunk, and cause grievous, life-threatening organ damage to a child, and I am a match, and there are no other matches available - so without my kidney, this child, whose life I put in jeopardy, will die - can the government operate on me and remove a part of my body against my will?  Even here, in a situation far more extreme than pregnancy, where rather than accidental or uninformed sex, a crime was committed that put a person’s life in danger, the perpetrator of that crime still has a right to his own body.

How do we answer this argument?  Let me give three points of response.

First, existing laws do compromise bodily autonomy, and rightly so.  The easiest way to show this is by using the common pro-life tactic of pointing to the newborn baby.  A mother has a legal obligation to care for that child.  If the mother does not use her own body to care for that child in some way, whether by close personal care, or by ensuring another cares for him, or even by putting him up for adoption, that mother will be convicted of criminal neglect.  It is understandable that the government would want to stay out of issues of conscience and health care choices, such as organ donations, but mothers caring for children has always been recognized as a requirement. 

On top of this, it could be argued that laws affect us bodily all the time.  If we are going to drive, we are required to have a certain degree of health, which means some form of nutritional obligation.  We are also required to put seatbelts on, which mean we have to do this with and to our bodies.  Perhaps it could be argued from the example of the car that driving could potentially endanger other people.  I agree.  And in the same way, abortion endangers the fetus in an ultimate sense.  There will always be some laws that infringe on our bodily autonomy in order to protect other people at a basic level. 

Second, sex is a choice.  When the example is raised about how the government cannot force a person to donate blood to save lives, and therefore should not force a pregnancy by banning abortions, there is a major difference that must be highlighted.  We have had nothing to do with someone’s failing kidney or loss of blood; but a mother has everything to do with the creation of a new baby.  That mother made a choice to have sex instead of abstaining.  Since there is no fool-proof method of contraception, the choice of sexual activity is weighty thing.  It is a choice that comes with responsibilities.  This is why we believe God designed sex never to be severed from the marriage relationship where those responsibilities can be handled.  That mother has been a part of bringing a life into being, and she must therefore care for it in some way.  And killing it is not taking care of it unless you are a mafia hitman who “takes care” of people for the boss. 

The obvious exception to this is rape and that raises the question, Should rape be an exception in abortion bans?  The answer is no.  Why not?  Because you don’t kill innocent people to solve tragic problems.  There is a guilty party in that scenario who hopefully will be punished.  But punishing the innocent party is not a solution.  Just like you would never punish the rape victim, let’s also remember the child is a victim of rape as well, in that the child will have the complications and consequences of not being raised by the biological father.  Sure, the child will be an occasion for bad memories and terrible feelings in the mother.  But you can’t kill innocent people to avoid bad memories.  Killing is not how difficult situations are dealt with. 

Third, the illustration of the drunk driver is flawed.  The illustration is a challenge to the issue of choice.  We are saying that if you chose to have sex, you then must bear the responsibility of possibly having a child.  The challenge of the illustration is saying that just because a person choses to drink and drive, they still do not have to give over their bodily rights even in the event of injuries requiring organs the perpetrator has.  However, I don’t think those who use this illustration have thought this through.  While the government is rightly not going to get into medical choices and demand an organ donation that may or may not work, the government does bring charges that will deeply effect bodily autonomy.  For instance, in California, there are three degrees of charges when a DUI results in a fatal injury to the victim: Vehicular Manslaughter, Gross Vehicular Manslaughter, and DUI Murder.  Each of these can put you in jail where you cannot do what you want with your body. 

As members of human society, we must bear the responsibility that comes with our choices.  If you don’t want to drive drunk, then don’t drink.  If you don’t want a child, then don’t have sex.  If you do either of these then you are stating you are ready to surrender some of your bodily autonomy.  Thankfully it is much easier to put a child up for adoption than it is to bear the guilt of causing death, either in a DUI, or an abortion.  

When you hear “bodily autonomy” what you need to hear is “sexual idolatry,” the result of which, it can be said, is abortion is its bloody sacrament. 

Leave a Comment

Leave this field untouched:
Leave this field untouched:
Do not change this field: