Shouldn’t Women Be Able to Control Their Own Bodies?
The battle captured by the slogan “my body, my choice!” is not new; it has been raging over a century. A cartoon in the May 1919 issue of Margaret Sanger’s Birth Control Review shows a woman being crushed by a giant roll of paper labeled “Laws Controlling Women’s Bodies.” Other offensive but equally common slogans pro-abortionists use are variations are the indignant demand “What makes you religious fanatics think you can tell me what to do with my uterus?,” and the tiresome chant “Keep your rosaries off my ovaries!”
Interestingly, the first person to make the “woman’s body, woman’s choice” argument for abortion was the libertine and reprobate Marquis de Sade. His sexual writings actually inspired the word “sadism,” and he was, not surprisingly, guilty of blasphemy against the Catholic Church. In 1797, he wrote:
The penalty against child-murdering mothers is an unexampled atrocity. Who then has a greater right to dispose of the fruit than she who carries it in her womb? … To interfere with the usage a woman chooses to make of it is stupidity carried beyond any conceivable extreme.1
Let’s examine the science that disproves these claims.
What Should Be Our Pro-Life Response?
To begin with, it is impossible to reply directly to this slogan unless we have the user clarify what he or she means by it. We need to do is ask, “Why do you consider the unborn child to be a part of the woman’s body?”
The usual response is momentary hesitation, followed by one of three possible answers;
- The fetus (unborn child) relies on the mother completely for its existence;
- The fetus is inside her body, therefore it is part of her body; or
- The fetus is a parasite.
You can give concise and effective answers to each of these.
(1) The unborn child relies on the mother
When asked to clarify, most pro-abortionists will argue that the unborn baby is totally dependent upon the mother. They are implying that this allows the mother the “right” to dispose of her baby.
These are separate arguments and should be treated as such. Certainly a newborn baby is just as dependent upon its parents for all of its needs as one not yet born, and will quickly die if not cared for. Does this mean that the newborn baby can be neglected or killed outright? As we see today in the infanticide debate regarding failed abortions where the child is born alive, the inevitable conclusion to draw if one is pro-abortion is affirmative. Some “intellectuals” have been arguing for decades that it is perfectly permissible to allow handicapped children to die, calling this “fourth-trimester abortion” or “post-natal abortion.” Moving the goal post means more and more killing is inevitable.
For example, Nobel Prize winner Dr. Francis Crick, one of the co-discoverers of DNA, actually claimed that “no newborn infant should be declared human until it has passed certain tests regarding its genetic endowment, and that if it fails these tests, it forfeits the right to live.”2 Hastings Center ethicist Joseph Fletcher has said, “It is ridiculous to give ethical approval to the positive ending of sub‑human life in utero, as we do in therapeutic abortions, but refuse to approve of positively ending a sub‑human life in extremis [after birth].”3
The pro-life answer is simple rebuttal. Every child who is born healthy is already entitled to care under the pain of prosecution for murder. And that baby, too, is completely dependent, so the argument is a non sequitur.
(2) The unborn child is inside the mother
The second assertion is that the unborn child is inside his or her mother, and is therefore part of her body.
Sometimes a pro-abortionist will also claim that the unborn child is inside the mother, depends on her completely, and is therefore part of her body. We can reply by describing an analogous situation involving astronauts in space. They are totally dependent upon their vessel for everything — their air, water, food, and all other needs. If they should exit the vehicle unprotected, they would be nonviable, and would die in minutes. This also holds true for a nonviable unborn baby. Yet no thinking person would argue that the astronauts are part of a space station!
Even the staff of Barack Obama, the most pro-abortion President in our nation’s history, recognized the unborn child as a separate human being. Pregnant women entering the White House must formally register their unborn children as separate visitors, with “Baby” as the first name, expected birth date, sex if known, and even “000-00-0000” as a Social Security number!
This silly policy demonstrates the totally illogical and schizophrenic nature of pro-abortion “thinking.”
(3) The unborn child as parasite
Pro-abortionists have a pressing need to dehumanize the unborn child in order to salve the guilt they feel when they support the practice of abortion or actually have one. Sometimes they will resort to the “fetus as parasite” argument, going beyond dehumanization to paint the unborn child as some sort of disgusting wormlike abomination draining the blood and life force from its “host.”
Third-trimester abortionist Warren Hern insists in his book Abortion Practice, “The relationship between the gravid female and the feto-placental unit can be understood best as one of host and parasite.”4
When pro-abortionists insist that the unborn child is a parasite, they are acknowledging its separate nature, because parasites are never part of their host’s body. They are biologically separate and distinct organisms. Anyone denying this fact is simply being anti-scientific.
One way to clarify your point is to ask the pro-abortionist a question. If they went to some underdeveloped part of the world and picked up a tapeworm because they ate some insufficiently cooked food, would they consider that parasite to be a part of their body?
Woman and Child: Separate Bodies, Separate People
If an unborn baby were part of its mother’s body, it would share all of her biological characteristics. Yet the baby even has its own distinct DNA.
In order to highlight the fact that the baby is a separate being, consider these facts, which not even the most ignorant pro-abortionist can deny:
- All mothers are obviously female. About half of their children are male. How can a human being be both male and female?
- The mother and baby frequently have different blood types.
- The baby can be a different race from the mother.
- Every cell in the mother’s body has a set of chromosomal characteristics that is entirely distinct from every cell in the baby’s body.
- When the unborn child anchors to the uterine wall, there is a concerted attack by white blood cells to defeat him, and he must defend himself. The mother’s immune system recognizes it as “non-self.” Therefore, it is not part of her body.
- The baby can die without the mother dying. The mother can die without the baby dying (the baby can be rescued if he is viable).
- The unborn baby initiates a process that culminates in its leaving the mother’s body. Challenge a pro-abortionist to name any other body organ that does this.
Pro-lifers agree that a woman does indeed have the right to manage her own health. However, maintaining that right does not allow the mother to destroy her child’s body. When she conceived, she had already passed the right to life on to that new life.
- Products that Use Aborted Fetuses
- Fetal Pain Is a Reason to End Abortion
- When Does a Fetus Develop a Heartbeat?
- Of Acorns, Eggs, and Captive Violinists: When Does Human Life Begin?
 The Marquis de Sade, quoted in “Yet another Effort, Frenchmen.” Juliette [New York City: Grove Paperbacks, Inc., 1968], pages 336, 782 and 783. It is interesting to note that de Sade’s novels were replete with several recurring themes, one of the strongest of which was the pleasure which certain disturbed individuals derive from killing both pregnant women and unborn children. In one of his grisly and deranged novels, he describes with great relish the skewering of a pregnant woman with a red hot iron rod driven through both her and her unborn baby, as described in Dr. Kenneth M. Mitzner. “The Abortion Culture.” Triumph, March 1973, pages 20 to 24.
 Nobel Prize winner Dr. Francis Crick. Pacific News Service, January 1978.
 Hastings Center ethicist Joseph Fletcher. “Four Indicators of Humanhood?: The Enquiry Matures.” Hastings Center Report, December 1974.
 Abortionist Warren Hern. Abortion Practice. B. Lippincott Company, 1984.
Dr. Brian Clowes has been HLI’s director of research since 1995 and is one of the most accomplished and respected intellectuals in the international pro-life movement. Best known as author of the most exhaustive pro-life informational resource volume The Facts of Life, and for his Pro-Life Basic Training Course, Brian is the author of nine books and over 500 scholarly and popular articles, and has traveled to 70 countries on six continents as a pro-life speaker, educator and trainer.
Powerful arguments, but sadly too intellectual for the pro-abortion crowd. Granted, some people use logic to come to rational conclusions, but not all. In most street conversations, I find my opponents are too emotional to be rational. They apparently aren’t interested in the Truth, but rather justification that supports their beliefs. Ultimately, deep in our hearts, we all know that abortion ends a human life. But some people are able to bury that reality.
Cain murdered Abel through envy that his own priestly action was not acceptable to God. Abortion is the inverse of that murder-motive in that its industry makes its buck by advocating for one or both parents’ refusal to anticipate and accept responsibility for having exercised the first priesthood bestowed upon our race.
Even as in the liturgy, where the priest enters the sanctuary to offer gifts to be immolated for the glory of God, so with marital union, an immolation of germ cells culminates in conception. Unlike all subsequent priesthoods — themselves fission-based, marriage’s immolation has the character of fusion, giving immediate rise to life, not death. The paradigm after which it is modeled is the Holy Trinity itself.
Even the first Christmas’ joys were shadowed by an infant-murderer’s envy. May the Prince of Peace help us be rid of the Herods yet amongst us.
“This was the oath He swore to our father Abraham: to set us free from our enemies, free to worship Him without fear, holy and righteous in His sight all the days of our lives” (from Lk 1).
Sorry, as creative as your book is, fiction does not negate science 🙂
This is very helpful. Thank you for giving me the words to defend life.
Interesting that you would argue one life over another. What about the woman’s life? Does that not count in the term “pro life”?
The woman’s life matters just as much as the baby, hence why she doesn’t have a right to kill the baby.
A different point of view: https://www.the-american-catholic.com/2020/01/08/unborn-child-says-my-body-my-self-my-choice/.
Sorry, not smart enough. Some arguments are getting you somewhere, but others make me (and others smarter than me) wonder if you actually are aware of unnecessary and pointless parts of the argument.
“The baby can be a different race from the mother.” – what does race have to do with anything here?
This is just one easy example for an idiot like me to point out.
Now if you’d like to see more women killed during abortion, make abortion illegal.
When will you learn?
Christian, All lives matter including yours. I’m just a fellow human being that was not killed by its mother before being allowed to breathe, grow, live, make my own choices, and help conceive you with your mother. You were a beautiful baby and a smart child. Sorry I couldn’t teach you, but I pray for you everyday.
Is this real? Why do old white religious dudes have such strong feelings about how other people should be allowed to live? Also, how did I get here?
Because your body your choice-
I am not white; however, I am a Christian. I don’t think that you must be religious to comprehend that the right to live is inherent to our human dignity, by any humanistic, including liberal standards. It is part of what defines a progressive modern democratic society, ethically and legally. People who think otherwise are against the universal declaration of human rights. It is considered murder and punished severely. Identifying vulnerable children at different developmental stages, or with health conditions, as sub-humans destroy the basis of human relational and legal arrangements. It opens the door to, covertly, justifying the perpetuation all sorts of discriminations; since we are acknowledging (paradoxically in the name of right to choose) that not all human beings are truly equal, at the end of the day. Breaking the golden rule is the source of all moral evils and the cause of moral anguish. The legal and social defense of abortion is ultimately the sign of an extremely disconnected and individualistic society which is losing cohesiveness and a common communitarian purpose. This is evident in the eugenics present at the origin of the pro-choice movement in America. It is a sad fact that most mothers who are deprived of the gift of motherhood through abortion, are also overwhelmingly victims of social inequality or other types of discrimination. In the context of a liberal democracy, it shows proof of societal decadence, opportunism, and hypocrisy at its worst. You can’t advocate for minorities, women’s rights and saving the planet while degrading the sacredness of human life at its very source. Also, you can’t ignore the medical and psychological consequences of abortion. Using the rarer life-threatening maternal-fetal conditions, and the results of human abuse or rape, to defend abortion is a very limited argument. Overwhelmingly the pro-life stance is against the use of abortion as a way of contraception, which is sadly genocidal in its magnitude. I believe that most people deep inside know that their political stance about abortion is heavily influenced by the social discourse (and other factors: fear of losing other various women’s rights if pro-life policies are enacted, prejudice against conservative views, ignorance, immaturity, neglecting to be well informed, mental health or poverty.) In my experience it does not always represent a conviction that would ultimately determine their own personal decisions regarding family planning and motherhood.
Wow! That was a lot to read and I commend your dedication to run on sentences 🙂 I’m sorry to tell you that a fetus’s right to life does not trump my right to bodily autonomy. If we want to split hairs, remove the embryo/zygote/fetus and let it exert its right to life outside my organ please! God bless.
It’s old white religious women too!! Don’t forget 🙂
I am pro-choice but it is still her choice to have the baby or not, if one of the parents don’t want the baby the woman should have an abortion. If you don’t have a uterus or if the baby is inside your uterus you should NOT tell the woman to keep the baby if she does not want to, especially if she is a minor. Pro-life people rather always bring religion into everything, if they want it that way ; In the bible it states that A human life begins when it starts breathing, therefore it is not a child yet. Also why would you not want an 18> y/o to not adopt a child but expect her to birth one? Reasons they get an abortion is because 1. They were raped, the rapist should not get a say over whether she gets to keep the baby or not since giving birth to one will remind her of a lifelong traumatic experience. 2. She is a minor, a child should not be giving birth to a child, being young increases your chances of dying while giving birth and the baby can also die and will cause her to drop out of high school thus not giving her an opportunity for a good job and not be able to provide, also her family might kick her out of the house. 3. Not enough funds, after having a child you will need to provide for it with your money and giving birth also costs thousands. 4. Disease, there was this certain disease I can’t quite remember the name of but it can kill the woman, baby or both during childbirth. All of you pro-birth people should not come around saying to put the child up for adoption if there are more than 1.5 million children waiting to be adopted, It’s better to get rid of them before they start suffering, it costs to put a kid up for adoption. for your #1 debate, A child does NOT need both parents to survive, it mostly needs the mother than the father but it does not need both parents UNLESS they family is very low on funds. On your second debate, nothing makes sense, when the astronauts are on earth they are independent but on the space station they are dependent, but astronauts are humans ; space stations were created by humans which you would be saying that the clump of cells created the woman giving birth to it which is completely unrealistic, the woman is giving birth to that unwanted fetus that was created inside her body. In your 3rd argument, you are talking about dehumanizing an unborn child but taking women’s rights to have a say or get rid of the fetus is quieting her voice and making her stay silent over her own body which is dehumanizing and by parasite they mean that it could ruin a woman’s life and is unwarted like an actual parasite. There is no such thing as half male half female thing, most of the humans on earth are male, there is your proof. Having different blood types is not a justification for not having an abortion, if it is then that means the child and woman are not related. The baby will not be a fully different race from the mother, either the same race or mixed what does race also have to do with any of this? About the chromosomal thing, there such thing called uniqueness. Sperm is not an unborn child, didn’t they teach you this at school? Both can die during childbirth. Oh yes, tell me another body organ that does such thing, will ya? I am laughing so hard at this but what do you want to control the lives of other people and the body of women as if they were objects to please you? If that is what you believe they are then what the hell are you? I will say it but every single pro-lifer at least lowkey hates women, admit it, and yeah it is the parents’ rights to decide if the child is born or not, one no is enough. Imagine going through birth and massive pain, loose many household funds tearing up you vaginal vestibule and get stretch marks on your body which society has considered ugly, have limitations to fun activities while pregnant ; stop working for weeks and loose money and provide for a child that turns out you never wanted and were forced to have and they end up turning into pro-life, or even if you wanted, meaning your child wants to shut out the voice of people like you, I would be so disappointed if I was your mother, i guess she really didn’t raise you well. Would of have names you Anna Bortion, no cap.
Hey, thanks for doing this well-thought-out post. I currently am running a youth group in Canada and want to have a conversation with them about abortion. While I don’t agree with you I do see the logic in your points and I want to help them come to a conclusion on their own not give them arguments as to why “my opinion is obviously right and the other side is clearly wrong”. So thank you for giving me clear points from the pro-life side to discuss with them!
Your first sentence contradicts itself, you say “her choice” and then you say ” if one of the parents” does not want the baby “the woman should have an abortion”. You just gave control of your body to someone else. If you want the baby you would still have to have the abortion if the father does not want the baby. The breath of life spoken of in the bible by some definitions refers to the spirit or soul of the person entering the body. The creation of man by God was not the same process as it is when men and women create a human life (a baby). At what point the soul enters the body may not be clear, it may be at conception or heartbeat, it is clearly there when movement (kicking) is detected. If you want to use the bible referring to the breath of life as being a baby’s first breath entering the lungs to make it human that is your right. The bible also says sex should only be between a married couple or they are committing a sin. This may vary in the many different interpretations or versions of the bible. If you are going to use the bible use all of it. The choice should be made before engaging in the act that may create a new human. The act should only be between a couple prepared to raise a child, the act is not a requirement for life like food and breathing are. It is amazing to me that for thousands of years people have and continue to dehumanize someone to suit what they want to do, unless it is they who are being dehumanized. Examples of this – slave traders saying slaves are not human, Germans saying Jews are not human. In wars the enemy is not seen as being human, he is referred to as a target, the enemy, or other non human terms. A developing baby is thought of as an Embryo, Fetus, a mass of cells unless it is a wanted baby. A woman saying I had an abortion sounds less human than saying I aborted my baby. A baby is a combination of DNA from both parents and is a new unique person, it is IN your body, it is not your body. It is not your appendix or kidney you are removing in an abortion, those would be your body. A baby is a unique human regardless of what level it has developed, it is not your body.
FETUS: A developing HUMAN – Miriam-Webster Dictionary
A woman has the right to use contraception. If she chooses not to or is ‘care less’ then a baby is conceived. If allowed to live, her baby will be a blessing and a joy. In the past, child sacrifice used to be promoted out of fear of calamity. Now we see it as a convenience?
No s fetus is not part of my body but it affects every aspect of my body. So I get to decide if I want it there or not. Argument finished. Done.
What if you had a 6 month old baby which you found inconvenient? Would you have the right to kill that baby even if you were the sole carer? No.
Surely abortion is the same, you are the sole carer for the baby, the only difference is his/her location.
At the other end of the continuum though, if I had a burst appendix I would have a right to remove it. I have the right to donate a kidney. Even “the most ignorant” pro-lifer will agree with that. The question is where to draw the line between organ and infant? Pro-lifers rely entirely on their religious beliefs to draw that line at conception. There is no rational, ethically compelling reason to draw the line there. Viability at least has the semblance of a relevant place to draw the line between something subject to the woman’s choice versus something which is not. That’s what “tiresome” phrases about rosaries vs. ovaries refer to. That’s what my body, my choice means. No one has the right to impose their religious beliefs on any other person, ever.
I applaud Brian Clowes for trying to take a rational approach to these arguments, but rationality comes with responsibility, and constructive discourse and dialogue require intellectual honesty and charity and due dilligence. B. Clowes has done very, very little to actually understand the arguments he’s criticizing. These are all paper tigers.
Thank you for your feedback.
When it comes to paper tigers, the idea that a child and an organ have a remotely similar value is one of the biggest paper tigers. Of course, a person has the right to remove a burst appendix or donate a kidney or other body part that is not vital to their own health. The line between an organ and an infant is drawn by nature; something that you just acknowledged when you referred to the one as an organ, (according to the Oxford dictionary: a part of the body that has a particular purpose, such as the heart or the brain) the other as an infant (Merriam-Webster dictionary: a child in the first period of life).
To your point about religion, it is not religion that draws the line at conception but nature itself. There are many secular pro-lifers that fight against abortion because it is a human rights issue, and science shows clearly when that life begins at conception. This is not a religious belief as much as it is a fact of natural law.
From the moment of conception that child has its own unique DNA inherited from both mother and father, and while dependent on its mother for survival, it is separate and distinct from her body. Viability is a red herring that often assures people that it is permissible to kill someone who can’t survive on their own. This is also an ethical nightmare, since medical improvements have frequently redrawn the line as to when a premature baby can survive, viability 300 years ago was drastically different than viability today. Appealing to viability would mean that an abortion at 26 weeks, 600 years ago was okay, but is murder today. It is also a slippery slope to every fascist government that has ever existed making excuses for killing “useless” or injured or medically dependent people and an easy step sideways into eugenics.
Hopefully, this has helped address your concerns.
Wonderful article Especially the rebuttal to the pro-abortion stance that it’s not a human since if it can’t survive on it’s own.
Women decide over their bodies and not religious fanatics. It‘s natures gift to women to be able to abort. Call it a gift from god if you may! ;-)God loves women and made them in her image.:-)Why don‘t you accept it and stop it with the thousands of years of feeling jealous because as a male you were not granted that power by nature. Men are already overpowering the world as it is.
Nature is womens protector of autonomy and ultimately men can‘t take that away. Men know this too. Nature makes sure that you must value women or you must accept the end of humanity. Men are powerless against this and are struggling with jealousy when facing this reality and that’s why they keep trying to control women. It‘s as if they can’t rest unless they make women suffer because women’s natural power is beyond their muscle power. Woman have the power and birthright to abort when necessary.
No they don’t. It’s not their birthright because it’s not even a part of them.
It is good to see a woman who realizes how special they are. The ability to bear children is something men will never be able to do. I have wondered why women have been so jealous of men, even starting a woman’s rights movement for equal rights, jobs and pay. While I agree with some of the movement’s equal opportunity and equal pay for equal work, I disagree with some of what you said. I agree that the woman’s body will perform a natural abortion (miscarriage) it is clearly not something they can decide, for many a miscarriage was not wanted. To perform an abortion in a controlled not natural manner has nothing to do with nature. I will use some of your words with a few changes – Nature makes sure that women must value men or you must accept the end of humanity. To put it simply, women can not have a baby with out some input from men, naturally or artificially performed. Women do not have the power to naturally perform an abortion in the same way a natural miscarriage does. It might be that men not wanting to take responsibility for the children they did their part to create convince women they need to abort the pregnancy. They even convince women it is something they have the right to do. Then women convince other women it is their right, so they can say they are not the only ones doing it. Have you ever heard a child say “everyone else is doing it”? If everyone is doing it it can’t be wrong can it? It can. If one day women find God does exist (male or female) and are judged for their actions, it was not the man who decided to abort the child, after the woman were chanting “My Body My Choice”. If they find God considers it murder it may not go well for them. A natural abortion (miscarriage) will perform naturally if necessary, when there is a problem with the pregnancy. You should listen to the song – “I am woman” (hear me roar – Helen Reddy). Pay careful attention to the lines -“But I’m still an embryo, With a long, long way to go “. While it is among the greatest woman’s rights songs, it was also a pro life song.
First of all it’s not pro-abortion, it’s pro choice. As a man, I don’t pretend to know what’s best for every women. Second, a fetus is not living, if it were it would be called a baby or child, but it has it’s own name…fetus. Third, There is no legal or medical definition as to when life begins, it’s different for everyone. What you are doing is to give rights to cells over a living breathing human being….kudos. Fourth, if people honestly was against abortions, why isn’t it against the law to negligently have a miscarriage?? If a woman stumbles down some stairs and has a miscarriages’ and loses the baby, wouldn’t that be negligent homicide??
I will address your comments point by point. First, that is like saying the Civil War was not about slavery it was about states rights, among those rights was slavery. Second, a fetus is living, if it were not living a natural abortion (miscarriage) will happen. As to the name fetus, you are now called a man, as you developed you had many names, you have been called – teenager, boy, child, toddler, baby, infant, fetus, embryo. The name fetus like all the other names indicates the level of human development. Third, when life begins, an amoeba is a living cell as is a fertilized human egg, they are alive, they are living. When what is called the spirit or soul of a human enters the mass of living cells or body is what has no legal or medical definition, this is determined by God. I would say it is there at least when there is a heartbeat and may be there long before. We are giving rights to cells that are at an early stage in the development of a human being. The cells are not able to say how much they want the right to live yet. Forth, it IS against the law for someone to kill an unborn child, at least in cases where the mother wants the baby. Many people have been charged with murder when an unborn baby was killed (or it may be called a miscarriage) in a violent attack against the mother. As to a miscarriage, most are natural and related to a failure of the cells to develop properly. If it was caused by an accident it may be investigated. Charges have been brought up against mothers when it was determined not to be an accident, this includes substance abuse while pregnant. The argument here is – does someone have the right to kill someone who is not wanted when they are simply in an early stage of development? I am pro choice, women have the right to choose. The choice MUST be made BEFORE becoming pregnant, NOT AFTER. Just because it is easy to kill a human does not mean someone should not have to accept the consequences of willingly engaging in the act that leads to the creation of a human. Race motorcycles, get hurt permanently, you have to live with the consequences, you made the choice to race.
Just common sense the unborn child is in the same stage of life we all went through-thus the baby will be born just as we were unless killed.
In the U.S., abortion was legal up until the 1820’s. Connecticut passed the first law against apothecaries selling solutions for the sole purpose of causing abortions in 1821. In 1829, New York passed the first laws against abortions by making abortion a felony if committed after quickening, (The first movement felt by the mother.), and a misdemeanor if done before. England was also pushing for anti-abortion laws during this same time period.
And it wasn’t until 1868 (about 40 years later), that the church considered abortion as murder at any stage after conception. Notice that it was the American and English societies that started the anti-abortion move, and not the church.
Just because something was or is legal does not make it right. Slavery was legal in this country until 1865, that does not mean it was right before or after that date. As we learned more recently that the unborn can feel the pain of the abortion more have turned against it. Modern medical devices have allowed us to see the baby react to the procedure. Stopping abortions after movement is felt is easy to understand. Before we had today’s medical devices or movement is felt people turned against abortion for reasons we may never know, perhaps it was simply inspiration from God.
I think these arguments are somewhat understandable, and yet you cannot compare a foetus that lives directly within the body of the mother and one that has been born into the world. The foetus has almost no chance of survival without ONLY THE MOTHER if it is still developing in the womb, and yet a born fetus can definitely be taken care of by another human being.
You failed to mention an argument that is very valid for pro-choicers like myself. Most pro-lifers, including Donald Trump, argue that rape is an acceptable reason for abortion. And yet, rape is essentially the violation of a woman’s bodily autonomy. Therefore if pro-lifers commonly argue that the foetus’s right to life outways the woman’s right to her own bodily autonomy, then morally they are pro-choice because they are putting (the violation of) bodily autonomy above the foetus’s right to life. You cannot pick and choose when the foetus’s right to life triumphs over bodily autonomy. As well since I have heard many argue that the foetus’s body is not the woman’s body and they are separate, then why is the violation of the woman’s body an exception to the destruction of the foetus?
I am only 18 and yet I can find disappointing flaws within your arguments.
For someone 18 you bring up very good points. I being a bit older have learned that compromises must often be made in order to make any attempt to please all concerned. You will never please everyone (on this topic) without compromise, even then it is not pleasing everyone, it is everyone accepting what they can get. First point – the fetus is dependent on the mother until after birth. This will be for about 9 months. I know there may be long lasting (permanent) physical and psychological reminders whether an abortion is performed or not. You will always know you had an abortion and one day when you have a wanted child it may make you see what you aborted could have become. 9 months is very short compared to years of wondering what might have been. The fetus is a genetically unique person, it is not a part of the mother’s body like an appendix she can choose to have removed. Second point – I personally am pro choice and pro life, I simply feel the choice must be made before the baby is created. If someone participates in a dangerous activity or sport, has an accident and gets hurt, they have no choice in suffering the consequences. I feel abortion is wrong under any circumstances as Donald Trump and others who would allow rape abortions may. I look at this as saving the many victims of birth control abortions at the expense of the relatively few rape abortions. You will have a hard time passing anti abortion laws that do not allow rape abortions. It is an unfortunate compromise in order to save us from NO laws protecting the innocent children of birth control abortions. One problem is your argument pointing out the contradiction – pro life or pro choice which are you? If you allow abortions for rape you are not pro life. Pro life overrules what is seen as murder and laws like we have seen in Texas are passed. Pro life people need to understand you have to make laws allowing rape abortions in order to save children from birth control abortions. There will still be the pro choice push back but pro life people can respond – make you choice before you get pregnant, we allowed for pro choice in the cases of rape. To directly answer your question – “then why is the violation of the woman’s body an exception to the destruction of the foetus?” For me and perhaps others, it should not be, but we know only laws allowing this exception have any chance of passing with less push back from the pro choice people.
I Am an American
I am an American just like you,
You can call me baby blue.
Democrats just see red,
My blood, waking up dead.
Never allowed to carry the weight,
My life stolen in the starting gate.
The right to life the big lie,
All I ever did was die.
God is real, see the sigh,
Look closely at the tear in His eye.
Stop the abortion holocaust,
Before another child is lost.
End the current American civil war,
Americans killing Americans like never before.
Little Lies, Little Eyes
There’s a whole generation,
With a new explanation.
“It’s a choice,
Not a voice.”
A little lie,
Another child will die.
“It’s between a doctor and a mother”,
Conveniently forgets there is one other.
And I sigh.
“A life it is not”,
Ignores science and what is taught.
Another lie, like when pigs fly.
I pray for truth, let it rise,
No more tears in little eyes.
Miscarriages aren’t a women’s choice.
Many Tears Ago
Two people entered an abortion clinic door,
Devastation to the core.
One forever damaged, one forever dead,
Writing on the wall needs to be read.
On her mother a child’s hopes were pinned,
Yet mom has cast her fate to the wind.
Abortion is truly not about choice,
It is all about a tiny voice.
Protecting this eternal creation,
The only hope for a fallen nation.
Never knew there was a heart that beat,
Should have looked at tiny hands and feet.
I wonder if she knew her life was for sale,
And understood the ultimate betrayal.
I wish I could say it wasn’t so,
But that was many tears ago.
GET THIS: FROM egg to pre-birth, IT IS CALLED A FETUS. It MEANS, that IT is TISSUE. Physical MATERIAL that is being grown. Now a LIVING SPIRIT is JUST that; Never dying. Eternal. Then what gives -(about abortion) ?! It means that the LIVING SPIRIT do not get to COME INTO ..being. The living spirit -YET to DEVELOPE a personality, in its NEW BRAIN, heart and gut, DO NOT descend INTO existence. SIMPLE as that. DO NOT have religion CONFUSE YOU! ONLY WHEN, the ‘finished growing’ new body HAS BEEN BORN.. INTO AIR.. does the EVER LIVING SPIRIT, descend INTO.. IT ..the new body, which is its new SPIRIT CLOTHING, in this world. AND WHEN the ‘spirit clothing’ has expired in its existence, the LIVING SPIRIT, exits the body – its VEHICLE – IN ITS LAST BREATH, in however manner it would, to RETURN HOME. THINK about that, rather than being IGNORANTLY CRITICAL and JUDGEMENTAL. A woman becomes pregnant FROM all kinds of SITUATIONS. Do not make judgements, YOU are NOT ‘here’, to direct other women’s lives, BUT YOUR OWN, according to what ever it is your spirit descended to experience LEARNING, in this life. NOT your responsibility, but the “SPIRIT VEHICLE’S (body) OWNER”; a developed PERSONALITY. TO WHOSE EXISTENCE, YOU.. have NO SAY.
“September 16, 1937. I wanted very much to make a Holy Hour before the Blessed Sacrament today, but God‟s will was otherwise. At eight o‟clock I was seized with such violent pains that I had to go to bed at once. I was convulsed with pain for three hours; that is, until eleven o‟clock at night. No medicine had any effect on me, and whatever I swallowed I threw up. At times, the pains caused me to lose consciousness. Jesus had me realize that in this way I took part in His Agony in the Garden, and that He Himself allowed these sufferings in order to offer reparation to God for the souls murdered in the wombs of wicked mothers. I have gone through these sufferings three times now.” St. Faustina, Diary, 1276.
A young child has not a clue,
That its life is about to be through.
In what should be the safest place,
Their life about to be erased.
Hundreds of thousands every year,
Will have stolen what we hold dear.
Convicted of living in a womb,
Now transformed into their tomb.
America arrogantly lives a lie,
Sentencing innocent children to die.
The executioner has no burden of proof,
Has no interest in hearing the truth.
A little heart beats at forty days,
Don’t expect any execution stays.
Arm and legs torn apart,
Forever silencing a broken heart.
Another life about to fade,
In innocent blood his feet Wade.
Millions of coffins in a Roe,
The winds of change starting to blow.
Mara what Bible do you read that says God made woman in his image. I read the Holy Bible and and in the Book of Genesis it says God made man in his image and woman was made from Adam’s Rib. In the Lords prayer it says OUR FATHER WHO ARE IN HAVEN NOT OUR MOTHER. A some prayers end In the Name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost. not Mother, Son and Holy Ghost.
The man plants the seed and the seed grows in the woman and the woman go through the labor pain of giving birth to the child. She should have the right to choose what to do with her body. The woman goes through morning sickness that comes with carrying a child for nine months.. The only men do is plant the seed so since woman have to go through the burden of carrying for nine months and labor pain of birth, They should have more rights then men when it comes to the birth of a child. What gives men the right to tell women what to do with their bodies?
The life developing within a woman’s womb is not part of the woman’s body. The womb is part of the external body, surrounded by the internal body to protect the new life that is growing and developing. The human life which is developing within the womb is it’s own entity, and separate from the woman’s entity. The womb is the place where new human life begins and once that life begins, it is. If a woman decides she doesn’t want that life growing in her womb, then she must kill it, in order to be rid of it. The process to kill the child is very gross and inhumane. So woman say they want the choice to keep or kill their child, so the government give them that right, so why do we punish some for murder and not others. Why should a child still developing in the womb have any less rights than after they’re born? They are no less human when growing in the womb than when they’re growing out of the womb, they are all stages of life. Why would I be less alive when I was in the womb than I am now? The womb is not part of the internal body and the life growing in the womb is not part of the woman’s body, the child is it’s own body and needs to have the same rights as any other developing body. From conception to death, we are continually growing and developing. We don’t have the right to decide if someone should live or die, even if our body has a purpose in allowing that life to live. No one has the right to choice weather someone can live or die. the woman is the means of incubation for the preparation of birth, and once a life is conceived it is, weather you are carrying or not, it is. And no one has the right to prevent that life from living and continuing in it’s stages of development.
We all know that abortion is murder and an extremely inhumane murder. Yet selfishness, pride, ignorance and self-righteousness allow us to permit it. We all know that the life developing in the womb is no less alive than it is at birth. And we all know that the womb is part of the woman’s external body and not her internal body, which means that it is not part of her body. So demanding the right to stay what does and doesn’t happen to her body, can not include the developing of a life in her womb, because her womb isn’t part of her internal body. The womb is the place where human life begins, and once a life begins at conception, it is alive, otherwise it wouldn’t be able to begin to grow and develop. Life is a series of stages, it has a beginning and an end. Life doesn’t begin at birth, if so, how did it get to that point? The beginning of life is when it begins, and where does it begin it’s stages, at conception, dah! that’s what conception is. Who doesn’t know that?
I AM A DEMOCRAT, BUT DEMOCRATS ARE WRONG ABOUT ABORTION, HOMOSEXUALITY, ETC. ABORTION IS MURDER AND SHOULD BE AGAINST THE LAW IN THE UNITED STATES AND THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE WORLD! Our bodies are not “our own” to do with as we please; our bodies and souls belong to God. All people including the unborn are children of God! He created everyone and everything! We should all love and thank Him 24/7 every day! As to atheists, only fools say there is no God. April Fools Day (April 1) is their only holiday. Furthermore the Coronavirus and Monkeypox Outbreaks are a Reckoning, God’s punishment for allowing abortion, Gay Marriage, and homosexuality! Homosexuality is an abomination to God! Let’s stop government by man-made precepts; we should be governed by God’s word! Nancy Pelosi says this is “deadly serious.” She is right: this is “deadly serious.” Whoopee & Sonny of The View say that this is all about whether or not a family has the right to have an abortion. They are wrong: No one has the right to murder someone! As a result, God is killing people with Covid, Monkeypox, etc. as a Reckoning! Climate change is also a lot of malarkey! God controls the weather! In fact, he controls everything! And all assault rifles should be banned! All racism should be banned! God created all the races and He loves all of them! Our nation will only remain great and blessed if IN GOD WE TRUST, and if we trust in only one man: JESUS CHRIST! Note that most people are also wrong about the Rapture. There is no Rapture. The Antichrist comes first followed by the Second Advent! Jesus is coming here! Incidentally for my first 60 years I was Jewish, then I got baptized! I don’t donate because if I donate to Republicans, I feel I am benefiting only the rich; if I donate to Democrats, I feel I am benefiting abortion & homosexuality. It is okay to be rich if the wealth comes with God’s blessings; unfortunately too many of the rich acquired their wealth through ill-gotten gains. We need a third pCarty that is God centered, that benefits the poor and is against abortion and homosexuality. Of course what we need is Jesus Christ! AMEN & SELAH!