“My Body, My Choice” is a term coined by the pro-choice movement to represent bodily autonomy, freedom of choice and bodily autonomy. Consequently, the term is used most often by those who identify as pro-choice.
But it shouldn’t be.
In fact, every facet of the term “My Body, My Choice” can break down to support life.
Bodily autonomy refers to one’s right to make independent decisions involving their body without outside interference. In short, it’s the right to self-governance. The core of this idea was first articulated in the 70’s by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thompson. Judith is also the originator of the violinist argument in her article, “A Defense of Abortion” – the idea that even if a fetus is in fact alive, abortion is still morally permissible because it relies on someone else to survive.
Additionally, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states “the right of the people to be secure in their persons… shall not be violated.” The Supreme Court has also upheld the right to privacy, which, as defined by Julie Lane, often protects rights to bodily autonomy. Abortion advocates believe this also includes abortion, though not explicitly in the constitution under the right to privacy.
As a reminder, bodily autonomy is the self-determination of one’s own body without outside interference. And since she acknowledges the unborn are people, Judith’s argument debunks itself. Yes, women shouldn’t have someone else tell them what to do with their bodies. But neither should their child have someone else govern theirs. One’s rights cannot and should not elevate above another’s. Judith’s approach to bodily autonomy has key flaws. For starters, the intent is vastly different. In her violinist argument of detaching oneself as life support for another, the best case-scenario is both living dependently.
But in an abortion, if both the mother and baby survive, it’s considered a failure. Abortion is the intended ending of a life – something no other ethical or legal scenarios would allow. Additionally, her argument involves a forced commitment to someone else’s life. However, with abortion (except in cases of rape/incest), two people voluntarily have sex – the only act that would bring new life into existence, and part of the intended purpose of sex. The child is not an unwelcome parasite; it’s exactly where it’s supposed to be. And, once that life is created, parents have an obligation and privilege to care for their child at a minimum of nine months. After that, they may choose parenthood or to make an adoption plan.
The term “pro-choice” refers to the idea of freedom of choice. It describes an individual’s opportunity to perform an action they select from at least two available options, unconstrained by external parties.
There are many choices besides abortion that will also recognize and protect an individual’s right to life. There is a decision to have or not have sex, a decision to parent, a decision to make an adoption plan and within adoption, a choice for open or closed adoption.
To explain this another way, if I want someone out of my life, I have the choice to confront them, ignore them, press charges, even file a restraining order. However, I do not (and should not) have the choice to take their life. I only have rights over my body and what I do in relation to others. I shouldn’t have the right to determine what someone else’s body does. If that were considered acceptable, so would horrendous acts like slavery, sexual assault and human trafficking: all of which allow someone else to control your body and what your rights are.
Bodily integrity is the second tenant of “My Body, My Choice.” It’s defined as the inviolability of the physical body, emphasizing personal self-ownership. Essentially, human beings should determine what happens with their bodies because it is their property. It’s a fair and agreeable concept. Basic bodily rights are essential to our society. But the overarching pro-abortion argument of bodily integrity insinuates not all humans have the same privilege. Like a parasite to a host, they define a preborn child as merely an uninvited resident impeding on a woman’s body. So, it is naturally her choice whether to keep it around or not. A woman is simply using another method of contraception and healthcare by choosing abortion – at least in the eyes of those who are pro-choice.
This self-ownership shouldn’t overstep into another’s self-ownership. If we’re following a concept of bodily integrity, it must be for everyone instead of just certain groups.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UDHR), Article 3 is undeniably clear:
“Everyone has a right to life.”
Everyone. Regardless of dependency, age, race, gender or any other discrimination. In Articles 1 and 7 of the UDHR, it declares all deserve a right to live based on the equal dignity of human beings. There is humanity in the unborn – even pro-choice arguments acknowledge that there are two sets of DNA. Two sets of heartbeats. Two distinct humans. And they are both fully deserving of rights.
The pro-life movement isn’t trying to take away a woman’s authority of her body; we want women to succeed, and have thousands of pregnancy medical centers dedicated to supporting them and their families. We do draw a line when anyone’s rights infringe on someone else’s. Everyone should have autonomy of their body, especially when it comes to their basic ability to live. Rights should never stretch so far that someone has another’s rights in their hands. Humans weren’t meant to own or be owned. It’s a baby’s body and a baby’s choice, just as it is her body and her choice.
The post “My Body My Choice” is Actually Pro-Life appeared first on Focus on the Family.
Continue reading...
But it shouldn’t be.
In fact, every facet of the term “My Body, My Choice” can break down to support life.
Bodily Autonomy and "My Body, My Choice"
The Argument for Abortion
Bodily autonomy refers to one’s right to make independent decisions involving their body without outside interference. In short, it’s the right to self-governance. The core of this idea was first articulated in the 70’s by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thompson. Judith is also the originator of the violinist argument in her article, “A Defense of Abortion” – the idea that even if a fetus is in fact alive, abortion is still morally permissible because it relies on someone else to survive.
Additionally, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states “the right of the people to be secure in their persons… shall not be violated.” The Supreme Court has also upheld the right to privacy, which, as defined by Julie Lane, often protects rights to bodily autonomy. Abortion advocates believe this also includes abortion, though not explicitly in the constitution under the right to privacy.
Why It's Actually Pro-Life
As a reminder, bodily autonomy is the self-determination of one’s own body without outside interference. And since she acknowledges the unborn are people, Judith’s argument debunks itself. Yes, women shouldn’t have someone else tell them what to do with their bodies. But neither should their child have someone else govern theirs. One’s rights cannot and should not elevate above another’s. Judith’s approach to bodily autonomy has key flaws. For starters, the intent is vastly different. In her violinist argument of detaching oneself as life support for another, the best case-scenario is both living dependently.
But in an abortion, if both the mother and baby survive, it’s considered a failure. Abortion is the intended ending of a life – something no other ethical or legal scenarios would allow. Additionally, her argument involves a forced commitment to someone else’s life. However, with abortion (except in cases of rape/incest), two people voluntarily have sex – the only act that would bring new life into existence, and part of the intended purpose of sex. The child is not an unwelcome parasite; it’s exactly where it’s supposed to be. And, once that life is created, parents have an obligation and privilege to care for their child at a minimum of nine months. After that, they may choose parenthood or to make an adoption plan.
Freedom of Choice and "My Body, My Choice"
The Argument for Abortion
The term “pro-choice” refers to the idea of freedom of choice. It describes an individual’s opportunity to perform an action they select from at least two available options, unconstrained by external parties.
Why It's Actually Pro-Life
There are many choices besides abortion that will also recognize and protect an individual’s right to life. There is a decision to have or not have sex, a decision to parent, a decision to make an adoption plan and within adoption, a choice for open or closed adoption.
To explain this another way, if I want someone out of my life, I have the choice to confront them, ignore them, press charges, even file a restraining order. However, I do not (and should not) have the choice to take their life. I only have rights over my body and what I do in relation to others. I shouldn’t have the right to determine what someone else’s body does. If that were considered acceptable, so would horrendous acts like slavery, sexual assault and human trafficking: all of which allow someone else to control your body and what your rights are.
Bodily Integrity and "My Body, My Choice"
The Argument for Abortion
Bodily integrity is the second tenant of “My Body, My Choice.” It’s defined as the inviolability of the physical body, emphasizing personal self-ownership. Essentially, human beings should determine what happens with their bodies because it is their property. It’s a fair and agreeable concept. Basic bodily rights are essential to our society. But the overarching pro-abortion argument of bodily integrity insinuates not all humans have the same privilege. Like a parasite to a host, they define a preborn child as merely an uninvited resident impeding on a woman’s body. So, it is naturally her choice whether to keep it around or not. A woman is simply using another method of contraception and healthcare by choosing abortion – at least in the eyes of those who are pro-choice.
Why It's Actually Pro-Life
This self-ownership shouldn’t overstep into another’s self-ownership. If we’re following a concept of bodily integrity, it must be for everyone instead of just certain groups.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UDHR), Article 3 is undeniably clear:
“Everyone has a right to life.”
Everyone. Regardless of dependency, age, race, gender or any other discrimination. In Articles 1 and 7 of the UDHR, it declares all deserve a right to live based on the equal dignity of human beings. There is humanity in the unborn – even pro-choice arguments acknowledge that there are two sets of DNA. Two sets of heartbeats. Two distinct humans. And they are both fully deserving of rights.
The pro-life movement isn’t trying to take away a woman’s authority of her body; we want women to succeed, and have thousands of pregnancy medical centers dedicated to supporting them and their families. We do draw a line when anyone’s rights infringe on someone else’s. Everyone should have autonomy of their body, especially when it comes to their basic ability to live. Rights should never stretch so far that someone has another’s rights in their hands. Humans weren’t meant to own or be owned. It’s a baby’s body and a baby’s choice, just as it is her body and her choice.
The post “My Body My Choice” is Actually Pro-Life appeared first on Focus on the Family.
Continue reading...