Abortion-choice advocates often argue that they have a right to an abortion because it is their body, and thus their choice. Their mantra is “I can do what I want with my own body.” This is what is properly called the bodily-autonomy argument. The argument is flawed because it rests on the faulty assumption that the unborn “thing” in the womb is the woman’s body. It is not. It is separate living being, and we know so because it has its own unique genetic fingerprint.
While that fact alone should put all debate to rest, some may persist in their claim. A good way to help them see that the thing growing in them is not their body is by asking them: “If I can show you that the unborn is not your body it would undermine your argument, right?” [Yes] Then ask, “Do you have a penis?” [No] “Could your unborn fetus have a penis?” [Yes] “Then the unborn is not your body, is it?” [Uh…no]
If you encounter someone with a very strong will, they might counter that the unborn “thing” is living inside the mother’s body against her will, and since she has control over her own body she gets to decide if she will share it with this “foreign invader.” But the fact that it is living inside the woman’s body is irrelevant. As D. Rutherford remarked, it no more gives her the right to kill the unborn than my owning a house gives me the right to kill the tenants! The bodily-autonomy argument won’t work as a justification for abortion, so long as the unborn are full members of the human species.
Thinking to Believe 
June 5, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Concerning the “foreign invader” argument, I would add that if you have the right to do anything with your body, even if it damages another’s body, then rape and battery are justified.
LikeLike
June 5, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Good point. Of course, the abortion advocate might say that this is different because you are damaging another person’s bodily-autonomy. But that begs the question that the unborn is not a distinct human person who has his own bodily-autonomy, and whose bodily autonomy is being violated by the act of abortion. If it is a distinct human person, then damaging this “invader” is no different than raping and battering an ex utero human being.
Of course, they could grant the humanity of the unborn, but still claim your analogy is disanalogous because neither of those are instances in which someone is “invading” and violating your bodily-autonomy. Ratther, they are instances in which you are invading and violating theirs. Since the unborn is violating the mother’s bodily-autonomy, she has as much right to use physical force to stop it as she would to stop someone from raping or beating her. How would you respond to such a rejoinder?
Jason
LikeLike
June 6, 2009 at 6:35 pm
I think the mother should have the right to remove the unborn child. However, it should not be killed. It should be removed as safely as possible and given full medical treatment. Everyone will agree that there was a mother, a baby, a death, and the baby died because it was removed from the uterus.
LikeLike
June 8, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Arthur,
I don’t know if I would go so far as to say a mother has the right to abdicate her responsibility to her child, but I do think a situation in which the embryo/fetus is transferred to, say, an artifical womb to complete its gestation and later be adopted, is a morally permissible alternative for women who become pregnant but do not want their baby.
Jason
LikeLike
June 8, 2009 at 3:05 pm
“Invader” is a misnomer. The baby isn’t an external entity threatening the life of its mother. It is the product of a biological process the reproductive organs are designed to produce. If bodily integrity is the issue, then abortion is wrong because it violates the bodily integrity of the baby. If bodily integrity is not the issue, then the pro-choice argument collapses. In either case, there is no rational ground if one is committed to morality. And if one isn’t committed to morality, then there is nothing wrong with prohibiting abortion (because “wrong” entails moral affirmation).
Pro-lifers accept abortion if the life of the mother is in jeopardy and if there is no possible way to save the baby. Hence, the “invader” issue is a straw man.
LikeLike
June 8, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Scalia,
I agree that the baby cannot properly be viewed as an invader.
The issue isn’t bodily-integrity, but bodily-autonomy, and those who advance the argument claim this autonomy for the mother’s body, not the baby’s. But pro-lifers rightly point out that there are two bodies involved, not just one. Whose autonomy should we consider?
Jason
LikeLike
June 8, 2009 at 4:23 pm
In the abortion debate, I don’t think integrity/autonomy is a point to quibble about. The second definition of integrity is “the state of being unimpaired, soundness.” And, of course, autonomy is self-determination. In this case, they go hand-in-hand. A mother chooses abortion to be unimpaired by the “invader.” You cannot have one without the other. A pro-choice argument is intelligible otherwise.
If autonomy sans integrity is the sole standard, then one cannot consistently prohibit murder. “I have the right to self-determination and you irritate me,” one might say to somebody snoring too loud (before pulling the trigger). If, on the other hand, one appeals to self-determination as it relates to one’s own body, then we’re back to square one. It’s not the mother’s body, but the baby’s. And if she can violate the “integrity” of the baby’s body by asserting her “autonomy,” then we have murder carte blanche.
LikeLike
June 8, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Oops! I should have said, “A pro-choice argument is unintelligible otherwise.
LikeLike
June 8, 2009 at 4:37 pm
It’s a point to quibble about only because it is an argument used by pro-choicers. Indeed, its defenders use this argument to justify abortion, even granting the humanity and personhood of the unborn. In other words, they claim bodily autonomy justifies abortion, even if the unborn are human persons.
Jason
LikeLike
June 8, 2009 at 4:45 pm
But I’ve already stated such an argument is either inconsistent or unintelligible. Their argument depends upon bodily integrity — in which case their position collapses. If it isn’t then their position is groundless. The autonomy/integrity “controversy” is rather devoid of steam.
LikeLike
February 4, 2010 at 11:16 am
This is a reflection of immorality in our modern world killing and justifying that it is their choice to do everything with their body but God will take us responsible for what we have done in the world in doomsday.
LikeLike
November 1, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Given the method of how unborn babies come to be, I fail to see how an unborn baby could possibly be a foreign invader.
LikeLike
December 3, 2011 at 9:36 am
Thanks for the write up. I needed it a review and was glad to find this via google. this sounsd like spam but it’s not 🙂
I’m not sure the argument on the baby sex organ would work but it’s clever nonetheless.
Edgar
LikeLike
August 30, 2012 at 4:29 pm
my body my choice, your absolutely right, now grow up and take responsibility for your choice. that baby didn’t ask for you to get pregnant either, but it happened. now grow up, take responsibility for your choices. and you do that by taking action, not making excuses that i’m not responsibily enough to raise a child, if thats the truth, you’re not responsible enough, grown up enough intelligent enough to have sex.
LikeLike
January 29, 2013 at 9:46 am
[…] That foundation, however, is not strong enough to hold up the edifice of elective abortion (see here and […]
LikeLike
June 9, 2017 at 9:12 am
Some partners grow to be remarkably aroused even when they do not plan to have sexual intercourse, although for other partners it is extremely really hard, maybe out on the question. http://www.geisha-palace.ro
LikeLike