The "It's My Body" Argument

When someone is engaged in an activity that our society might deem inappropriate or illegal, many say, "I can do what I want as long as I'm not hurting anyone else." I have never heard the "I'm not hurting anyone else" phrase associated with the "it's my body" argument for abortion. Usually the statement is "It's my body, so I can have an abortion if I want to." Their argument stops there. In our society we don't allow someone to use their body to commit an act that would harm someone else's body. so why should a pregnant woman be allowed to have an abortionist kill an unborn baby that is in her body? After the mother gives birth, she is not allowed to use her body to kill her newborn baby. She can face criminal charges if she uses her body to throw the newborn in a dumpster. Why should she be able to kill her unborn just because it's her body and she can do what she wants?

Another similar argument is that the unborn is part of her, so she can do what she wants. One could ask the woman, "Do you have four arms, four legs, two heads, etc.?" When she says, "No," then she refutes her own argument. Those extra two arms and legs, etc., thus must belong to another human. The unborn is an entity with its own unique genetic makeup. Obviously, it's a separate, distinct human that is not the woman's body. It is in the environment it is supposed to be in for nourishment, growth, and development of its organs and features.

Once again, the "it's my body" argument is just another reason in a long list of reasons that people use to decide to have an abortion. The common theme among nearly all reasons for abortion is the focus on the woman and her situation and the disregard for what the unborn entity actually is. If the unborn is considered "nonhuman" or not a person, then the "it's my body" argument logically works for the woman.

Everyone has their own morality!

In response to the pro-life position, I have heard many college students say, "Everyone has their own morality, so someone shouldn't tell me what to do." Another popular response is "If my morality isn't affecting you, then just leave me alone. If I want to have an abortion, I will."


There are a few rebuttals to this. First, you can ask them if the Holocaust was wrong. Most of the time they will agree. Using their logic, one can say that Hitler's morality was that killing Jews was the right thing to do. Was slavery wrong? Many slave owners believed it was moral to have slaves. They may have an answer that states, "Well, I'm talking about just personal morality, not on the level of the Holocaust or slavery."

"What if I go up to you and take your backpack or purse because my morality says it's right?" If they say that it's wrong to do that, tell them that they may really believe in moral standards much more than they think they do. They may come back with, "I should be able to do what I want as long as I'm not hurting anyone or negatively affecting another person." Then the subject can come back to the abortion issue and the nature of the unborn. "Isn't an abortion hurting someone else?" Then they will have to defend their morality position in the light of an abortion.

Another pro-choice approach is seen often on a bumper sticker "If you don't like abortion, don't have one. This is easy to debunk. It has nothing to do with liking or not liking abortion. The pro-life belief is that abortion is morally wrong. One could insert any subject matter into that slogan that often would create an outcry. If you don't like robbing banks, don't do it. If you don't like slavery, don't own a slave. If you like chocolate chip cookies and I hate them, it doesn't say chocolate chip cookies are morally bad; it just states that I prefer them and you don't. The pro-life view is that abortion is an absolute moral wrong while the pro-choice view is one of preference.

Abortion, Church And The Bible

I have attended evangelical churches who taught strictly from the Bible, churches whose pastors discussed societal and familial issues, and traditional denominational churches. Coincidentally, this covers 35 years, which is the same time that Roe v. Wade has been in effect. I have never heard one sermon or teaching on the atrocity of abortion. During that time, the pastors have mentioned a couple of times about the need for a "culture of life," and that was about it. Maybe I didn't attend the right church on the right Sunday, but I have a strong suspicion that most churches avoid the issue, just as our society does. I suppose they feel this is such a controversial subject that they don't want to upset the masses and have parishioners leave the church.

Maybe they are thinking that since abortion isn't specifically mentioned in the Bible then they don't need to discuss it. The word "abortion" isn't used, but, of course, the Bible is clear on its opposition to murder. Also, The Bible doesn't mention car bombs, shootings and the like, but they are all covered in the condemnation of murder in the Ten Commandments. Possibly, pastors may agree with many in our society that the unborn is not a person yet. There are instances in the Bible where the unborn is mentioned as a child. In Genesis 25-22, speaking of Rebekah, it says, "But the children struggled together within her." In Jeremiah 1-5 God said about Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations. " The Bible says in Luke 1-41, "And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb." Thus abortion is the killing one of God's creations and consequently is an affront to God.

Another reason for this inaction on the abortion issue is that the churches may think that this is a political matter that has been already decided in the courts and the legislatures. On the contrary, I have heard many people say when the pro-life view is espoused that it's just the Christians trying to force their pro-life beliefs on everyone.

The Catholic Church may be the exception. In general, they are strong defenders of the unborn and at times are very vocal about it. Since I am not Catholic, I don't know how often it's discussed during mass. One interesting aspect is that in my state of New Mexico, the majority of Catholics are Democrats, and they vote for candidates who are strong proponents of abortion.

Shouldn't churches be leading the charge against such a horrendous act that kills 3,500 people a day in this country? Maybe Americans feel that if the churches don't find abortion immoral enough to lead an aggressive fight against it, then why should they. Possibly, pastors don't want to broach the subject because there might be members of the congregation who have had an abortion. I think one can balance their opposition to abortion along with compassion to someone who has had one.

The Value Of Human Life

What is the value of a person, and should that person be eliminated from society because he or she has perceived lesser value in the eyes of someone else? Do we kill the disabled because some have deficiencies that others don't have? Many elderly have difficulty functioning without a tremendous amount of support. Do we kill them because they may be unwanted or a burden even to their own family? What about a person who is in a coma from a car accident? At that moment they are not at the same human state of alertness that most of us are. Should we have the choice to kill them knowing that they even might come out of the coma?

Why then do we often give so little human value to the unborn? Just because they cannot function as some other person thinks a human should function they are inherently a person. They are at the stage of their life that they are supposed to be in, relying on the mother to support them in the womb. The unborn doesn't at one time in his life change to a different entity. He is a human at conception, at the fetus stage, the toddler stage, and throughout life. He has a nature that is human and should be treated that way, just as we treat the previously mentioned examples. All humans have an inherent value no matter how they may function or what stage of their life they are in.

The Albuquerque Journal

From the Albuquerque Journal, Tuesday, April 8, Speak Up! section:

The media are all over the fact of 4,000 U.S. deaths in Iraq. It's very interesting that we kill nearly the same number every day in this country in the name of abortion, but it is never mentioned. - M.R.H.

Those initials look familiar.

The Political Response

Have you ever heard a politician respond to the abortion issue? There are a few who are strictly pro-abortion or pro-life, but most fall in a category that attempts to please both sides. When faced with this issue they will usually say, "Personally, I'm opposed to abortion, but if a woman wants to have one that's her decision." Often they will respond with, "I think abortion should be rare, but I can't stop a woman from having one. It's her choice." This type of logic is also shared by quite a few Americans. When they take both sides of the argument it seems that their real purpose is to avoid the issue completely because they don't have to passionately debate either side.

This response sounds foolproof and a very "nice" way of answering the abortion issue. But if you think closely about the response, it could be asked, "Why do you personally oppose abortion or why do you think it should be rare?" It seems that their answer would be that it is the taking of a life, or a similar response. The rebuttal would be "So you're against abortion because it takes a life, but it's perfectly fine for someone else to take a life." "You're against the killing of a human, but also for the killing of a human."

What if we settled other issues this way? "I'm personally opposed to murder, but if a person wants to commit it that's their decision or choice." In 2001 Andrea Yates killed her five young children. Using this logic one could say "I'm personally opposed to Andrea Yates killing her children, but it's her decision, her choice." We basically could use this logic concerning any law in this country.