17th of November
By Alex Ruggles
The concept of bodily autonomy is one of the more common and sophisticated arguments put forward by the pro-‘choice’ position. I will attempt to outline in two points why it cannot be used as an argument in support of abortion and why the use and context of the term ‘bodily autonomy’ within the pro-’choice’ movement is erroneous. The first of these points is the essential recognition of the unborn body as an individual with its own right to bodily autonomy. The second point is that the unborn child’s dependency does not refute their right to existence but rather creates a responsibility for their mother (and wider humanity) to safeguard them and uphold their bodily autonomy.
The first point that should be made is that abortion violates the bodily autonomy of the unborn child in the womb. Science has unequivocally proven that human life begins at conception:
“Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception). Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the
haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.” [Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
Thus, a new, unique unrepeatable human being comes into existence at conception; human life does not begin at any other stage. The question must then be asked, autonomy for whom? Abortion violates the bodily autonomy of the unborn human in the worst and most extreme possible way; by ending their life and existence as a human being. To defend abortion is to support the violation of bodily autonomy at an individual’s most vulnerable and innocent stage of life, when they are still in the womb. This is the place where they should be safest and most protected but are actually at the most at risk of the degradation of their bodily autonomy.
A common counterargument to this recognition of human life beginning at conception is to argue that the supposed ‘bodily autonomy’ of a woman in some way ‘trumps’ the bodily autonomy of the child in her womb. Such an argument is fallacious in a number of ways. It suggest that an individual’s bodily autonomy allows that individual to violate and infringe upon another individual’s bodily autonomy. Pro choicers speak of bodily autonomy as though it is a right superior to all others but it is not absolute. We have laws that restrict our autonomy. If I want to get drunk I can do, but if I want to drive while drunk I would be breaking the law. Such a law prevents me from exercising my bodily autonomy. All rights are only rights if they do not infringe upon another person’s. Bodily autonomy has to be recognised equally for each individual and as life begins at no stage other than conception, it is inconsistent to uphold, defend and protect bodily autonomy at any stage other than fertilisation. To disagree with such an argument is to imply that human life begins at some other point than conception, that some human lives are more important than others, or that an individual with greater power can impose their will forcefully on a weaker individual.
This latter point brings me onto my second reason as to why bodily autonomy cannot be used in defense of abortion: an individual’s degree of dependency on another individual cannot be used in favour of the violating of the bodily autonomy of the more dependent individual. Essentially that is the argument for supposed ‘bodily autonomy’ from the pro-abortion position; that the mother has a right to kill her child in the womb because of her child’s dependence on her. Such an argument cannot be accepted if we are to call ourselves a civilised and humane society in which individual rights are respected. As already mentioned, bodily autonomy does not give an individual the right to infringe on another’s bodily autonomy. Indeed, an unborn child’s vulnerability in the womb instead instills a sense of responsibility to safeguard and protect the child at its most defenseless stage; to ensure its bodily autonomy is upheld, affirmed and respected. The dependence of the child should instill a responsibility to protect and safeguard that child’s bodily autonomy, it cannot allow it to be violated and infringed. Let’s remember that a child does not become independent by virtue of passing through the birth canal and their bodily autonomy does not magically arise as a result of them being outside of the womb. Moreover, a child, especially if born prematurely, will require a significant degree of medical support to survive, would it be either lawful or moral for a medical team to deny that child medical care because of a desire to pursue their own ‘bodily autonomy’? A newborn child is as dependent outside the womb as it is within the womb, again would it be moral or legal to abandon or kill that child because of their dependency? That child will be dependent on its parent or guardian for the first eighteen years of its life and indeed will require a degree of support for all of its life. Their dependency and defenseless state requires us to safeguard them and ensure their bodily autonomy is upheld and protected.
As pro-lifers we recognise the unborn child’s bodily autonomy as existing from conception. Their mother’s right to bodily autonomy is not superior to their own right to life. We also assert that the dependency of the child equally does not allow its bodily autonomy to be violated but rather that this very vulnerability requires its autonomy be defended.
