Defining the terms: I think it’s important to start by defining the terms I will be using in the article. This helps to avoid confusion, especially for many people who are confused as to what term they should use if they wouldn’t have an abortion themselves but also don’t feel they should place their personal views on others.

Pro-Choice - You are against government regulation of abortions regardless of whether you would have one yourself or not. If you don’t think abortion should be illegal you are pro-choice.

Anti-Choice (aka Pro-Life) - If you are pro-government regulation and believe that roe v/s wade should be overturned you probably refer to yourself as pro-life. However, I personally find the term pro-life to be very loaded, meaning to imply that anyone who is pro-choice is also anti-life, which is usually the farthest thing from the truth. I much prefer the term anti-choice and find it much less loaded since it’s a term used to denote a person who literally wants to take away a woman’s right to choose.

The abortion issue is, at it’s core, an issue about rights. The fact is, there is no other issue like abortion. It’s the only issue where when you start talking about giving rights to one group (fetuses) you have to take the rights away from another (women).

First I think it’s important to look at other laws in place protecting people’s right to bodily autonomy. If a child needs an organ transplant and one of the parents is a perfect match who could give the child the organ they need while still remaining perfectly healthy, they still legally don’t have to do it. Legally they can choose to keep their own organs and let the child die. Legally no person is forced to sacrifice their bodily autonomy for the benefit of another. Why should a woman be forced to sacrifice her body and compromise her health to carry a pregnancy while a man isn’t forced to sacrifice his body and compromise his health to save the child’s life after it’s born?

A common reply to this argument is that parents are legally required to care for a child after it’s born. Aside from the fact that providing care for someone is completely different from sacrificing your bodily autonomy, even in legal terms, this still isn’t a true statement. Parents are only legally required to care for a child if they choose to take on that responsibility. They can also choose to give the child up, no one is forced by law to care for a child. However, even if they choose to keep it which means legally they have taken on the responsibility of caring for the child, they still aren’t legally required to give up a part of their body to insure the life of that child.

I’ve often been asked about my position that anyone who is anti-choice is also anti-woman’s rights. I see abortion as strictly a women’s rights issue mainly based on the point I just made above. Anti-choice advocates want specific laws in place which force a woman to give up her bodily autonomy in order to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. However, once that child is born the parents have no legal obligation to sacrifice their bodily autonomy to save that child’s life. Why is autonomy important after birth when both males and females will be effected but not before birth when only females are effected?

I find it very odd and somewhat suspicious that the laws governing the rights of bodily autonomy for both men and women after the child is born are never challenged. If anti-choice advocates really are fighting for the right of a child to live, why do they ignore these laws which are also for the good of the parents to the detriment of the child? How are these laws any different from abortion laws other than the fact that only women are effected by abortion laws? The bottom line is that it would be unconstitutional to take away a woman’s right to something that men were still allowed to do. And men don’t want the government telling them what to do with their bodies so the leaders of the anti-choice movement conveniently omit the bodily autonomy laws which effect both sexes.

Another question I’ve been asked in the past is if I understand that those who oppose abortion do so because they feel that the fetus is being harmed and can feel pain. My answer is that I do understand that. And while I haven’t read anything conclusive on the science behind fetal pain, I honestly don’t think it has a bearing on the argument. The fact is that no one has a right, nor should they have the right, to force you to give them a part of your body thus giving up your bodily autonomy.

Even if they need it to survive
Even if the denial of it will cause them pain
Even if they are your own child
Even if they are a newborn baby
Or all of the above

Similar Articles:

• Body Image and Veganism
• Sarah Palin on Women’s Issues
• “Sex” With a 12 Year Old is Actually Rape
• Veganism, Anarchy, Environmentalism, Feminism - The Connection
• What is Animal Rights?