A Response To Your Body Autonomy Argument

A Response To Your Body Autonomy Argument

Why body autonomy isn't a good defense of the pro-choice agenda.
9434
views

Recently, I’ve heard many people make pro-choice arguments that include bodily autonomy as a justification of their pro-choice stance. Body autonomy basically says that no one, other than the person himself, has a right to his or her body, and no one has the right to use someone else’s body without his or her full consent. This is the law, and why compatible donors cannot be forced to donate, even if he or she would save the life of the other person. When I first heard the argument of body autonomy, I accepted it at face value—people do have a right to their own bodies before anyone else does, and yes, that’s the law. But I don’t think bodily autonomy supports the pro-choice argument or a woman’s right to an abortion.

The following is an excerpt from a pro-choice argument that I recently found, using the concept of bodily autonomy to defend his or her stance as pro-choice.Read carefully:

“There is a concept called body autonomy. It’s generally considered a human right. Bodily autonomy means a person has control over whom or what uses their body, for what, and for how long. It’s why you can’t be forced to donate blood, tissue, or organs. Even if you are dead. Even if you’d save or improve 20 lives. It’s why someone can’t touch you, have sex with you, or use your body in any way without your continuous consent.

A fetus is using someone’s body parts. Therefore under bodily autonomy, it is there by permission, not by right. It needs a person’s continuous consent. If they deny and withdraw their consent, the pregnant person has the right to remove them from that moment. A fetus is equal in this regard because if I need someone else’s body parts to live, they can also legally deny me their use.

By saying a fetus has a right to someone’s body parts until it’s born, despite the pregnant person’s wishes, you are doing two things.

1. Granting a fetus more rights to other people’s bodies than any born person.
2. Awarding a pregnant person fewer rights to their body than a corpse."

Wow, strong argument, right? But I’d like to break it down a little bit, beginning with the comparison of a mother’s providing for a fetus to someone being “forced to donate blood, tissue, or organs.” There is a huge discrepancy here that isn’t being noted: when you fail to donate blood, tissue, or organs, you are not directly killing a human being. Yes, your lack of donation could lead to the death or ailment of someone, but with an abortion, a child is being killed, by your own hand, by your own choice. Not simply getting its resources removed. A fetus clearly doesn’t have the ability to speak or to persuade the mother to keep it, either. The parallel cannot be clearly drawn here for that reason.

Looking at the writer’s point that a fetus is in a woman’s body by permission, not by right, I’d argue that that child would not be in that woman’s body without (in most cases) being the result of a decision that that woman made. It is not simply a parasite that has attached itself to a woman’s uterus, no. Babies don’t just appear and latch on. They are made. And that fetus would not just appear if its parents had not created it.

The author sums up his argument with two points, the first being that by not allowing a pregnant woman to get an abortion, you are “granting a fetus more rights to other people’s bodies than any born person.” This really just sums up how the bodily autonomy argument falls short—by not granting women the right to an abortion, you are not giving a fetus more rights than other human beings. You are simply not giving a pregnant woman more rights than another human being. No one, pregnant or otherwise, is legally allowed to kill an innocent person, and by granting a woman the right to abort her child, we are giving her more rights than other humans.

This writer sums up my points very well with his or her statement that by not allowing a woman to get an abortion you are “granting a pregnant person less rights to their body than a corpse.” The difference here is that by a person choosing to not donate organs or blood, they are causing harm through inaction, after death. An abortion is causing harm through action—actively doing something to prevent someone else from having life. Someone who was created, most likely, by the pregnant woman’s choice and action. Comparing abortion to a person who has decided not to donate his or her organs is criminalizing to that person and decriminalizing what would be an actual crime if it were done by or to any born being.

There are too many flaws in the logic for me to agree with the argument of body autonomy. There are strong, thorough defenses and arguments against the pro-life stance, but body autonomy isn’t one of them.

Cover Image Credit: http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/xx_factor/2013/01/11/planned_parenthood_to_move_away_from_pro_choice_label_abortion_rights_will/156587313.jpg.CROP.rectangle3-large.jpg

Popular Right Now

Islam Is Not A Religion Of Peace, But Neither Is Christianity

Let's have in honest converation about the relgious doctrine of Islam

100117
views

Islam is not a religion of peace.

Christianity is also not a religion of peace.

But, most people in both religions are generally peaceful.

More specifically, bringing up the doctrine of Christianity is a terrible rebuttal to justify the doctrine of Islam.

That is like saying, "Fascism is not a good political ideology. Well, Communism isn't any good either. So, Fascism is not that bad after all."

One evil does not justify another evil. Christianity's sins do not justify Islam's.

The reason why this article is focused on Islam and not Christianity is the modern prevalence of religious violence in the Islamic world. Christianity is not without its evil but there is far less international terrorist attacks and mass killing perpetrated by Christians today than by those of Islam.

First, let's define "religious killings," which is much more specific than a practicer of a religion committing a murder.

A religious killings are directly correlated with the doctrines of the faith. That is different a human acting on some type of natural impulse killing someone.

For example, an Islamic father honor killing his daughter who was raped is a religious killing. But an Islamic man who catches his wife cheating and kills her on the spot is a murder, not a religious killing. The second man may be Islamic but the doctrine of Islam cannot be rationally held at fault for that killing. Many men with many different religions or experience would make the same heinous mistake of taking a life.

Second, criticizing a doctrine or a religion is not a criticism of everyone that practices the religion.

It is not even a criticism of everyone who make mistake while inspired by the religions. Human are willing to do heinous things when governed by a bad cause. Not every World War 2 Nazis was a homicidal maniac but human nature tells them to act this way in order to survive in their environment. It is hard to fault a person from traits that comes from evolutionary biology and natural selection.

However, commenting on a philosophy, ideology or a religion is not off limits. Every doctrine that inspires human action should be open for review. The religion may be part of a person's identity and it holds a special place in its heart but that does not mean it should be immune to criticism.

Finally, before going into a deconstruction of the myth that Islam is a religion of peace, there needs to be a note about the silencing of talking about Islam.

There is a notion in Western Society that if a person criticizes Islam, then that person hates all Muslims and the person suffers from Islamophobia. That is not the case, a person to criticize religion without becoming Donald Trump. In Western Society criticizing fundamental Christians is never seen as an attack on all Christians because there is a lot of bad ideas in the Bible that Christians act on. Therefore, criticizing Islam should have the same benefit of the doubt because the Quran has many bad ideas in it.

The Quran advocates for war on unbelievers a multitude of times. No these verses are not a misreading or bad interpretation the text. Here are two explicit verses from the Quran that directly tell Followers to engage in violence:

Quran 2: 191-193:

"And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah (disbelief or unrest) is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists and wrong-doers)"

Quran 2: 216:

"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

There is no rational way to interrupt these passages in a peaceful way. The whole premise of both passages is to inspire followers that war against the unbeliever is justified.

The first verse advocates for genocide against non-believers for the mere transgression that a society worships a different god or worships another god along with Allah.

The second passage is arguable more dangerous because the first passage just advocate that fighting may be a necessity, while the second passage encourages it. The second passage claims that war on the unbeliever is a good thing under the eyes of Allah.

The reason why these passages are dangerous is because they directly incite religious violence. For most followers of Allah, these passages are ignored or they convince themselves the passages means something they do not. However, for a large numbers of followers that view the text of the Quran as the unedited words of Allah, these texts become extremely dangerous. These passages become all the rational they need to wage war on non-believers.

This is dangerous because there are millions of followers of Islam worldwide that believe every statement in the Quran is true.

Therefore, the Quran becomes a direct motivation and cause for its followers to attack non-followers. Rationally one can understand where the Islam follower comes from, if a person truly believes that Allah or God himself wrote these words then why would you not comply.

Especially when there is verses in the Quran that says the Follower who does not fight the infidel is not as worthy of a Follower that does wage war against the non-believer (Quran 4:95). Finally, when male Followers are told that their martyrdom fighting for the faith will be rewarded with an eternity in paradise with 72 virgins for personal pleasure. If a Follower truly believes all of this is the spoken word of Allah then there is more rational why a person would commit these atrocities then why they would not.

Men and women are radicalized by these passages on a daily basis.

No, it is not just the poor kid in Iraq that lost his family to an American bombing run that indiscriminately kills civilians but also the middle classed Saudi Arabian child or some Western white kid that finds the Quran appealing. If radicalization were just poor people, then society would not have much to be worried about. However, Heads of States, college educated people and wealthy Islamic Followers are all being radicalized and the common dominator is the doctrine of Islam.

Osama Bin Laden, one of the most infamous terrorist in history, was not a poor lad that was screwed by the United States military industrial complex. Bin Laden was the son of a billionaire, that received an education through college from great schools. There is no other just cause for Bin Laden to orchestrate such grievous attacks on humanity besides religious inspirations. A person can rationally tie Islam Followers gravitation towards terrorism to a specific verse. Quran 3: 51 tells readers,

"Soon shall we cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers."

Any rational person can tie Islamic passages like this directly to terrorism. It is not a complicated correlation to like Nazism and Jewish persecution to Christianity. The Holy Book of Islam directly encourages the Followers of Islam to inflict terrorism unto the non-believer.

So why do some many people deny these obvious truths about Islam and violence?

Political Correctness and the want to not be viewed as a bigot. The correlations here are as direct as the terrors of the Spanish Inquisitions and Catholicism and no one is afraid to retrospect and say, "Yes Christianity caused the direct murder of thousands of people". A person would not even be controversial if one stated that both World Wars has significant religious undertones. However if anyone states that terrorism and violence has a direct link with Islam then there is an outcry.

Even President Obama refused to use the terms Islam and Muslim when publicly talking about the War on Terrorism. I am a hypocrite also because I used the term Islamic Follower instead of Muslim in an attempt to sound more political correct.

That is a problem when society refuse to use terms that are correct in an attempt to not offend anyone. Imagine if scientist could not report their findings because the underlying politics. Society needs to be able to have open dialogue about this problem or else it will never heal. Society needs to throw away the worrisome about being politically correct and focus on identifying the problems and solving them.

The world of Islam needs to open themselves up to this criticism.

There can no longer be a closing of dialogue where the West cannot speak on the doctrines of Islam because they are not partakers (That applies to all organized religion too, especially the Catholic Church). People who draw Muhammed must no longer be threatened with attacks on their life.

When Islamic women and men speak up about the sins of Islam, they must stop being silenced. If humanity is going to take steps into the future with better technology and more dangerous weaponry, then we need to solve this problem with Islam and gradually to organized religion at all.

If not it will doom us way before we get there…

Thank you for reading and if you enjoyed this article follow my podcast on Twitter @MccrayMassMedia for more likewise discussions.

Cover Image Credit:

https://unsplash.com/photos/JFirQekVo3U

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

To The Girl Who Felt Excluded In The International Order Of The Rainbow For Girls

Exclusion is never a word I would use to describe my experience in Rainbow.

510
views

As I write this, I am preparing to attend my 3rd Ohio Grand Assembly for The International Order of the Rainbow for Girls. (And as it posts, I will have just gotten home.) It will be my first time attending as a Grand Officer and I can't be more excited. I recently read an Odyssey article called "Girls In The International Order Of The Rainbow For Girls Have Only One Color: Exclusion." While I understand her point of view, I think there are some things that need to be said.

You basically said you had good and bad times, and that the people are what made the experience great. Sadly, once they left you felt the experience was less than ideal. Thank you for recognizing that Rainbow has great ideals and goals, but I personally think your article is misleading.

I'm in Fremont Assembly #128 in Fremont, Ohio. I am currently 18 years old and joined Rainbow in 2016. In other words, I am only able to be in Rainbow for a little over 4 years. Which, frankly, stinks, but I will still cherish the short amount of time I have.

I, too, have trouble making friends. I might be intimidating at times due to my demeanor. But once people talk to me, they realize that I'm not so bad. As you, my time in Rainbow hasn't exactly been fostered by having super, super close friends, but I really don't think that matters.

What matters is the love I see. The love I constantly observe between girls. The love I see directed at me. That love is something that doesn't need to include a constant connection to my sisters. I know that if I chose to approach one of them, I would be greeted with nothing but love.

That was incredibly apparent to me since day one in Rainbow. The day I was initiated into this organization I was terrified. Yes, I was 16 and yes, it really shouldn't have scared me so much but I'm not great at new things. I'm not great at doing things without a set plan. For initiation, there is a set plan but because I was not yet in Rainbow, I wasn't allowed to know it.

Still, throughout the entire process, I constantly felt welcomed by these girls. All of them had smiles on their faces and nothing but kind words to say. I didn't feel like they looked down on me due to my lack of experience. I felt like I was being supported by these girls that I didn't even know.

That first year and some of my second year, I participated in many different Rainbow events, but mostly from the audience. Still, despite how untalkative I was and how little experience I had with the group, I was always welcomed in with loving arms.

And what is Rainbow without our Mother Advisors, Deputies, and other supporters? Nothing. All of these women have made it a point to get to know me and to welcome me wholeheartedly.

So, fellow Rainbow sister, I want you to know that I see where you're coming from, but let's be clear.

Your experience is the exception, not the rule.

You and I are similar in our shy demeanors, but I am still able to see the best of my time in Rainbow.

Maybe I stay in the background and it's very possible that I will have none of my Rainbow sisters (except my biological sister) in my wedding party. Still, I will not blame the group that has given so many amazing experiences to me. I will support this group because I want other girls, just like you and me, to find their place. I don't want them to be discouraged by a few subpar experiences. I see what Rainbow is to some people and I want to give that experience to as many girls as possible.

I am a Rainbow girl, through and through.

And Rainbow, you'll always be mine.

Cover Image Credit:

Martha Laughlin / Facebook

Related Content

Facebook Comments