This is not an anti-abortion or a pro-abortion blog post. I'm not commenting on that particular subject, nor taking a stance. Instead, I'm going to criticize the argument "my body, my choice".
(This counter-argument could be construed as being anti-abortion, but my only intent is to show that it's a bad argument for abortion. Even if you are pro-abortion, I don't think you should use it, and here I explain why.)
Many pro-abortion activists argue that it's "their body", and nobody should have a say on what a woman can do with her body. It's nobody else's business.
But the thing is, this is ultimately a selfish argument, at the expense of another life. Another human being.
We could have an endless argument about at which point a fetus becomes a human being with all human rights, but I would say that, even if we considered it to be a gray area (and gradual process), at some point before birth the baby is a full human capable of surviving and living outside the mother's body, even if the baby hasn't been technically born yet. I think we can all agree that at some point before birth, the baby is a full human being. (Whether it's immediately at conception or some time later is another discussion I'm not delving into, but most people would agree that at some point before birth it is a full human being.)
"My body, my choice" would imply that a woman should have the right to abortion even an hour before birth. This, in itself, makes it a bad argument.
The thing is, sometimes we just cannot control what happens to us, no matter how unfair it might be. Sometimes we might get a disease. Maybe we get food poisoning. Maybe a bad fever, or influenza. Maybe a congenital disease manifests itself.
Or sometimes we get pregnant. (Well, some of us anyway.) Which isn't a disease, but can cause inconvenience and make a person's life harder, before and after birth.
These are things mostly out of our control when they happen, and when they do happen, we just have to cope with it the best we can. We can't just throw another person's life to the trash because it so much inconveniences us. Sometimes we get a responsibility even when we didn't ask for it nor deserve it. But life sucks sometimes, and we just have to cope with it the best we can.
Suppose that, for one reason or another, a child, eg. a close relative, is given into your custody, for you take care of. Could you simply say "my money, my choice" and leave the child to starve to death?
Sure, yes, it's your money, but you still have a responsibility for your fellow human being. Moreso if that human being is a close family member. At the very least it's your responsibility to try to arrange something for that child to be cared by somebody else, if possible. And if for some reason it's not possible, well, it's still your responsibility, and if you let the child die of starvation because you didn't want to waste your money, you should be held responsible for criminal neglect and punished.
It may not be completely fair, but we, as human beings, do have a moral and ethical responsibility towards other human beings, especially little children who cannot be even expected to survive on their own, and even more especially if it's a close relative we are talking about.
If "my money, my choice" isn't an acceptable excuse to let a child die, neither should "my body, my choice". It's simply a bad and utterly selfish argument. Yes, it's your body, and the child is growing inside it, and it sucks if you didn't want that situation to happen, but once again, sometimes life sucks and we are burdened with things we didn't choose nor want. That doesn't absolve us from the responsibility of caring about other human beings.
If you want to present a pro-abortion argument, at least don't use this one. It's just a bad argument, and only shows how selfish you are.
(This counter-argument could be construed as being anti-abortion, but my only intent is to show that it's a bad argument for abortion. Even if you are pro-abortion, I don't think you should use it, and here I explain why.)
Many pro-abortion activists argue that it's "their body", and nobody should have a say on what a woman can do with her body. It's nobody else's business.
But the thing is, this is ultimately a selfish argument, at the expense of another life. Another human being.
We could have an endless argument about at which point a fetus becomes a human being with all human rights, but I would say that, even if we considered it to be a gray area (and gradual process), at some point before birth the baby is a full human capable of surviving and living outside the mother's body, even if the baby hasn't been technically born yet. I think we can all agree that at some point before birth, the baby is a full human being. (Whether it's immediately at conception or some time later is another discussion I'm not delving into, but most people would agree that at some point before birth it is a full human being.)
"My body, my choice" would imply that a woman should have the right to abortion even an hour before birth. This, in itself, makes it a bad argument.
The thing is, sometimes we just cannot control what happens to us, no matter how unfair it might be. Sometimes we might get a disease. Maybe we get food poisoning. Maybe a bad fever, or influenza. Maybe a congenital disease manifests itself.
Or sometimes we get pregnant. (Well, some of us anyway.) Which isn't a disease, but can cause inconvenience and make a person's life harder, before and after birth.
These are things mostly out of our control when they happen, and when they do happen, we just have to cope with it the best we can. We can't just throw another person's life to the trash because it so much inconveniences us. Sometimes we get a responsibility even when we didn't ask for it nor deserve it. But life sucks sometimes, and we just have to cope with it the best we can.
Suppose that, for one reason or another, a child, eg. a close relative, is given into your custody, for you take care of. Could you simply say "my money, my choice" and leave the child to starve to death?
Sure, yes, it's your money, but you still have a responsibility for your fellow human being. Moreso if that human being is a close family member. At the very least it's your responsibility to try to arrange something for that child to be cared by somebody else, if possible. And if for some reason it's not possible, well, it's still your responsibility, and if you let the child die of starvation because you didn't want to waste your money, you should be held responsible for criminal neglect and punished.
It may not be completely fair, but we, as human beings, do have a moral and ethical responsibility towards other human beings, especially little children who cannot be even expected to survive on their own, and even more especially if it's a close relative we are talking about.
If "my money, my choice" isn't an acceptable excuse to let a child die, neither should "my body, my choice". It's simply a bad and utterly selfish argument. Yes, it's your body, and the child is growing inside it, and it sucks if you didn't want that situation to happen, but once again, sometimes life sucks and we are burdened with things we didn't choose nor want. That doesn't absolve us from the responsibility of caring about other human beings.
If you want to present a pro-abortion argument, at least don't use this one. It's just a bad argument, and only shows how selfish you are.
Comments
Post a Comment