Once in a while a pro-abortion argument comes along that can be vexing. One such argument was recently posted on our facebook page, and it deserves a thoughtful and thorough response. To paraphrase, the visitor to our page claimed that women have absolute autonomy over their bodies, and that because we cannot be legally forced to donate blood or an organ to someone - even it means that person will die - a woman cannot be forced to donate her uterus so that her fetus may live. This argument, which is a variant on Judith Jarvis Thomson’s infamous “violinist argument” that can be found on-line, seems persuasive because it contains an element of truth: we cannot be legally forced to donate our organs to save the life of someone else. 

Though the argument may be convincing to some, it ultimately fails on several fronts. First, we simply do not have absolute autonomy over our bodies. The law prohibits us from making many dozens of choices with our bodies. Drug use, prostitution, public nudity, even seatbelt and helmet laws constitute prohibitions on what we can do with our own bodies. The law is justified in restricting our “bodily autonomy” when it comes to choices that harm others, or the common good. Abortion is one such choice. It kills another human being, namely one’s own child, and harms society in a myriad of ways. 

Second, the argument fails to acknowledge that parents are legally required to provide basic care for their children. Men who don’t want to be fathers are nonetheless legally compelled to pay child support for 19 years (at least). Parents can be charged with neglect or abuse if they do not provide their children the basic necessities of life. It does not follow they be relieved of their obligations just because their child is in the womb and not in the crib.  Pregnancy is a completely natural process that co-creates, nurtures and sustains every person for the first 9 months of life. Almost everyone agrees it is morally correct for a parent to provide extraordinary care, including organ donation, to save the life of his or her child. 

Third, the act of donating an organ is not analogous to pregnancy. Organ donation is an extraordinary, heroic act that involves removing a body part that exists for you to function. Your kidney, liver, heart, and other organs are all designed to sustain you, not someone else. The uterus, on the other hand, seems to have no other function than to house and sustain a pre- born child. That is its natural purpose for existing. During pregnancy, it isn’t being removed and donated to someone else in the way your kidney is, it is simply functioning as it is intended to. 

Finally, refusing to donate an organ to someone who needs it is not the same as intentionally destroying your unborn child with abortion. Our obligation to our children is greater than it is to strangers. In the case of the stranger’s death, the cause of death is his own failed organ or disease, whereas in the case of abortion, the cause of death is a direct and intentional act of destruction. 

The argument for bodily autonomy fails because parents have an obligation to provide the basic necessities of life for their children. This obligation should not be removed from them just because of where their child is. If anything, the child’s heightened level of dependency demands an even greater degree of protection and care.