The point of the it’s her body, it’s her choice argument is that “No one has the right to tell any woman what she can or cannot do with her own body.”
Looking at this from a strictly biological viewpoint, a pregnant woman is not just dealing with, and making decisions that affect, her body but also the body of the child inside of her.
If a woman is pregnant with a male child, that child has sexual organs that a woman does not have: she does not become a hermaphrodite for nine months. Therefore, it is obvious that there are two different bodies, that of the mother and that of the child. Does the woman have two hearts for nine months? No, and in fact, when we hear the heartbeat of a child in the womb it is beating so quickly that no adult could have such a fast heart rate and survive.
The child’s DNA is related to and yet, different from the mother’s DNA. Hence, the problem with virtually all Pro-Abortion arguments, they are outdated by at least half a century. As, one time leading abortionist of the nation, Dr. Bernard Nathanson explains: when the issue of abortion came to the forefront in the western nations such as the USA, there was no such thing as embryology (the scientific study of the embryo). Yet, through the use of technological advances, starting perhaps with the ultrasound, we now know a world of information regarding the humanity and individuality of the baby in the womb. Therefore, most Pro-Abortion arguments are invalidated due to their reliance upon outdated pseudo-science.
Such as the case in arguing that an embryo in the womb retraces its evolutionary heritage and thus is at one point a fish then a frog, etc. (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny) and only finally becomes a human (in 2005 AD a physical therapist, who had obviously studied human anatomy, told this author that human embryos have gill slits). When first confronting this theory it was a princess who kissed a frog and it turned into a prince, a quaint fairytale that should never pass for scientific enlightenment. The answer is simple, a person who employs this argument is proving that their knowledge of biology is outdated because the DNA for a human produces a human and nothing else (has a human female ever given birth to anything but a human baby?).
When a woman chooses abortion, her body is not at stake; instead the woman is making a choice that affects another person’s body, the body of a defenseless human baby. The exception is a life or death situation in which case abortion is justified since it would be immoral to stand by and watch the mother and baby die when we could save the life of one of them.
Therefore, it is not a case of “her body, her choice” but rather, her choice, someone else’s death. Although, in reality it is her body and her choice, if the woman wanted to abort her own body she could do so after the baby is born, this act would be called suicide.
But to the point of it being “her choice,” the question is who made her the judge, jury and executioner? Who gave her the right to decide if and when a beautiful, innocent and defenseless human baby will be brutally murdered? Because, it’s her body and she has to carry “it,” and…on it goes: excuses, excuses, excuses. And if you are, at this point, ready to throw in the rape argument then keep reading as we will get to that.
Here are some relevant essays and books.
Randy C. Alcorn, Why Pro-Life?: Caring for the Unborn and Their Mothers
Randy C. Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments Expanded & Updated
Scott Klusendorf, Pro-Life 101: A Step-by-Step Guide to Making Your Case Persuasively
Feel free to take advantage of the free subscription to this page so that you will get an email notification when something is posted herein—see subscribe link above, next to my name…or just CTRL+F and search for “subscribe.”
Find us on: