Abortion: Refuting the ‘Forced Birth’ Smear

For quite some time, one of the most common defenses of abortion has been that the unborn child — fetus, a clump of cells, whatever euphemism you prefer — resides inside the mother and thus is something akin to her property. The pro-abortion slogan “my body, my choice” and similar women’s autonomy arguments for abortion are based on this premise.

It’s a fairly easy argument to refute. The unborn child’s existence inside his mother doesn’t make him part of the mother in any significant way. Morally speaking, his body does not belong to her in a way that gives her license to end his life. He is an entirely unique, distinct organism with his own functions. And his reliance on his mother while still in the womb isn’t all that different from his dependence on her after birth. A neglected infant will soon die, just as an unborn child will die if separated from his mother.

About the Author

Alexandra DeSanctis

Alexandra DeSanctis is a contributing writer at National Review.

Featured Tags

For quite some time, one of the most common defenses of abortion has been that the unborn child — fetus, a clump of cells, whatever euphemism you prefer — resides inside the mother and thus is something akin to her property. The pro-abortion slogan “my body, my choice” and similar women’s autonomy arguments for abortion are based on this premise.

It’s a fairly easy argument to refute. The unborn child’s existence inside his mother doesn’t make him part of the mother in any significant way. Morally speaking, his body does not belong to her in a way that gives her license to end his life. He is an entirely unique, distinct organism with his own functions. And his reliance on his mother while still in the womb isn’t all that different from his dependence on her after birth. A neglected infant will soon die, just as an unborn child will die if separated from his mother.