I've always had a problem with the abortion issue. My problem is that "abortion" is not really about aborting fetuses. The issue is much more general: control of our bodies. As a society, we recognize that individuals have control over choices regarding their bodies. We have the right to refuse medical treatment, even if we will die without it. We have the right to refuse to allow our organs to be used for transplants, even if someone else will die as a result of that decision. We have the right to procreate, even if we don't have the ability to care for a child or are certain to pass along major genetic defects to that child. (continued)
Nobody questions these rights, nor should they. Nobody questions a person's right to control their own body...unless that person is a pregnant woman. If that person is a pregnant woman, suddenly her right to control her body is less important than the right of the embryo/fetus/baby to survive.
Even as I write this, I am tempted to slide into arguments about the validity of arguments for or against abortion, but I'm resisting the urge because the issue isn't about abortion, it is about our "right" to control our own bodies. By allowing ourselves to be drawn into arguments about sexual morality and whether abortion is murdering babies, we have been distracted from the real question of what rights people have to control their bodies. The question has been reduced to "How can we allow a woman to choose to kill her baby?" instead of "Does the government have a right to tell us what to do with our bodies?".
But, this is not inevitable. When discussing organ donation, I've never heard anyone make the argument that it should be mandatory because people are dying due to a lack of organs. If a person has a match for a kidney recipient but refuses to donate a kidney and the potential recipient dies, we do not hold the potential donor responsible for that death. We recognize that, while donating an organ is noble, it is not obligatory. Our right to choose not to undergo surgery is more important than the social obligation to help our fellow man. If the potential recipient is a family member, even if it is the donor's child, the situation is the same. The donor cannot be forced to undergo a very safe surgery to save the life of the recipient. Even if a person is dead, and will suffer no consequences as a result of the donation, that organ will not be donated unless the donor has specifically requested that they be an organ donor and the family agrees to that wish. How can a dead person have more control over their body than a living woman? How can an embryo have more of a right to live than a fully formed, thinking person with kidney failure?
I'm suggesting that we expand and re-frame the abortion argument. It should be less about abortion and more about rights. Here is a suggested list of issues that should be included.