My Body, My Choice?

Many arguments for abortion rights have been turned into taglines for the abortion movement, the most ridiculous of which is, "My body, my choice." The argument essentially is that when choosing to have an abortion or not, it is the woman's body, so therefore it should be her choice whether or not to carry the baby to term. They say it’s about choice, and that no one should be allowed to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body.

Pro-life people argue that the baby is a separate individual--not simply a part of the mother. The fetus has its own unique DNA, and therefore should be protected from those who may wish to do it harm. Separate individual, therefore separate rights. However, the claim from pro-choice people is that the fetus growing inside of a pregnant woman is a part of her, therefore it's her right to do with it as she pleases. So let’s follow that logic. 

For argument’s sake, let’s say that the fetus is a part of a woman. What other body part can a woman legally remove? Yes, cosmetic surgery is available if one should so choose. Breast augmentation, rhinoplasty, liposuction, etc. are popular types of body modification. Some would argue about the mental health of some women (and men) who undergo multiple body modification surgeries, but that's not my point. The point is that women are not electively choosing to remove *parts of their body.* If a woman—or anyone for that matter—wanted to electively remove a body part, every single ethical medical doctor would say no. I can't even electively remove my uterus. There has to be a medical reason for a woman to have a hysterectomy. Most doctors won't even perform a tubal ligation until after a woman has already had children. If I wanted to remove my appendix because it might burst one day and cause a financial burden on me, I will get told no. My left thumb is fairly useless, can you just take it of my hands? If I want to remove my pinky toe, that’s gonna be a no. Begging for an elective amputation could also land me straight in the looney bin, and it rightfully should. Because removing an otherwise healthy body part is cRaZy.

Some might argue that the fetus could be more likened to a parasite or a cancerous tumor that takes over your body, sucking the resources from it. To that, I would say, of course you remove a parasite or a tumor, but a fetus does not consume healthy cells, nor does it take over the organs and cause organ failure. To compare a fetus to a parasite or a tumor is really a little overreaching.

The bottom line is that the argument about it being a part of a woman's body, and therefore she should be able to remove it if she pleases should be moot. There's no other body part you can just legally choose to remove if you don't want it any more.

Now let's get to the issue of "No one should be able to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body." That's another non sequitur. The US government already tells you what you can and cannot do with your body. I cannot prostitute myself--even if I *really* need to money, it's still illegal. I cannot sell my organs. I can't use drugs--but it's my body, and if I want to destroy it with methamphetamine and heroin, why can't I? Assisted suicide? That a no. If I know I'm going to die, and I am in the most horrific pain of my life, I can't have someone help me end it--because it's illegal. All of these things are illegal because they are immoral and unsafe. If the pro-choice community were *really* about "my body, my choice," then they wouldn't just be pro-abortion. They would be pro-prostitute, pro-organ selling, pro-amputation, pro-drugs and pro-assisted suicide. But they aren't. Pro-choice people are exclusively pro-abortion. They recognize that prostitution, organ selling, amputation, drugs and assisted suicide are wrong, and therefore should be illegal.

I sincerely urge those of you reading this who are pro-choice to really think of the logic behind your "choice." It doesn't really make sense. You really just want to make sure women have an "out" if they get pregnant. It cannot possibly be about the government trying to control your body--because they already do in so many other areas. Be consistent then in your arguments.

Pro-Love: Save the Teens

Forty years ago, a scared 16 year old girl was 4 months pregnant. She was a sophomore in high school and undoubtedly abjectly humiliated. Just imagine the shame she felt walking down those high school hallways every day--sitting in the classrooms. The taunts, the whispers, the rejection, the name-calling. Six years earlier, Roe v. Wade had given her a legal way to end her pregnancy—to end her shame. Not only was she pregnant at 16, she was also high-risk. She had gestational diabetes, which can threaten the life and health of the mother carrying the child. How easy it would have been to walk in to a clinic. Namelessly be shuffled to a stark white room, laid on a table. One small procedure to end her humiliation--to end the threat to her own life.

Despite all of this, she chose life. She chose adoption. It no doubt was the most difficult decision of her young life. Perhaps she's never had to make that difficult of a decision since. But she knew what all of us know deep down—that an unborn child is life. A heartbeat is formed at 3-4 weeks gestation, which is before most women even know they are pregnant. The central nervous system is formed between 3-6 weeks. Little ears, eyes and limbs are formed around 4 weeks.

Any woman who has felt her child move and kick and grow inside of her *knows* that child is alive. Even before modern science, the Psalmist knew the truth of this. Psalm 139:13-14, David cries out to God, "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made." This scared 16 year old knew that her body was no longer her own, as I was alive and living inside of her. You can twist the logic, and you can claim that a woman should "have a right to choose." You can attempt to justify abortion any way you wish, but ultimately, abortion is to end a life.

Science says that bacteria are alive, but some people refuse to say that a fetus is alive. It's true that a fetus cannot survive outside a mother's womb, so that leads to the "viability argument." The viability argument says that an abortion is OK as long as the fetus is not viable outside the mother's womb. But when does that occur? That's an argument with no answer, because there have been babies who lived when born at just 21 weeks old and survived. Even a baby outside the womb can't survive on its own--it needs someone to meet its basic needs. That then begs the question of potential life and the sanctity thereof.

I am so thankful that scared 16 year old girl chose life. She answered my parents' prayers the day she signed the papers giving me to them. It is a bittersweet reminder that sometimes, our darkest hour can be the answer to someone else's prayer. But all too often, young girls and women choose a different route.

For the past few years, abortion has been on America's main stage. States recently passed laws that allow abortion up to birth, while other, more conservative states are trying to pass laws make abortion more restrictive. Pro-life people are abhorred with some of the laws that have been passed, but we need to do more than just say we are pro-life. We need to actually do something to show how much we value life. And that begins way before conception. It begins with how we as a society--specifically a Christian society--view pregnancy and sex outside of marriage.

If you were raised in a Christian home, then you know that pre-marital sex is a sin. It was most likely drilled into your head at youth group that abstinence was the only way to go. You may have received a purity ring from your parents or boyfriend. You may have signed a pledge that you would remain a virgin until marriage. You even got a wallet-sized card with that one--you could carry it with you everywhere you went. You were a card-carrying virgin until marriage. Forget the thousands of kids hearing these messages who were no longer virgins--many of whom had their virginity stolen from them as young children in dark recesses, hidden from truth and light. When we teach that abstinence is the only way to go, many teens hear the message of shame when it comes to sex.

The intention of teaching abstinence is to prevent disease and pregnancy. It's meant to teach students to value themselves more than sex. Many times, this teaches kids that sex is scary, that there are huge consequences and that you'll be a sinner if you give in to your natural desires. Teaching teens to avoid sex at all costs comes with a heavy price tag. When teens fail in this edict of virginity, they keep it to themselves. They hide. Just as Adam and Eve hid from God when they sinned, teens will hide their sexual sins. Until they can't. Pre-martial sex, if it leads to pregnancy, is a sin where that teen girl literally have to carry her sin around with her for nine months. You want to avoid the shame? Easy. Abort the shame.

Before you decide to lynch me for saying abstinence only doesn't work, I want to be clear that I am not advocating just giving teens free reign to have sex. I'm also not advocating handing out condoms in gym class. What I'm saying is that the messages the church sends to kids about sex are flawed. The messages sent and the messages received are not the same messages. We have to change the messages we are sending to teens. God never designed sex to be shameful. He designed it for a husband and wife to delight themselves in each other. He designed it for the ultimate expression of love. Read Song of Solomon and see what I mean. God designed it to procreate and continue our lineage. God tells Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply" in Genesis. Instead of shame, He meant for sex to be a wonderful expression of a man and a woman truly becoming one flesh--literally.

This is the message teens need to receive--that sex is wonderful and beautiful. That it's meant for later in their lives, not now. They need to know God's plan not only for sex but for their lives. Plans to prosper them and give them hope and a future. For the sake of their hearts, their emotions, their very soul, we have to teach them to protect their hearts and minds in Christ Jesus. That's why we wait for sex until marriage. Because God loves us. He loves us enough to give us sex, and He loves us enough to give us a plan for it so we won't get hurt. We don't avoid sex because we want to just avoid disease. We don't avoid sex because we want to just avoid pregnancy. And it's not because every Christian just wants to be a wet blanket.

Just as with every single thing on our planet, God had a design for us, but in our sin and fallenness, His ultimate perfect plan was thwarted. This includes His plan for sex. We will fall; we will fail. So the question then becomes: "How are we going to respond to those who fail?" So far, our response as Christians has been pretty pitiful. When people fall into sexual sin, traditionally, Christians do not view sexual sin the same as other sins like stealing or lying, drinking or coveting. And that has to change. There has to be redemption for all sin--not just the non-embarrassing ones. There has to be a path back to God. There has to be less judgement and shame. We--the church--are the ones who have to make sure that the ones who sin know that they are still loved and worthy of the Lord's favor and blessing. We have to make sure that the little girls who get pregnant (or who have had sex already) will be loved and don't have to wear a scarlet letter on their belly.

If we are truly going to be pro-life, we have to change our stance from "save the babies" to "save the teens." When teenagers can understand God's plan for sex, they will start to see sex differently. When they stop looking for love from a boyfriend and look for it in God, then they will naturally abstain. And secondly, we have to stop judging those who sin. We have to bring them in, make them feel loved and help them strip away their shame. When the shame is gone, teens will be able to make a courageous decision--to either keep the baby or give it up for adoption. The only reason a girl would choose abortion over adoption is because she doesn't want to have to be pregnant. She doesn't want to carry her shame. They don't want to have to deal with the consequences of sex. If we take away the shame of pregnancy, then adoption is a much more viable option to answer the other reasons why a teen would choose abortion. Adoption gives life, and it can give the teen her life back, too. That teem mom can still go to college; she can still pursue her dreams. She can give the child a life he or she deserves. Strip away the shame, and you strip away any reason to get an abortion. Take away the shame of pregnancy, and there won't be a necessity or reason for her to walk in to that stark white room and be laid on a table in order to end her shame.

Obviously this is just one side of a multi-faceted issue. However, if we can save the teens and love them through their shame and pregnancy, then that can be a positive step toward ending abortion. If you are pro-life, then you have to be pro-pregnant teen, too.

This is one of the reasons I love groups like Embrace Grace. Embrace Grace is a Christian, non profit organization that helps women and teens with unplanned pregnancies find a place to belong and feel loved through their pregnancy and early motherhood. Instead of being Pro-Life, they are Pro-Love.


Sources: Mayo Clinic, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterm_birth