Excellent counter to the bodily-autonomy argument! 

ahahaha alright I’ll bother to tackle these because they’re 100% bullshit and don’t counter anything.

1. Your analogy is flawed because it presupposes that the relationship between mother and child is no more significant, and carries with it no more responsibility, than the relationship between a person and some random stranger in a hospital bed.

so a pregnant person has all of the responsibility for the fetus’s life, but a person doesn’t have responsibility for a random stranger’s life? what happened to the pro-life stance of ‘all lives matter’? and wouldn’t that mean that it’s the pregnant person’s responsibility to worry about her fetus/pregnancy and not some random pro-lifers butting into their life?

2. Your analogy is flawed because it leaves out an important detail: how did the singer become ill in the first place?

”[…]This singer came down with a terrible sickness. You might feel pity for him, but you didn’t cause him to be sick. You didn’t put him in this state. You had absolutely nothing to do with it. The same cannot be said when a child is conceived.”

going along with the singer analogy, even if you stabbed the singer multiple times and caused him to need you as life support, you still don’t have an obligation to have him use your body without your consent. the same goes for a fetus - even if a person’s actions led to the fetus residing in their uterus, that still does not give the fetus the right to stay there. 

3. Your analogy is flawed because, when framed properly, it doesn’t strengthen your moral position — it defeats it.

The hypothetical should be this: your own child becomes very sick because of something you did. He needs a blood transfusion and you are the only match. Would you refuse to give him your blood because it infringes on your bodily autonomy? Could this be morally justified? You put your kid in the hospital and now you will choose to watch him die because he ‘doesn’t have a right to your blood.’ THIS scenario would be the closest to abortion. And, if you are consistent in your affinity for ‘bodily autonomy,’ you could not criticize parents who’d rather let their child die than be inconvenienced by a blood transfusion.

yes, actually, it is justified for a parent to refuse giving their child an organ donation, this has already been decided by courts to be acceptable multiple times. it’s also hilarious how you call things like organ donations and blood transfusions “mild inconveniences” as if they have no impact on someone’s health whatsoever and no other health issues could complicate the situation.

4. But, no matter how you frame the hypothetical, it is still flawed because it ignores one crucial thing: natural order.

this entire section is a bunch of drivel and has absolutely no bearing on laws or human rights. 

6. But the bodily autonomy argument is flawed in ways that go beyond that utterly fallacious and misleading hypothetical. It’s flawed because nobody is crazy enough to consistently apply it to pregnant women.

while most don’t agree with pregnant people smoking or drinking while pregnant, it is still completely within their rights to do so. not to mention that addiction is a serious issue that is difficult to overcome, even while pregnant, and oftentimes doctors will recommend that a pregnant person should not quit smoking cold turkey because the withdrawal could harm the fetus more than smoking would.

7. The bodily autonomy argument is flawed because it requires you to support abortion at every stage of development.

I do, and unlike this article claims, many pro-choicers do as well. less than 1.2% of abortions happen at 21+ weeks gestation. abortions past that stage happen because of fetal abnormalities or the health of the pregnant person - elective abortions simply don’t happen this far into a pregnancy.

9. The bodily autonomy argument is flawed because it necessarily justifies things like public masturbation.

I….just….what? this is the biggest false equivalence I’ve ever seen. 

10. Finally, the bodily autonomy argument is flawed because our bodies are not autonomous.

comparing having responsibilities in our lives to having the right to govern what happens directly to our bodies is ridiculous. while as people we have responsibilities to uphold and are restricted in that regard, what happens to our own bodies is absolutely under our own control. 

it’s pretty clear that the (presumably cis) man that wrote this steaming pile of crap has no idea what bodily autonomy actually is or how it works. this does nothing for the pro-life movement except rehash their trite, outdated arguments into something they think they can use as a “GOTCHA!!” against pro-choicers.