My take on the "pro-choice/pro-life" debate

“A woman has a right to choose what to do with her own body.”

This claim might clinch the argument if the fetus were part of the woman's body.  But there are plenty of good biological reasons to deny that.  Usually, when a part of your body is removed from you, you are regarded as an injured person: you are not able to function well.  Typically, when a once pregnant woman has given birth to a child, she has a complete body, and if the delivery has gone normally, she is able to function well.  The child that is now outside of her has its own blood type, its own DNA, its own set of internal organs, including pumping heart and brain that generates brain waves.  It had all of these characteristics at some time  it was in utero.  It is presently a different organism than the mother.  More precisely, it is an organism that previously lived within the mother.  There is no reason to say that the mother and zygote/fetus/embryo were ever one organism; there is no reason to say that the offspring was ever strictly a part of the woman's body.

“At some point the organism growing inside the woman is not a human being.”

At some point the organism in the woman is a human organism.  In terms of DNA, this point is conception.  The only difference between the one-celled zygote and the nine-month fetus is the difference in development.  The human organism goes from being one to two to four to eight to 16 to 32 to 64 to 128 cells to much more.  To someone looking under a microscope, it seems to be a cluster of cells and nothing more.  If we could look at any part of you or me through a microscope, however, we would see that you and I are, from that perspective, "nothing but" a cluster of cells as well, but you and I can do things that a fetus can't.  Then again, a mature ape or dog can do many things that a newborn baby cannot do.  What is it that gives you your intrinsic value?  Is it what you can do right now? Or is it the fact that you are a human being?  Are those who can do more things more valuable than those who can do less?

“Everyone has a right to autonomy—the right to act in the world in a manner that they find meaningful.  The right of a woman to reproductive autonomy is simply one example of a right that we already grant to others.”

Saying we have the right to do what we want to do with our own body because of our right to autonomy is a slippery slope.  If each of us really has an absolute right to do what we want with our own body, then physician-assisted suicide is okay.  Not just for the sickly but for anyone.  If I want to end it all, then (according to this principle) I should have the right to go to a doctor to assist me in ending my life.  Even though doing so would grievously injure my wife, my two children, my brothers, and those who love me.  Such a decision would be thoroughly unjust to those who depend upon me.  My life does not belong to me in the same manner that my car belongs to me.  Perhaps I can decide to wreck my car: doing so might be no one's business but my own.  My life, however, is something good for me and for my community.  At least under normal circumstances, to try to harm me would be harmful to my community--perpetrating that harm would be unjust, even if I were the one who was doing it.  That is evidence sufficient to show that whatever “autonomy” may mean, it is not the absolute right to do whatever one wishes to do with one’s own body.

“If we deny the right to terminate pregnancy to a woman who does not want a child, then the child will suffer the pain of not being wanted.”

Suppose there was someone who was a complete "nobody": someone whom no one loved and whom no one would miss.  Suppose this person wanted to end it all.  To tell such a person, "go ahead, no one will miss you" would not be an admirable response--even if it were literally true that no one would miss her or him. The correct response would be to treat this "nobody" as somebody, to affirm that her or his life has value, to seek to address the needs that, not being met, motivated her or him to want to end it all.  The correct response is to affirm the value of this person's life and to try to make that life better.  The correct response is not to say, "go ahead, it's your choice." We should try to preserve and enhance life that  is undervalued--not end it.

“Suppose you woke up and found that you had been tethered by life support to a stranger.  While you were asleep, someone connected you to this other person in order to save his life.  You would not think it wrong to disconnect the cables: nor should we criticize the decision to abort.”

I propose that you alter this thought experiment just a little: suppose you found that you were connected to your mother in the same manner (without your consent while you were asleep): isn't that a better analog to abortion? Now ask yourself: would you think it fit not only to disconnect the chord but, if necessary, to go after her with a knife in order to free yourself of that imposition?  If someone did, would this be admirable? 

“It is unfair for men to tell women that they ought to bring what is in their bodies to full term and to judge them when they abort.”

Regardless of whether you are a woman or a man, you will agree that in each of our lives, we will find ourselves in a dilemma that could be called a "tragic choice": the two choices can be characterized, roughly speaking, as the choice between doing something heroic that calls for great sacrifice on our part and, on the other hand, avoiding that sacrifice by perpetrating injustice through action or inaction.  I don't think we should judge the hearts those who choose the latter path, because we don't know how they experienced their circumstances.  Nor should we pretend that what they did was just.  We should pity or pardon them instead; we should work together to try to make a work where such tragic choices are less frequent; and we should acknowledge our responsibility and society’s (including the government’s) responsibility to take every step to help those who uphold justice even at great personal sacrifice.