All those in favour of abortion?

Well, it's 10pm so naturally it must be time to talk about something really fucking serious right before bed. It's been a while since I've posted anything, but I've been meaning to write this for a long time. 
This one stems from the a belief a lot of people have about a specific topic that seems to draw more controversy than almost anything else. I'm talking, of course, about abortion. 

Now bear with me, this is obviously a very touchy subject, and as a straight white dude there's going to be a lot of people claiming that I really shouldn't have a say about this as it clearly doesn't affect me. My problem with that kind of argument is that it makes absolutely no sense - of course it doesn't affect me. The fact is, abortion affects only one person: the mother. The choice rests with her, and it does so for a very good reason. Allow me to elaborate.

There is a concept which many people within the women's rights movement will know of, but few others will. Not knowing the name of this concept doesn't really matter however, because everyone at some point has been glad that this concept exists, and that in many places it is written into law.

The concept is known as Bodily Autonomy, or Bodily Integrity; It is one of the 10 capabilities laid out under Capabilities Approach, which was put out in the 80's as an extension of existing Human Rights codes to plug some fairly sizable holes in existing welfare the world over. It is generally regarded by most as law within the developed world, and is recognised as such by the UN. The concept is fairly simple - The freedom to move from place to place, to be provided with lawful protection against sexual assault, to be able to choose your own sexual partners and not be forced to make physical contact with anyone, nor have physical contact of any kind forced upon you.

This is just the basis however, as the concept goes a little deeper to describe the methodology of consent relating to the human body. Essentially, it stipulates that no one is allowed to physically use your body in any way without your consent, before or after death. Think for a second about what this means:

1. If someone requires an organ transplant or blood transfusion in order to live, you cannot be forced to provide either by law. 
2. In the event of your death, you cannot be farmed for organs or used for any purpose other than what is laid out in your will, or dictated by your next of kin. This is why donor cards are a great idea. 
3. If you are having sex and decide that you no longer wish to have sex with that person, you have a legal right to revoke your consent. At that point, any contact is legally classed as rape. 
4. It also works the other way around. If you want something from someone else that requires access to their body, they have the right to say no, even if it would cost you your life. 

So as we can see, it's a fairly simple idea. There are obviously those people who would suggest that not being forced to give up a bit of blood to save someone's life is selfish, but remember that we are talking about a law here, not an act of empathy. It's important to bear this in mind, because by no stretch of the imagination am I suggesting that this is a motto to live by. It is something to keep in mind, to make you feel a little more secure in the knowledge that your body is protected by law. Equally important is that I'm not suggesting that abortion is something to take lightly, for a lot of people it will clearly be a very distressing choice, and a very big deal... but should that factor in to law? Emotions aside, the premise of the concept is very clear.

So how is this relevant to abortion? Well, a fetus uses the mother's body for sustenance. Without a host to live from, a fetus would die. You can probably see where this is going... in the same way that you cannot be forced to donate blood or organs to save someone's life, you cannot be forced to keep an unborn child. When a woman gets pregnant, she effectively enters into an agreement to allow the fetus to use her body for the duration of the pregnancy. However, just like the 3rd scenario above, the woman can withdraw this consent at any time.

Some people may see this as barbaric, and far too "clinical" for something that relates to what they see as a human life, but remember that laws are not put in place to only apply under certain scenarios. You cannot say that every scenario is different and requires different laws - if the woman was going to die if she didn't have an abortion, very few people would complain. If the woman had been raped, very few people would complain. The fact is, the rules must apply to ALL PEOPLE and in ALL SCENARIOS for them to be lawful. A woman having an abortion after being sexually assaulted has the same rights as a woman who chooses to have an abortion in a long term relationship. This makes perfect sense; would we really want people deciding what laws should be based on individual cases rather than considering the whole picture? You can ask the African American population, I'm fairly sure they'll give you an insight into how problematic that can be.

It's worth remembering that in America, there is nothing in the constitution that directly defends bodily autonomy. The Supreme Court has defended many cases in favour of it, whether they were for abortion, organ donation, or even body farming, but it is not directly protected. That said, the UN recognises bodily autonomy as part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so lawfully you are still protected.

So where does that leave us? Well, when we consider the message of the Anti-Choice stance as part of this law, the conclusion is abundantly clear:

If you wish to willfully revoke a woman's right to abortion, you are giving more rights to an unborn fetus than any living human being on the planet, and are granting fewer rights to the mother than you would a corpse.