My body…
my choice.
For years it’s been the cry of pro-choice advocates, a rebuke of elected officials,
particularly congressMEN, to stop legislating how a woman can use her own body.
It’s a simple, catchy line that seems hard to argue with—of course we should be able
to do with our bodies what we want.
No one’s going to respond, “Actually, I want stuffy men in Washington telling me
what I can do with my own body!”
Of course not.
The reason that this phrase has been so successful in the debate over abortion is because it
taps into fundamental values about privacy, personal freedom, and fear of government overstep.
Which is why…
much to the surprise of many… the phrase was coopted by those on the complete opposite
end of the political spectrum in regards to vaccines.
“My body, my choice, RIGHT?
I don’t want stuffy men in Washington telling me what I can do with my body either.”
Advocates tapped into the same values of privacy, personal freedom, and fear of government overstep
to support their issue.
On the one hand it’s bizarre and hilarious to see the far right and the far left using
the same exact same logic against one another, each feeling morally superior.
In this case, they’re literally shouting the exact same words at each other as evidence
against the other.
What a perfect microcosm of the state of our political discourse today.
On the other hand…
it’s kind of just maddening.
What we’re dealing with here is an overly simplified, morally shallow statement.
My body, my choice is a shortsighted, selfish, inward-looking belief that disregards one’s
place in both God and society.
At one time we could take comfort that it was the issue of a particular agenda, relegated
to a small number of misguided people, but as it stretches the political spectrum of
late and will undoubtedly be used to support a third issue before long, one can’t help
to see it now as a perfect microcosm of the state of our moral development.
We can approach this from three different perspectives, addressing two present issues,
and one I foresee on the horizon.
The first, and easiest to address, is abortion.
It’s the OG, where “my body my choice” originated.
The idea, obviously, is that pregnancy occurs within a woman’s uterus, it intimately affects
her body, and so she should have the right to do with it what she wants.
The problem is that it does not deal exclusively with her body.
Within her is a living being that, though dependent on her, is not her.
We can debate whether it’s a human person with rights or it’s just a clump of cells—a
debate that often goes nowhere—but what can’t be denied is this: what is in her
uterus is alive; it has human DNA that, without interference, will become a human being; and
it is genetically distinct from the mother.
By no real definition can you say that whatever “it” is… is the woman’s body.
She may have a right to do what she wants with her uterus, but there is something, we
would argue someONE, else present.
My body my choice does not give someone the right to harm something adjacent to or dependent
on my body.
It’s not “mine.”
And so, that’s pretty straightforward.
For years pro-choice advocates have used this language and for years pro-life advocates
have pointed out the obvious flaw.
But now there’s a new issue—the debate over vaccines.
For critics of the COVID vaccine—or, really, any vaccine or medical measure that treats
infectious diseases—the logic of my body my choice seems to hold up stronger.
There’s no issue of hurting another being within, it’s purely a personal choice to
do what we want with our bodies…
right?
Yes, and no.
The primary issue here is in regard to what vaccines do, which is to mitigate the spread
of infectious and deadly diseases.
There is definitely an element of self-interest involved—not wanted to become infected—but
there is an inherently social element as well—communities as a whole require a certain level of immunity
to prevent the spread of diseases.
If, say, 50% of a community doesn’t get vaccinated, there is a significant chance
that the disease will continue to spread, continue to mutate, and continue to cause
harm in future generations.
For this reason, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued this statement
in 2020 regarding possible COVID Vaccines: “From the ethical point of view, the morality
of vaccination depends not only on the duty to protect one's own health, but also on the
duty to pursue the common good.
In the absence of other means to stop or even prevent the epidemic, the common good may
recommend vaccination, especially to protect the weakest and most exposed.”
While it could never be absolutely required as a moral imperative, the Catholic Church
does not teach that vaccinations are a mere matter of personal choice.
There IS a moral imperative to care for the common good, capable of being fulfilled by
vaccines.
There may be exceptional situations, but this does not free one from the responsible to
care for others.
The Church teaches that those choosing to remain unvaccinated must do everything in
their power to avoid the spread of disease.
What’s important here is that the defining principle isn’t that it’s my body…
it’s a careful consideration of my neighbor’s body as well.
The default position is to get vaccines for the sake of the whole, only allowing exceptions
in rare cases.
My body my choice doesn’t stack up because each of us is more than just “my body”…
we are a body together that must be cared for.
For most, this is just as easy to understand as the issue with abortion.
While some have raised their voices very loudly against vaccines, their numbers remain in
the minority.
Even instinctively, we get that we are more than isolated individuals and so saying “my
body my choice” is easily dismissed as laughable.
And we could end there.
For now, these are the only two issues where that line has been invoked and we can see
that it’s foolish in each case.
But I don’t think this is going to stop.
On the horizon is a new issue, one that has been picking up momentum of late, one that
will undoubtedly invoke the same logic… and it’s the most difficult to refute.
I’m speaking, of course, of euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide.
For years it has existed as topic of discussion but largely in an abstract sense, as it has
been illegal in most places around the world.
As the laws in certain places have changed in recent years, the issue has become more
of a reality.
A few weeks ago, I saw something that deeply upset me.
Not only had a woman chosen to end her life through medical assistance, she had done it
in a church, as a part of a “crossing over” ceremony.
With her family and friends there to say goodbye, a minister offered a blessing and a medical
team conducted a procedure that led to her death.
At a church.
With the full consent of the leadership team.
The woman in question had been diagnosed with ALS about a year before and had since lost
the ability to speak.
Her natural death was imminent, as her body was in steady decline with no cure, and so
you can see why there might be a lot of people on her side.
You can see why a church would see this as a compassionate thing to do, to alleviate
suffering.
In this case, “my body my choice” makes a lot of sense.
What this woman chose did not affect anyone else and it was done for seemingly “good”
reasons.
Doesn’t she have a right to do with her life what she wants?
For Catholics, the answer is “no.”
While the desire to alleviate suffering is admirable and ritualizing one’s entry into
new life is beautiful—we do it with last rights—the act of taking a life, for any
reason, at any stage, can never be morally permissible.
As much as it is our body, it is not our choice to do whatever we want with it—we are creations
of God, possessing life not due to own volition but as a result of God’s continued gift.
We may say that it is “my” body… but as far as faith is concerned, it doesn’t
belong to us.
Everything we have and are belongs to God.
In the case of terminal illnesses, we are not required to accept extraordinary means
of prolonging our lives—we can absolutely refuse experimental surgeries, expensive treatments,
or medications that leave us feeling horrible.
We can even receive palliative care to reduce pain, even if that indirectly quickens our
death.
But the thought of denying ordinary means of maintaining life—water, food, basic medications—or
worse yet, receiving medical treatment with the specific purpose of causing harm, is entirely
contrary to respecting the dignity of human life.
It does not honor life, does not show thanks for the gift we are given.
It puts us in control and takes God out it.
For those in the midst of great suffering, this might sound heartless.
Why prolong a deteriorating quality of life?
Why keep someone alive throughs suffering?
In these situations, I look to the words of C.S.
Lewis in his famous book, The Problem with Pain: “God whispers to us in our pleasures,
speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is his megaphone to rouse a deaf
world.”
For people of faith, there is something redemptive about suffering.
It is an opportunity to identify with the suffering Christ, a chance to be stripped
of even our physical and mental faculties to trust completely in God.
We would never want to inflict suffering on another, nor would we deny someone palliative
care, but we would also never want to deny them even a single opportunity for someone
to experience God either, to feel his mediated presence, to be redeemed through a deep sense
of catharsis and kenosis.
Who are we to cut God off from what God is doing?
What people go through in the final moments of their lives, when they are weak, suffering,
and completely out of control, might very well be the most important spiritual moment
of their entire lives.
In the interest of comfort, these moments are cut short.
Ceremonies like these will become only more common.
While the logic of “my body my choice” failed to fully take hold of our society when
it came to abortion or vaccines, I have a legitimate fear that it might finally click
when it comes to doctor assisted suicide and euthanasia.
And if it does, when does it stop?
How do we draw the line?
If there is no sense that one’s life is sacred, that it belongs to us and us alone
to do with it what we want, why would we think that it would be contained to dying old ladies
with ALS?
With “my body my choice” as the defining principle of ethics, it is only a matter of
time before perfectly healthy teenagers are making the argument for themselves.
You may think that this is a slippery slope argument or that this sign is meant to be
taken ironically, but I’m not that naive.
It may not happen quickly or immediately, but someone will argue this.
Someone will decide that they want to end their own life, not passionately or dramatically,
but ceremoniously and with the law on their side.
Currently, I am not aware of any place where this is possible, but it is not too far-fetched
to imagine.
A society that doesn’t value the life of the sick and elderly, that treats the unborn
as an inconvenience and thinks little of the common good, is not far from allowing any
loss of life.
As long as people believe that “my body my choice” is a viable ethic, the dignity
of life with be at stake.
It doesn’t make sense for abortion, it doesn’t make sense with vaccines, and it doesn’t
make sense with euthanasia.
All life is sacred, is connected to one another, and does not ultimately belong to us.
We must learn to treat it like the gift that it is.