Does 'my body, my choice' mean the fetus IS her body?

The slogan “my body, my choice” is often defended by pointing out that, for roughly the first 24 weeks of pregnancy, the fetus cannot survive outside the woman’s body and is biologically dependent on her. From this, it is argued that she alone should decide what happens. But dependence and location do not transform the fetus into part of her body. Being inside someone, or relying on them for survival, does not erase biological distinctness or collapse two bodies into one.

This distinction matters because most people already accept that bodily autonomy has limits when actions directly harm what is developing within the body. If “my body, my choice” literally meant unlimited control over anything inside one’s body, then it would also justify deliberately ingesting substances during pregnancy that are known to cause severe birth defects, such as babies being born without arms or legs. Yet even many who strongly support abortion rights reject that conclusion. That shared moral intuition reveals that the principle is not actually absolute.

The problem, then, is not recognizing that pregnancy involves real burdens or that women’s bodies matter. The problem is treating “my body, my choice” as a blanket justification that overrides all other moral considerations. Once we admit that some actions are wrong because of the harm they cause to the developing human inside the womb, we implicitly acknowledge that the fetus is not simply the woman’s body and that bodily autonomy alone cannot settle the moral question. As a moral standard, the slogan functions less as a careful principle and more as an extremist claim that collapses under its own implications.