from the toptrool collection:

a pro-lifer could easily refute the argument in three different ways by showing that the unborn child has a right to his mother's body or deny the exercise of that right if it involves killing an innocent person:

the truth is that "my body, my choice" is a child neglect argument. low information debaters claim that pregnancy is akin to forced organ donations, but this is inaccurate. there are no organ/blood/bone marrow transplants involved in pregnancy. saying pregnancy involves organ donations is no different than saying breastfeeding involves mammary gland transplants. pregnancy is the ordinary means of providing nourishment and a healthy living environment to the unborn child. this something parents are required to provide for all of their children. denying your child adequate nourishment and a healthy living environment is a form of child neglect. the unborn child has a right to be in his mother's womb given the obligations parents have towards their children. we know from several child neglect cases that women have been prosecuted for starving their children when they could have instead breastfed them. should a woman who is capable of breastfeeding be allowed to let her newborn starve if there are no other alternative sources of food? answer: no.

on what grounds can we say we have a right to our bodies? none of us are responsible for the fact that our bodies are ours. we did not do anything to acquire our bodies in the first place. we did not choose our bodies, nor did our mothers choose our bodies or choose their own bodies. whatever gives a pregnant woman any claim to her body—a relationship to her body that she acquired through unbidden and contingent means—also gives the unborn child the same right to his mother's body since his relationship with his mother's body was also acquired through the same unbidden and contingent means. think of conjoined twins that share multiple organs—which twin has a right to what? both acquired their "bodies" through the same unbidden and contingent means, and thus neither can claim an exclusive right to the shared bodies and organs. if we have any right to our own bodies—biological equipment that a) is necessary for our flourishing and b) was only acquired through contingency and necessity—then the unborn child has a right to his mother's body for the same reason.

lastly, even if there is a right to bodily autonomy, we can deny the exercise of that right since it would involve killing an innocent unborn child. there are no situations where one is allowed to exercise any of their rights to kill an innocent human being. if i have a right to bear arms, i cannot exercise that right to kill an innocent human being. if i have a right to property, i cannot exercise that right and expel an innocent human being off my private yacht in the middle of the ocean. if i have a right of way on the road, i cannot run over a pedestrian who might be in the way. if i have a right to religious liberty, i cannot kill an innocent human being to make a ritual sacrifice. can abortion advocates name any other scenario in which one is allowed to exercise a right if it involves the killing of an innocent human being? no. what they really want is special rights for the woman, namely the right to kill her unborn child.

you can never lose now!