During the 1830s, Southern slaveholders developed a multi-faceted defense of slavery on the basis of notions of white supremacy. A political component of their belief system was the view that slaves were property. Slaveholders argued that they had the right to determine what happened to their property. Slaveholders also argued that science 'proved' that Africans were not quite human and therefore not entitled to the natural rights of people of European descent.
In my view, those who favor a woman's right to slaughter her unborn child frequently offer arguments that are disturbingly similar to these two components of one of the most
self destructive ideologies Western civilization has ever produced. (Here, I am agreeing with
John Dower and others who argue that notions of racial superiority are a double-edged knife that cuts deeply the wielding hand.)
I believe that arguing that the body is property is ultimately an act of self-annihilation. If feminist history teaches us anything, it shows that some men have dominated some women by defining women as property. In my view, turning that argument on its head and saying women own themselves is not an intellectually sustainable position because property can be bought, sold, and stolen. To put it bluntly: if a woman can argue that she owns her body, a pimp can argue that she's his piece of ass. (As evidence, I would refer an interested party
here).
In my view, arguing that science proves the validity of a political and cultural argument is perilous. The only sure lesson of scientific inquiry is that what we know is but a shadow of what we don't know. What will we say as a society if science eventually proves what many (including myself) believe: that human beings are invested with an immortal soul and that soul takes shape at the moment of conception?