Quote Originally Posted by TinCow
The United States plays lip service to this principle, but is far less open in practical terms. In this country the government can put to death people who want to live and prevent people who want to die from killing themselves. The government also heavily regulates what you can put into your body. Americans certainly own their own bodies in a property sense, but they cannot use that property as they wish in all situations. While technically the government does not interfere in personal ownership of the body, their limitations on use are essentially property limitations which impact ownership. Your physical body belongs to you, but your life/existence itself does not, since you are not free to do with it what you wish.

If you want to use the property law analogy, you own your body in fee simple, but the government has an irrevocable, lifetime easement on several aspects of its use. In property law, an easement is itself property. Thus, you would not own your entire body 'property' outright.
That doesn't help your argument, it just highlights that the U.S. legal system needs to be corrected over time. In fact, the whole idea of a "woman's body" should have never served their cause at the exclusion of ours - merely highlighted the issue. The same "Unborn child's body" argument could be made convincingly.

Listen, I like Ironing out the kinks in the system to make each individuals life and liberty as secure as possible. I don't believe that our current abortion laws do that because they de-humanize a large amount of people. People on the other side take a blind eye to unborn kids because they don't have to see them walking around town or feeling pain and stress.