A stock argument for abortion rights is that outlawing abortion violates a woman's bodily integrity. There are, however, problems with that argument:
i) By that logic, an abortion violates the bodily integrity of the baby. So the argument is self-refuting.
ii) Is bodily autonomy absolute? If a depressed teenager is about to commit suicide, and I'm in a position to stop it, should I intervene, or does that violate his (or her) freedom to do whatever he wants with his own body?
iii) Do I have a right to get high or get drunk, then get behind the wheel of a car? That's what I want to do with my body. Is it wrong for government to infringe on my bodily integrity in that situation?
iv) Historically, governments haven't hesitated to draft men to fight wars. What about the bodily autonomy of men? What if they don't want their bodies to be used in war? Tough luck!
Suppose you oppose conscription. But what if it's a war of national survival, like England was facing in WWII?
v) Traditionally, women were exempt from the draft. So the charge of sexism backfires. In this case, men were having to assume a burden that women were not. The risk of death or injury in battle. The risk of capture and torture by the enemy.
I've talked to some pro-choicers recently who have relied very heavily on the inside-the-mother's-body argument. They dismiss all counter-examples to bodily autonomy because they don't involve another human being being *inside* of the other person.
ReplyDeleteHow would you respond a person who kept pushing the fact that a fetus is inside of another human and says that in no other instances would we allow another person to remain inside of someone else against their will?
Jonathan B
Delete"I've talked to some pro-choicers recently who have relied very heavily on the inside-the-mother's-body argument. They dismiss all counter-examples to bodily autonomy because they don't involve another human being being *inside* of the other person. How would you respond a person who kept pushing the fact that a fetus is inside of another human and says that in no other instances would we allow another person to remain inside of someone else against their will?"
So they agree the fetus is a human person, because they say these "in no other instances would we allow another person to remain inside of someone else against their will" (emphasis mine).
As such, then, even if (arguendo) there were "no other instances," then so what? If the fetus is a human person, then why shouldn't an otherwise innocent human person have the right to live, even if it means "remain[ing] inside of someone else against their will"?
Say my name is Ray Palmer and I'm the Atom. Say I've shrunken myself down and am currently inside the body of a friend. Say due to some problem, I can't unshrink, and I can't leave my friend's body without dying, though he wishes otherwise. Say my friend knows all this. Would it be morally licit for my friend to expel me, knowing full well it would mean certain death for me, because he doesn't want me in his body?
DeleteI'd add it's not a simple matter of "allow" or not "allow" if by "allow" we imagine some sort of a passive process. Medical abortion is usually an active procedure.
Delete