The right to bodily autonomy

The argument

A foundational argument that abortion should be legal is the right to bodily autonomy: the principle that every person has authority over their own body and what happens to it. This right is one of the most basic in ethics and law — it is why medical treatment requires consent, why no one may be compelled to donate blood or organs, and why a person's body cannot be used to sustain another's life against their will. Pregnancy involves another being developing inside, and dependent upon, a woman's body, drawing on her organs and physiology for many months. Bodily autonomy holds that whether to permit this profound use of one's own body must be the woman's decision. The argument is often sharpened through analogy. The law does not require even a parent to donate a kidney or bone marrow to save their own child's life, because no one can be forced to give over their body for another, however worthy the cause. If we will not compel a person to sustain an already-born life with their body, the argument runs, then we cannot consistently compel a woman to sustain a pregnancy with hers. To outlaw abortion is to make a unique exception, stripping pregnant women of a control over their own bodies that everyone else retains. From this standpoint, legality follows directly from the right. If a woman has authority over her own body, then she must be free to decide whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and the state may not override that authority by force of law. Banning abortion violates the bodily autonomy that is a basic right of every person. Because the right to bodily autonomy means a woman must control what happens within her own body, this argument holds, abortion should be legal.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Critics reply that no right, including bodily autonomy, is absolute; it must be weighed against the fetus's competing claim to life, which on their view begins at conception. Where a serious right to life is at stake, they argue, autonomy over one's body does not automatically override it. They also challenge the organ-donation analogy: declining to donate a kidney lets someone die, whereas abortion is an act that ends a life, and the two are morally distinct. They add that, rape aside, pregnancy typically follows the woman's own action in creating the dependent being, which on their view carries responsibilities that a pure autonomy account leaves out.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Critics argue no right, including bodily autonomy, is absolute; it must be weighed against the fetus's competing claim to life, which they hold begins at conception. [Rejecting P2] They challenge the organ-donation analogy: declining to donate lets someone die, whereas abortion is an act that ends a life, and the two are morally distinct. [Rejecting P3] They add that, rape aside, pregnancy typically follows the woman's own action in creating the dependency, which on their view carries responsibilities pure-autonomy accounts omit.