Bodily Autonomy is not a good argument for abortion for most people

Author: WyIted
Abortion
personhood
pro choice
pro life
bodily autonomy

Posts

Total: 54
Topic's author
#1
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,881
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
The only argument we hear from the left is that we should have abortion due to respecting a woman's bodily autonomy. I am not sure if this argument is used to appeal to the fact conservatives prioritize freedom, but it doesn't seem to be honest and at best is inconsistent.

Personally I think it's wrong to murder a child whether it might infringe on a person's bodily autonomy or not, but let's just assume that the child doesn't count as a human. Let's examine the bodily autonomy argument alone.

# The Argument

Premise 1 -  bodily autonomy is or should be a right
premise 2 - banning late abortions infringes on bodily autonomy
conclusion- Abortion bans interfere with the right to bodily autonomy

## What is Bodily Autonomy

For the definition of bodily autonomy I went to an organization that advocates for the right to abortion. https://arc-southeast.org/2024/01/12/what-does-bodily-autonomy-mean/

*Bodily Autonomy refers to each person’s right to make decisions about their own body, without coercion or limits imposed by outside forces*

This is also how Libertarians and others who think of the philosophical definition of bodily autonomy would define it. They would call it self ownership, but it's essentially the same thing.  Many would limit this and say something along the lines of "Your right to swing your fist, ends where my face begins", but those advocating a pro choice position I have never seen bring this up.

I think it's not brought up because most pro life people would agree with the bodily autonomy premise if you add in the statement about autonomy ending where another person's face begins. Then the argument is about personhood again.

The bodily autonomy argument we can take should take precedent over the baby's life.

## What this analysis leaves out

The one thing I want to leave out here is that the bodily autonomy argument may be a pro choice strawman in and of itself. It's not worth discussing much, if it is. If it's a type of projection where they think pro life proponents have some secret wish to control the bodies of women than the argument cannot be taken seriously. Even that projection would be a way to attempt to get around the beliefs of most pro life proponents. The true belief that they legitimately believe an unborn baby is a real person who deserves to be protected in her most vulnerable state, while she is completely dependent on her mother.

If you don't actually believe in bodily autonomy (at least in its most extreme form) than just be honest and give your true argument which is most likely that an unborn baby is not a person and doesn't deserve any special protection. Also if you that is you than this isn't for you other than to point out your hypocrisy.

Another thing the analysis leaves out is any sort of argument against the most extreme pro life arguments. nearly all people who call themselves pro life will still support abortions if they put the health or life of the mother at undue risk, and I think a sizable amount of those who call themselves pro-life will also not object to abortions done in the first few months of pregnancy when the unborn child has quite obviously not achieved personhood.

This analysis is also not for libertarians. I have found that there is an extreme form of libertarianism that is entirely consistent with their beliefs in bodily autonomy up to the point of legalizing child neglect.

## What a consistent belief in bodily autonomy looks like

There are some that take the bodily autonomy premise as an absolute and take it seriously, but first and to reiterate the point we know that pro life people believe in bodily autonomy to a certain extent. They just believe that bodily autonomy ends where another persons face begins.

The pro choice people who just claim to believe to in bodily autonomy in the same way would just disagree with whether an unborn baby counts as a "person".

Others who respond to pro life arguments about the sanctity of personhood by bringing up bodily autonomy are admitting in a roundabout way that they just value a person's bodily autonomy over the life and health of another.

### Covid 19

A consistent belief in bodily autonomy would not support vaccine mandates or forced mask wearing. Granted this won't apply to all liberals who support bodily autonomy. Most of the calls for vaccine mandates during the time of Covid 19 were a small minority of liberals, in the United States at least. Liberals in other countries need to know they are most likely inconsistent on bodily autonomy and reconcile that somehow.

### Taxes and Subsidies

Taxes are probably going to be the biggest inconsistency, showing the bodily autonomy argument doesn't work as a good enough premise.  By necessity if you do support any sort of social subsidies than you necessarily would have to support taxation, because otherwise the subsidies would be unfunded.

Perhaps you could argue that the government could print money and then taxes would be unnecessary. I would argue that printing money is a form of taxation since it dilutes the current money supply and decrease the value of money.

Taxes and subsidies present a problem for those who use autonomy to argue in favor of the pro-choice position due to the previously mentioned bodily autonomy argument.

Income is derived from labor and it is income from this labor that is taxed. This means that at least some of the time you do not have the self ownership that is required to claim you have bodily autonomy. If you work 10 hours and the money from 1 of those hours goes to taxes, than the government owned your body for that hour.

By extension, if a persons labor is required for the subsidies or "positive rights". Meaning by law they have to perform a service or they are arrested or punished for dereliction of duty, it would violate bodily autonomy. Requiring the MMR vaccine, somebody to show up to get an ID, or even to stop masturbating in public are all violations of bodily autonomy.

## Conclusion

The only people consistent on bodily autonomy are Hoppes style Libertarians, so it is not a valid argument against those who believe they are standing up for the rights of babies. If your real argument is that the unborn baby does not have personhood, I would use that instead, but if you actually think bodily autonomy is a good argument and does not end where a person's face begins than you should reconsider your other beliefs, that is if you are not already a libertarian or anarchist.
#2
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 388
Posts: 12,199
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@WyIted
Some say that unwanted fetus is just a brainless rapist.

I am not that great fan of an abortion. I find it disgusting that someone would even think to do it. But I dont really care enough.
Topic's author
#3
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,881
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Best.Korea
I don't have a strong opinion on it but I wanted to explore the line of logic
#4
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 388
Posts: 12,199
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@WyIted
Body autonomy has many variants, but I prefer "wish morality" over it because its a much more simple concept which pretty much anyone can understand because everyone knows what wish is.
#5
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,588
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@WyIted
There is a common sense approach to unwanted conception.

Though humans beings have a habit of not being commonly sensible.
#6
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,248
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
There is a common sense approach to unwanted conception.

Though humans beings have a habit of not being commonly sensible.
It should be a matter between the woman and her doctor. Women should have the right over her own body.
#7
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,588
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Shila
There's something called the morning after pill.

No Doctor required.


#8
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,248
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
There's something called the morning after pill.

No Doctor required.
Trump is planning to ban that too.
#9
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,588
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Shila
Does that surprise me.

So they wait for the guy to die.

Or the assassins bullet.


#10
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,248
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Does that surprise me.

So they wait for the guy to die.

Or the assassins bullet.
Trump has his pen ready to sign the ban order.
#11
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,588
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Shila
No doubt.

But bans are there to be ignored.
#12
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 388
Posts: 12,199
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Shila
Women should have the right over her own body.
Yes. Its her body. Plus, its kinda weird for people to want to own women now that we have AI.

#13
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
Did you include selected service as part of bodily autonomy? How about forcing servitude through child support?
#14
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,248
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Did you include selected service as part of bodily autonomy? How about forcing servitude through child support?
Stay on topic. Bodily Autonomy is not a good argument for abortion for most people
#15
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,594
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@Shila
Bodily Autonomy is not a good argument for abortion for most people
You mean the argument you literally just made?
#16
baggins
baggins's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 108
1
3
9
baggins's avatar
baggins
1
3
9
-->
@WyIted
Can you define person and put in a syllogism why you think bodily autonomy is not a good argument for pro choice? 

Topic's author
#17
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,881
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@baggins
Can you define person and put in a syllogism
no it wouldn't be possible for me. I haven't taken a position on personhood in this thread either. I also have not taken a position on abortion in this thread


why you think bodily autonomy is not a good argument for pro choice?

Sure, the thread is about for most people it doesn't serve them well not all. 

P1. People should not use arguments inconsistent with the conclusions of their other positions

P2. Many liberals hold inconsistent views on bodily autonomy

Conclusion- many liberals should seek to resolve those inconsistencies or they should move to other argument.s in favor of their pro choice opinion

#18
baggins
baggins's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 108
1
3
9
baggins's avatar
baggins
1
3
9
-->
@WyIted
I must acknowledge that my reading of your post was somewhat cursory, so I apologize in advance for any potential misinterpretations.

The definition of bodily autonomy you employ in this context may be somewhat tricky. For me, bodily autonomy is fundamentally the right to make decisions regarding one’s own body, and I also agree with the adage that "my freedom to swing my fist ends where your face begins." So there are limits to bodily autonomy. Therefore, I would argue against including the phrase “without coercion or limits imposed by outside forces.” This is because if I, for instance, choose to engage in an act of self-destructive behavior, such as strapping to myself and detonating a bomb in a public area, this decision to harm my own body would likely have adverse consequences for others. In such instances, society holds the legitimate right to impose restrictions in order to safeguard the well-being of its members, particularly if I wish to coexist within that society. Thus, I would frame bodily autonomy as the freedom to act as one wishes with one’s own body, provided such actions do not infringe upon or harm another individual’s bodily autonomy.

Regarding issues like COVID-19 and taxation, I do not see any inherent inconsistency within liberal perspectives on these matters. If an individual chooses to live within a society, they must respect the well being and welfare of that society. While one has the right to refuse vaccination, forgo wearing a mask, or otherwise disregard preventive health measures, such autonomy cannot extend to actions that may jeopardize the health and safety of others. In this context, the right to refuse medical intervention or precautionary measures, such as vaccination, is contingent upon not imposing a risk to others. If one wishes to exercise full autonomy over their health decisions without any restrictions, they must do so in isolation, away from the risks of contagion inherent in social environments. This constitutes a limitation on bodily autonomy to prevent harm to others.

With respect to taxation, the argument is similarly straightforward: individuals are obliged to contribute to the communal infrastructure and services they utilize. If one objects to paying taxes, they are free to attempt to live outside of the system that provides those services, such as in an isolated, self-sufficient environment. Of course, such an endeavor would be practically challenging, given the complexities of modern society and its interdependent systems.

The issue of whether an unborn baby constitutes a person who is harmed is a subject of  debate, and its answer hinges on one’s definition of personhood. Is personhood contingent upon subjective experience, individuality, or another criterion? This is a complex and interesting question that deserves further exploration.

Even if we accept the premise that an unborn baby is, indeed, a person, another question arises: does a this person have the right to use the body of another person without consent? This situation parallels the ethical dilemmas surrounding organ donation or life-saving medical treatments. We generally do not compel individuals to donate organs or provide medical care to others, even when the recipients are in dire need. Thus, the issue becomes whether an unborn baby, assuming it is granted personhood, can claim bodily autonomy over the pregnant person's body, and if so, to what extent this claim is justified.

Topic's author
#19
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,881
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@baggins
Even if we accept the premise that an unborn baby is, indeed, a person, another question arises: does a this person have the right to use the body of another person without consent? This situation parallels the ethical dilemmas surrounding organ donation or life-saving medical treatments. We generally do not compel individuals to donate organs or provide medical care to others, even when the recipients are in dire need. Thus, the issue becomes whether a fetus, assuming it is granted personhood, can claim bodily autonomy over the pregnant person's body, and if so, to what extent this claim is justified.
I think it's fair to have a hierarchy of values and valuing life above autonomy while still valuing both.

I also have to assume a person would believe a parent has an obligation to feed their child or help them if they are choking and this would infringe on bodily autonomy. So we would agree that some level of interrupting the bodily autonomy of the mother is acceptable. 

You also have seemed to accept that with vaccines or taxes we have an obligation to interrupt our bodily autonomy for the benefit of others . The baby would be the other. 

If you are asking me what would give that baby some right over their mother's body, I would argue something along the lines of social contract theory. By engaging in sexual intercourse you are signing a type of covert contract with the yet to be baby where you agree to carry them to full term and take care of them. 

My argument that the baby has rights over the mother would be rooted in a variation of social contract theory.
#20
baggins
baggins's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 108
1
3
9
baggins's avatar
baggins
1
3
9
-->
@WyIted

I think it's fair to have a hierarchy of values and valuing life above autonomy while still valuing both.

This statement is generally plausible, but it remains somewhat broad and does not offer substantial guidance in addressing complex dilemmas such as this one. The interplay between values like autonomy and the preservation of life often involves nuanced considerations that require more specific analysis, especially when the circumstances are multifaceted and context-dependent.



A parent has an obligation to feed their child.

It is indeed expected that parents provide for their children, particularly when they have made the conscious decision to bring a child into the world. In this regard, parents assume a significant responsibility to nurture and care for their kids. However, I would argue that "obligation" may be too strong of a term. Parents retain the autonomy to place their child for adoption for example, should they choose to relinquish their parental rights. Therefore, the notion of obligation may not be absolute, but rather contingent upon the parent's decision to maintain custody.


Help them if they are choking.

Yes, in many societies, there is a general expectation to assist a person, particularly a child, who is in imminent life danger. It is reasonable to assume that individuals should intervene if they can do so without significant personal risk, especially when the situation involves an easily preventable harm, such as choking. However, it is important to draw a distinction between this and more significant life-threatening situations.

Helping a choking child may require only minimal effort and impose no substantial risk to the person providing assistance. In contrast, situations like rescuing a child from drowning may demand a far greater level of risk, particularly if the potential rescuer is not trained or is personally unable to swim. In these cases, no ethical framework mandates that an individual should put their life at risk for the sake of another. The risks involved are considerably different, and thus, pregnancy can be more accurately likened to the second, more dangerous scenario.

Pregnancy involves far-reaching consequences, including long-term bodily changes, potential medical complications, and the risk of significant harm. Therefore, it is not analogous to helping a child who is choking, which is a comparatively minor and temporary intervention.



You also have seemed to accept that with vaccines or taxes we have an obligation to interrupt our bodily autonomy for the benefit of others.

It is essential to recognize the distinction between voluntary participation in society and coerced compliance. When individuals choose to engage in certain social structures, such as citizenship or participation in a public health system, they are, by extension, consenting to certain collective obligations—such as vaccination or the payment of taxes—that contribute to the broader public good.

In the case of pregnancy, however, the situation differs. If a woman voluntarily chooses to continue a pregnancy, she consents to the use of her body for the benefit of the baby. This is a conscious and deliberate choice, distinct from societal mandates that require individuals to forfeit bodily autonomy in cases where public harm might result (e.g., in the case of contagious diseases). An unborn child, due to its developmental stage, cannot be reasonably considered to possess full bodily autonomy, which further complicates the ethical calculus in this situation.
So in society we only interrupt our bodily autonomy if we could endanger other people’s bodily autonomy. Considering also that we are not harming ourselves by doing so. 


By engaging in sexual intercourse you are signing a type of covert contract with the yet-to-be baby, where you agree to carry them to full term and take care of them.

I must strongly disagree with this assertion. Consent to engage in sexual activity should not be equated with consent to endure pregnancy and parenthood. Sexual consent pertains to the act itself and, at most, to the potential for conception. The potential for pregnancy is an inherent risk associated with sexual activity, but this does not constitute a contractual agreement to carry a pregnancy to term or assume parental duties.

The risk of pregnancy is a consequence that individuals are aware of when engaging in sexual activity, but it does not equate to consent to the full experience of pregnancy and childbirth. The decision to continue with a pregnancy is a separate and deliberate choice that goes beyond the initial consent to sexual activity. In other words, consent to sex is not the same as consent to the enduring and life-altering experience of carrying a child to term.


Consenting to sex is like signing up for a fitness class. You acknowledge the risk of injury, but you don't consent to a lets say a broken leg. Similarly, consenting to sex means accepting the possibility of pregnancy, but it doesn't mean agreeing to endure the entire experience of pregnancy and childbirth.


Topic's author
#21
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,881
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@baggins
Your text when checked is not passing an AI detector. If you are human use your own words
Topic's author
#22
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,881
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Barney
@whiteflame
Baggins needs to be warned about the heavy use of AI in their communication with other. I do have conversations with chat GPT to check my logic, but nobody comes to this site to talk with chat GPT
Topic's author
#23
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,881
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
Feel free to run his statements past an AI detector to check for yourselves.
#24
baggins
baggins's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 108
1
3
9
baggins's avatar
baggins
1
3
9
-->
@WyIted
Using my own words wont change my arguments. If you don't want to answer you don't have to. And I don't see a reason why I cant use AI to enhance my arguments and grammar. Never claimed Im not using it. I type my own arguments and then tell ChatGPT to make them sound better. If that is a problem for you sorry. 
#25
baggins
baggins's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 108
1
3
9
baggins's avatar
baggins
1
3
9
No need for anyone to check anything. I will admit here something that I thought it’s obvious and irrelevant. AI exists and people use it. I am one of them.

I type my answer in notes and give chatgpt the same task every time. “Make my argument sound more academic and check for mistakes without removing any content”. What is the problem?

It’s more important if my statements are correct not if AI helped me type them.



#26
baggins
baggins's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 108
1
3
9
baggins's avatar
baggins
1
3
9
-->
@WyIted
And by the way, I don't rely on ChatGPT to validate my logic, as it tends to be horrible in that. What I do is provide it with my reasoning and task it with enhancing my vocabulary since I’m not a native English speaker nor an academic. 

Secondly, even if I had no hand in any of my arguments, if the case is simply that you are wrong at the end it doesn’t matter who explained it to you. A robot or me, you are still incorrect. 


Topic's author
#27
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,881
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@baggins
Put in a prompt to make it as concise if possible if you can please. Sorry i just wanted to make sure you were in fact a human.
Topic's author
#28
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,881
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@baggins
Personally i don't have much respect for academia, I don't care about the rules of grammar beyond what is necessary to understand what is written 
 My goal is not necessarily to be correct either so it is important to me that I am engaging with humans. 

I think i made a mistake in my own original argument but i presented it anyway because i put a lot of effort into explaining the hypocrisy of some on the left. 

If you are curious my mistake was conflating bodily autonomy with self ownership. 

I still think the hypocrisy exists but it may be a bit over stated due to my conflation of those two concepts
Topic's author
#29
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,881
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
Here is my issue with chat GPT and why i don't think it precisely matches what you are trying to say. 

The risk of pregnancy is a consequence that individuals are aware of when engaging in sexual activity, but it does not equate to consent to the full experience of pregnancy and childbirth. The decision to continue with a pregnancy is a separate and deliberate choice that goes beyond the initial consent to sexual activity. In other words, consent to sex is not the same as consent to the enduring and life-altering experience of carrying a child to term.
Yes it's assumed we disagree on this point but this doesn't address my argument which is essentially the act of sex acts a type of covert social contract. 

This does state that you disagree, but that you acknowledge some sort of covert contract exists there. 

I appreciate you conceding the point some ort of contract exists. However you haven't really explained why your ideal of what that covert contract entails is more accurate than mine. 

I feel like whatever the hell you told the AI probably looks a bit different with better logic than what it spit out.
Topic's author
#30
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,881
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
Now this is how chat GPT have rebuttals to my points after I played with it a bit and I think these arguments are a bit superior than what you elicited. 

An intelligent pro-choice advocate would likely push back against **consent to sex implying responsibility for pregnancy** in a few key ways:  

### **1. Consent to Sex ≠ Consent to Pregnancy**  
They might argue that consenting to sex is not the same as consenting to **long-term physical use of one’s body.**  
- Example: If you drive a car, you accept the risk of an accident, but that doesn’t mean you have to donate your organs if you injure someone.  
- Sex is an action, but pregnancy is a **separate biological event** that happens **after** the action.  
- People can consent to sex while also taking steps (e.g., contraception) to avoid pregnancy. When birth control fails, forcing someone to continue pregnancy **punishes them for an outcome they actively tried to prevent.**  

### **2. No One Else Has This Level of Bodily Obligation**  
They might say that even if you **cause** another person to be dependent on you, the law does not force anyone to give up their body to sustain someone else.  
- Example: If a father causes a car accident that injures his child, he is legally responsible for **financial** damages but **not required to donate a kidney or blood**, even if it would save the child’s life.  
- Even **parents of born children** are not legally required to give their bodies for their children (e.g., forced organ donation, forced breastfeeding).  
- Pregnancy is unique in that it requires **one person’s body to sustain another’s survival for months**, which is a level of obligation the law doesn’t impose in other cases.  

### **3. Pregnancy is More than Just an Obligation—It’s a Physical Burden**  
A strong pro-choice advocate would emphasize that pregnancy is not just an inconvenience but a **major physical and medical risk**:  
- It can cause lasting physical harm (gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, birth injuries).  
- It can be fatal—pregnancy-related deaths still occur, especially in the U.S.  
- Even if someone *unknowingly* consents to sex, they might not have understood the full extent of pregnancy’s toll on their body.  

They would argue that if **bodily autonomy is absolute**, it should allow someone to remove an unwanted pregnancy just as they would refuse to donate an organ.  

### **How You Could Respond**  
- The **"sex vs. pregnancy" distinction** is weak because **causation matters**—if you **willingly** engage in an act that creates life, you have some responsibility for its outcome.  
- **Parental obligations exist before birth.** A parent can’t neglect a born child just because caring for them is burdensome. Why should this change before birth?  
- **Bodily autonomy is already limited in other cases.** If pregnancy is uniquely burdensome, we could focus on exceptions (rape, extreme medical risks) rather than a blanket right to abortion.  

### **Where This Leaves the Debate**  
Both sides have strong points, and the real disagreement is whether **pregnancy is a special case** where bodily autonomy can be overridden due to responsibility for the unborn. You could refine your argument by emphasizing **causation, parental duties, and the moral difference between killing vs. letting die.**
And you may even agree with these points but by allowing chat GPT to do most the work it made your points seem weaker than what I assume they actually are.