A Compelling argument for a Woman’s Right to Choose
These are not my own words. I do not know the author, but I wanted to share them here and get your thoughts.
Reasonable people can disagree about when a zygote becomes a “human life” – that’s a philosophical question. However, regardless of whether or not a fetus is ethically equivalent to an adult, it doesn’t obligate a mother to sacrifice her bodily autonomy for another, innocent or not.
Bodily autonomy is a critical component of the right to privacy protected by the Constitution, as decided in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Mcfall v. Shimp (1978), and Roe v. Wade (1973).
Consider a scenario where you are a perfect bone marrow match for a child with severe aplastic anemia; no other person on earth is a close enough match to save the child’s life, and the child will certainly die without a bone marrow transplant from you. If you decided that you do not want to donate your marrow to save the child’s life, for whatever reason, the state cannot demand the use of any part of your body for something to which you did not consent.
It doesn’t matter if the procedure required to complete the donation is trivial, or if the rationale for refusing is flimsy and arbitrary, or if the procedure is all the hope the child has to survive, or if the child is a genius or a saint or anything else – the decision to donate must be voluntary to be constitutional.
This right is even extended to a person’s body after they die; if they did not voluntarily commit to donate their organs while alive, their organs cannot be harvested after death, regardless of how useless the organs are to the deceased or how many lives they would save. That’s the law.
Use of a woman’s uterus to save a life is no different from her bone marrow to save a life – it must be offered voluntarily. By all means, profess your belief that one’s uterus to save a child’s life is morally just, and refusing is morally wrong. That is a defensible philosophical position, regardless of who agrees or disagrees.
But legally, it must be a woman’s choice to carry out a pregnancy. She may choose to carry the baby to term. She may choose no to. Either decision could be made for all the right reasons, all the wrong reasons, or anything in between. But it must be her choice, protecting the right of bodily autonomy means the law is on her side. Supporting that precedent is what being pro-choice means.
Article from r/Libertarian: For a Free Society