Pro-Life Libertarians: Why isn’t forcing someone to carry a pregnancy to term the moral equivalent of a forced bone marrow donation?
Hear me out. Let’s assume that a fetus is a human life and one with a right to live. That assumption resolves the most common disagreement among pro-choice and pro-life libertarians, for the purposes of this argument.
But let’s also assume that the abortion procedure we’re talking about merely removed the fetus from the mother’s body and allowed it to die naturally (if it couldn’t survive on its own), rather than affirmatively killing it.
In short, both cases are solely about whether a person has a right to refuse access others access to their bodies in life or death situations.
This scenario puts unborn children in functionally the same place as a person in need of a bone marrow transplant:
- Both are people with a right to life.
- Both require access to another person’s body to continue living.
Conversely, both the mother and the donor have a right to bodily autonomy and a right to grant or refuse access to their body to anyone.
Why then would a prospective donor have a right to refuse access to their body to whose life depends on a donation, but a mother should have no right to refuse continued access to her body by an unborn child? Why does a woman have less of a right to control her body than a prospective donor?
tl;dr – Why are we resolving the “right to life” in favor of bodily autonomy in one instance but not the other?
Article from r/Libertarian: For a Free Society