1 Comment

  1. David
    April 24, 2014 @ 9:49 am

    I’ve been having a discussion with someone about the J.J. argument, ‘A Defense of Abortion’ aka The Violinist, which claims that even if there is a prenatal right to life (RTL), the pregnant woman’s right to bodily autonomy (RBA) still trumps it. There are obvious ways in which Thomson’s scenarios are not analogous to pregnancy and abortion (like causing the dependency instead of being uninvolved and killing instead of letting die), and I’ve addressed those. I also made the argument that since all rights – including RBA – presuppose a RTL, that the RTL is a more fundamental right and should trump the RBA. After I saw an article that you wrote on Lifenews, it occurred to me that there was another argument that I could make:

    It’s not really the woman’s RBA vs the unborn’s RTL. It’s actually a conflict of the woman’s RBA vs the prenatal RBA+RTL. Because the abortion usually ends a life, the RBA of the unborn child never gets considered, but in thinking about abortion survivors, it becomes obvious.

    Some people will haggle over two different competing rights, but I think it’s harder to disagree with something as simple as ‘(RBA+RTL)>RBA’


Leave a Reply to David Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.