You leaped from “remove the fetus from the womb” to “abortion” in this sentence.
I’m not saying your views are wrong.
I will point out that there are several existing examples where the interests of society already supersede the right to bodily autonomy of the individual.
The most salient is euthanasia.
If a pregnant woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy, then it is morally consistent (as well as practical) to insist that the terminally ill have the right to euthanasia.
Your article discusses the hierarchy of rights and deconstructs several arguments on both sides.
I’m wondering what your reaction to the “Abortion restriction is consistent with the hierarchy of rights recognized as much less controversial in our laws prohibiting euthanasia”?
The question of euthanasia, like military conscription, undermines the false assertion that abortion restrictions are the “only area of law in which one person is expected to surrender bodily autonomy for the sake of another.”
In fact, there are several precedents that are morally consistent with a hierarchy that places bodily autonomy beneath social interests.
I’m not arguing in agreement with them. I’m just pointing out the misconception.
My own views are pro-choice within constraints, anti-military conscription, and supportive of physician-assisted suicide (within constraints like terminal illness).
