In ‘My body, not my choice: against legalised abortion’, Hendricks offers an intriguing argument that suggests the state can coerce pregnant women into continuing to sustain their fetuses. His argument consists partly in countering Boonin’s defence of legalised abortion, followed by an argument from analogy. I argue in this response article that his argument from analogy fails and, correspondingly, it should still be a woman’s legal choice to have an abortion. My key point concerns the burdensomeness of pregnancy which is morally relevant to the question of whether the state can coerce people to use their bodies to help another person.
- Abortion - Induced
- Women's rights
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors All work was done solely by KvO.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- My body, not my choice: against legalised abortion
- Advertisements of follow-on formula and their perception by pregnant women and mothers in Italy
- Ethics briefings
- Critical notice—Defending life: a moral and legal case against abortion choice by Francis J Beckwith
- Henry Morgentaler: model for the UK?
- Circumventing the WHO Code? An observational study
- Authority without identity: defending advance directives via posthumous rights over one’s body
- Reviewing the womb
- Why there is no dilemma for the birth strategy: a response to Bobier and Omelianchuk
- Systematic review of infant and young child feeding practices in conflict areas: what the evidence advocates