The appeal to bodily autonomy often claims that because no one is required to keep a born child alive with their body, no one should be required to keep an unborn child alive with their body either. But that comparison doesn’t actually hold once the situations are examined carefully.
With born children, care almost never requires a choice between continued bodily support and killing. If a parent cannot or will not provide direct care, the child can be handed over to another caregiver, to medical professionals, or to the state. The option to transfer care means bodily autonomy can be respected without ending the child’s life.
To see whether bodily autonomy alone truly resolves the issue, consider a case where transfer is impossible. Imagine a two-year-old in a hospital who can survive only by being connected to another person’s kidney for nine months. The connection already exists—whether it began through consent or through coercion. The crucial detail is that the only way to end the connection is not a simple unplugging that allows the child to die later from illness, but an intentional act that directly kills the child first.
In that situation, the choice is stark: either remain connected for nine months, or deliberately suffocate the child. Even if the person desperately wants the connection to end, deliberate killing is not morally permitted. When the only alternatives are sustaining a dependent child or intentionally killing that child, bodily autonomy does not justify the lethal option. Remaining connected is therefore required—not because bodily autonomy has no value, but because it does not include a right to intentionally kill an innocent human being.
Key Takeaways
Bodily autonomy normally allows refusal of care only when care can be transferred without killing; pregnancy is morally distinct because transfer is impossible.
The key issue is not dependence, but whether ending dependence requires direct, intentional killing.
In both unborn and exceptional born-child cases, when the only alternatives are support or suffocation, killing is not permitted.
Bodily autonomy has limits: it does not ground a right to intentionally kill an innocent human being to resolve dependency.