Introduction

Anne Flake, like many in the pro-choice camp, frames the abortion debate as a matter of freedom, specifically the freedom of bodily autonomy. But let’s be clear about what this really entails. Bodily autonomy, as it’s often defined, is the freedom to make choices about one’s own body without fear of violence or coercion. However, this so-called freedom, when taken to an absolute level, neglects a crucial aspect: the rights of the unborn child. In this article, I will directly challenge the notion of absolute bodily autonomy as argued by Anne Flake, exposing the inconsistencies in her position and highlighting the ethical responsibilities that are too often dismissed.

Bodily Autonomy: A Freedom with Limits

Bodily Autonomy Explained

We already recognize that bodily autonomy has its limits in society. For instance, consider the issue of vaccinations: for the sake of public health, individuals are often required to accept restrictions on their bodily autonomy. Similarly, when it comes to parental responsibility, society does not allow a parent to neglect their child to the point of harm or death under the guise of personal freedom. These examples demonstrate that bodily autonomy, as important as it is, cannot be absolute—especially when another human life is at stake.

Now, while I hypothetically agree with these societal limitations, it’s worth noting that Anne Flake has not clearly explained her position on whether society can impose such limits on bodily autonomy. Given the context of her arguments, it seems likely she does believe that society can impose limits, yet she avoids directly addressing this point. This lack of clarity raises important questions about the consistency of her stance on bodily autonomy, particularly in relation to the rights of the unborn.

Now, let’s take this to its logical conclusion. If we were to accept bodily autonomy as an absolute right, without any limitations, it could potentially justify not only abortion but also infanticide by neglect. If a parent claimed the right to absolute bodily autonomy, they might argue that they have no obligation to care for or sustain a child after birth, leading to the child’s death by neglect. This is where the danger lies: the same logic that defends absolute autonomy in the case of abortion could, if applied consistently, defend the neglect of a newborn, resulting in infanticide.

This is not a hypothetical slippery slope; it’s a direct consequence of the argument for absolute bodily autonomy. If society rejects the idea that bodily autonomy can justify infanticide by neglect—as it rightly should—then it must also reject the idea that bodily autonomy can justify abortion when the unborn child’s life is at stake. Anne Flake and others who argue for absolute bodily autonomy must confront this inconsistency in their position.

The Issue of Personhood and Its Implications

Anne Flake seems indifferent to the issue of personhood, dismissing it as irrelevant to the discussion of bodily autonomy. But here’s the problem: if personhood is truly irrelevant, then why should we think that bodily autonomy is a right that applies only to those who are born? If personhood doesn’t matter, why is bodily autonomy granted to everyone post-birth but denied to those still gestating?

The inconsistency becomes glaring: if personhood doesn’t determine the right to bodily autonomy, then bodily autonomy itself becomes a meaningless concept, arbitrarily applied. Flake’s indifference to personhood undermines her entire argument. If we can’t distinguish between those who have bodily autonomy and those who don’t based on personhood, then her defense of abortion based on bodily autonomy collapses. In this view, bodily autonomy would have to apply equally to the unborn, which would make abortion unjustifiable. Or, if bodily autonomy is indeed irrelevant, then the whole argument loses its foundation, as there’s no consistent basis to grant or deny this autonomy.

Anne Flake and those who share her view need to address this critical point. Ignoring the relevance of personhood doesn’t strengthen the case for bodily autonomy in abortion—it weakens it to the point of incoherence.

The Unanswered Questions in Anne Flake’s Argument

The Inconsistency of Absolute Autonomy

Anne Flake dismisses the argument that bodily autonomy should not be absolute, particularly in the context of parental responsibility. She may call it “silly,” but the ethical issues raised by the “cabin thought experiment” are anything but. This thought experiment, a direct response to the popular “violinist argument,” challenges the notion that bodily autonomy can justify any and all actions, including abortion. Yet, Flake and others like her fail to seriously engage with this critique, choosing instead to brush it aside. The question remains unanswered: Why should bodily autonomy be absolute in the case of abortion but not in other contexts, such as when a parent neglects their child?

Rights of Infants Before Birth

Flake’s argument also skirts around a critical issue: the rights of the unborn. She argues for the rights of infants after birth but refuses to acknowledge these rights before birth, simply because the unborn child is dependent on the mother’s body. But let’s be honest—dependence does not negate rights. An infant remains completely dependent on others for survival after birth, yet we recognize their right to life and hold parents responsible for their care. If post-birth dependence does not diminish an infant’s rights, why should pre-birth dependence be any different?

Bodily Autonomy and the Rights of the Unborn

The Ethical Dilemma

The crux of the issue is this: balancing the freedom of bodily autonomy with the rights of the unborn. Anne Flake and others in the pro-choice movement would have us believe that bodily autonomy should be absolute, even when it conflicts with the life of an unborn child. But this position is ethically untenable. If bodily autonomy is allowed to override the right to life, it sets a dangerous precedent, one that could justify all sorts of morally questionable actions.

Reevaluating the Debate

This debate demands more than just slogans about freedom; it requires a serious and consistent ethical framework. Flake’s dismissal of these concerns as irrelevant or silly doesn’t further her argument—it only exposes its weaknesses. We need to move beyond the superficial rhetoric and engage with the real ethical questions at play.

Conclusion

Bodily autonomy is indeed a freedom, but it is not an absolute one. It must be balanced with the rights of others, particularly the right to life of the unborn. Anne Flake’s argument for absolute bodily autonomy falls apart under scrutiny because it fails to address these crucial ethical responsibilities. I challenge those who advocate for such a position to consider the broader consequences of their stance and to engage in a more thoughtful and consistent dialogue on this critical issue.