Rethinking “Bodily Autonomy”: Human Dependence and Prospective Responsibility

In her famous paper, “A Defense of Abortion,” Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that the fetus's bodily dependence circumscribes her right to life. This paper shall argue that this “bodily autonomy thesis” is false, and that there are several morally salient features of pregnancy that it overlooks. As I argue for these points, I shall also suggest that Thomson's rejection of natural obligations lacks good justification, and that her arguments might also depend upon assumptions about personhood that most pro-lifers would reject.