And what if Bill DIDN'T poison her, but was still the only possible match? Should he be required to give up his kidney anyway?
Since Bill isn't responsible for Sally's situation, it would be very difficult to make the case that his body autonomy should be violated.
But that's not the situation I'm presenting.
Ah yes, the "She should have known what she was getting into when she decided to have sex" argument.
It's probably a good idea that everyone who has sex knows what they're getting into, correct?
What about rape? What about failed birth control?
In the case of rape, the woman has no assumption of risk because she's not a willing participant. So she wouldn't be required to give up her body autonomy.
In the case of failed birth control however, unless the woman is being tricked into thinking the particular method she or her partner is using is 100% effective, then she understands that there is risk in using any type of birth control, no matter how small. That's part of the "knowing what you're getting into" that's very important.
You can make the case that since the woman understands and is a willing participant in the assumption of risk inherent in having certain kinds of sex, she forfeits her rights to body autonomy if she becomes pregnant.
I don't believe that a fertilized egg is a person. I don't believe a cluster of cells is a person.
Then argue that point instead. The body autonomy argument is flawed for the reasons I've mentioned, and is easily shot down.
Upvote
0