Posted by Eugene Volokh:
Is This Really "Switching Sides"?
[1]Slate's Human Nature -- which I generally much like -- contains
this item:
Liberals and conservatives switched sides on silicone breast
implants. At an FDA hearing, supporters of traditional femininity
defended a woman's right to choose such implants, even with a
health risk. Pro-choicers on abortion argued that the implants were
too dangerous to legalize universally.
Really? I don't think that "supporters of traditional femininity" have
ever rejected a woman's right to choose things that might be risky to
their health. I don't think such supporters ever had a consistent
views on breast implants as such, but they haven't, I think, taken a
paternalistic view on mere health risks. Pro-life forces oppose
abortion because of its effects on the health (and more) of the fetus,
not chiefly of the woman.
Some of them have argued (whether rightly or not) that abortions may
be dangerous to the woman, perhaps hoping that this may make abortions
seem less appealing. But the ultimate reason to make abortions less
appealing is to save the life of the fetus. (This isn't much different
from animal rights activists, some of whom may argue that eating meat
is bad for you, but who do so chiefly in the service of protecting
animals.)
The case for something of a switch by some pro-choice people is a bit
stronger: If they really articulate abortion rights as simply a
woman's nearly absolute right to control her own body (as some
pro-choice advocates) do, then they should also take the same view as
to potentially dangerous surgical procedures.
But the strongest pro-choice arguments -- and, I think, the true views
of most pro-choice advocates -- aren't just that a woman has a right
to control her own body. Rather, they also focus on the magnitude of
the burden that an unwanted pregnancy, and the creation of an unwanted
child, imposes on the woman. That's why many pro-choice people aren't
also pro-drug-legalization: Snorting cocaine also relates to what you
do with your own body, but unwanted abstinence from cocaine is
generally seen as a much lesser burden than unwanted pregnancy.
Likewise, that one thinks women have a right to avoid an unwanted
pregnancy doesn't mean that they have a right to seriously risk their
own health for merely cosmetic purposes. (The matter is more complex
when the issue isn't just increasing the breast size of healthy but
small breasts, but reconstructing breasts after a mastectomy, but I
set that aside for now.)
Now as it happens, I think there's a strong case against the
paternalist view, and in favor of letting women risk their health even
for cosmetic reasons. But one can easily be a paternalist generally
and pro-choice on abortion rights -- it's not switching sides or
straddling the fence, I think, to hold such a view.
References
1. http://slate.com/id/2116333/
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://highsorcery.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
