When it comes to bodily autonomy, one could opt for the reverse-violinist argument. I like to add my own twist and personalize it. It goes something like this. It is aimed at a person (I am saying “you”), but at nobody in particular, if that makes sense:
Say I infect your significant other (wife, husband, parent, child) with a crippling disease that makes it so that the only way they can live is by having me hooked up to them and using my kidneys to filter their blood for 23 weeks (we’ll go with this since it is closer to viability). We are sitting in the hospital hooked up to each other. Even though I am responsible, I don’t particularly feel like staying hooked up to this person for 5-6 months. Even though I might be charged with assault and murder, I am willing to allow it to be free of this months-long burden. Would you defend my right (or at least cede that I have the right) to unhook from your significant other, even though I put them there in the first place? If so, congratulations on your consistency. Just don’t tell your hypothetical significant other. If you do not think I have the right to unhook, then bodily autonomy is not total. It also opens up to the problem of the fact that parents having sex put that child in the situation in the first place.
Now, one might object that putting a healthy person in a state of need and bringing a person (or human) into existence who is already dependent are not the same. Perhaps not, but think of it this way. Say I have a baby machine that turns on when I press a button. The children come out dependent upon me, but since I was merely bringing them into existence instead of putting and already existing person in a situation of dependence, I have no obligation to them. Therefore, I leave them to die or kill them as I see fit. Is this morally allowable? If not, then I would say the objection, while true, is ultimately irrelevant.
