Do those favoring “choice” support:
a) the “choice” of a parent to kill a one-year old with Downs syndrome (on grounds that they needed to let the child be born and live some period of time so that they could properly evaluate the benefits and costs of what life would be for and with such a child)?
b) the “choice” of a parent to have consensual sexual relations with a 13-year old (on grounds that it would be less traumatic and more educational for their child to have their first sexual intercourse with a loving/caring parent rather than subject them to all the risks of having this experience with a peer whose sexual inexperience/ignorance and/or psychological issues might result in their child being traumatized?)
c) the “choice” of a pet owner to have sexual relations with their pet (on grounds that so long as they are gentle and loving, this would be an enjoyable rather than exploitive experience for the pet: just one more domain in which to demonstrate their “love”).
The common denominator in all these situations is that the non-parent party involved is not presumed to have the capacity to make a mature adult choice and the party making the choice has the legal/ethical responsibility to make a choice that is in the best interests of that party. However, as the vignettes illustrate, the parent having such responsibility also has their own self-interest at stake. There is no guarantee that when the best interests of a child/pet collide with the self-interest of the parent/caretaker, that the decision made by the adult will necessarily be in the self-interest of the non-adult.
Thus, even if 99% of parents/caretakers can be relied upon to set aside their own interests entirely and make a judgment that truly would reflect the self-interest of those under their care, it would be imprudent for society to give such parents unfettered “choice.” Such a rule would permit those under their care to be exploited 1% of the time without any recourse. Thus, it would be safer for society to set default rules biased in favor of those lacking the judgment to decide rationally for themselves. Otherwise, society is abandoning its responsibility to protect individuals from harm.
But as you note, its wholly inconsistent to require a balancing of rights in the “choice” cases cited above and not require some similar balancing test in the case of abortions.
Yes, exactly, thats the sleight of hand. Substitute "killing babies" for choice and it doesn't sound so chirpy.
"Killing babies? Yes, I am for killing babies, absolutely."
They'll say, of course, that they aren't for killing babies, just for making sure you have the right to kill yours if you want to. Still doesn't sound very chirpy.