Tiffany Jenkins (Perspective, 24 January) is being consistent when she argues that women have the right to abort a baby if she is the wrong sex. But her consistency is based upon two false and dangerous doctrines.
The first is that the only body involved is the woman’s – thus completely ignoring the status and rights of the child.
The second is that of complete autonomy. This has become such a shibboleth of contemporary “liberalism” that some feminists are even prepared to allow babies to be killed in the womb because they are female. This doctrine of complete autonomy is itself inconsistently applied. If someone wishes to cut off their arm, should that be allowed just because it is their body?
Ms Jenkins declares that “people have the right to make decisions about their family life without the state limiting their choices”. I wonder if she would apply that to two other modern controversies – if families want female genital mutilation, should the “state limit their choice”?
What if they want their children to attend schools which teach creationism?
Or is it only abortion that is to be granted this absolutist status?