4) My Body, My Choice: Tracing the Full Impact of Where We Draw the Line
My body, my choice.
Four words that ignite instant reaction. Depending on where you stand, they're either a fundamental human right or a selfish abdication of responsibility to others.
Because my micro-system, my choice. Not a macro choice.
This is true. And I'm not going to hedge on it.
Each person has sovereignty over their own body—their own micro-system. This is foundational. Without it, we have no freedom at all. If someone else can make decisions about what happens inside your body, you are not free. Period.
But here's what I've learned from working with systems for two decades: the hardest work isn't deciding what you believe. It's tracing the full impact of that belief—ALL the way through.
Not just the immediate impact. Not just the impact on people you can see. Not just the impact that's convenient to acknowledge.
All the way.
And most of us don't do that work. We stake out a position, defend it against attack, and never actually follow our own logic to its full conclusion.
That's what I want to explore. Not whether "my body, my choice" is true—it is. But what it means to actually understand the full downstream impact of where we draw the boundaries of our systems.
Where Does "My System" End?
Let me be clear from the start: there is no perfect system that balances individual autonomy and collective responsibility in a way that satisfies everyone.
There never has been. It can be argued that there never will be.
Every society throughout history has wrestled with this tension. Every political system—from pure democracy to totalitarianism and everything in between—is essentially an attempt to answer this question: where does individual freedom end and collective obligation begin?
And every answer creates new problems.
Give too much power to the individual, and you get exploitation, inequality, the strong dominating the weak. Give too much power to the collective, and you get oppression, conformity, the erasure of difference.
This isn't a problem to solve. It's a polarity to manage. [1]
Every system has boundaries. Your body is a system. Your family is a system. Your community is a system. Your nation is a system. And one of the most important questions in any conflict is: where do we draw the boundary of the system we're talking about?
Because where you draw that boundary determines everything.
Take the most charged example: abortion.
If you draw the boundary of "my body" to include everything happening inside that body, then decisions about pregnancy are micro-system decisions. My body, my choice. No external system—government, religion, community—has the right to override what I choose to do within my own body. This is where I stand. A woman's body is her micro-system. She gets to make the ultimate choice about what happens within it.
But I also understand why others draw the boundary differently.
If you believe that a fetus is a separate life—a separate system with its own rights—then you're not seeing this as a micro-system decision at all. You're seeing it as a conflict between two systems: the pregnant person and the developing life inside them. From that framing, "my body, my choice" sounds like one system claiming the right to end another system. And ending another human system without consent has a name: murder. Which we collectively agree is wrong.
I don't share that framing. But I understand how someone arrives there.
And here's what matters: both positions require tracing the full impact.
The Family Parallel: Autonomy Within Connection
In healthy families, there's a constant dance between individual autonomy and family cohesion.
A toddler wants to run into the street. The parent says no. The parent's authority overrides the child's choice—not to control the child, but to protect them from a danger they can't yet perceive.
A teenager wants to stay out past curfew. The parent might negotiate, might consider the context, might grant more freedom as trust is built. The parent's role shifts from absolute protection to guided autonomy.
An adult child makes a choice the parent disagrees with—a career path, a relationship, a move across the country. The parent might have opinions, but the adult child's autonomy now trumps the parent's preference. The relationship shifts from authority to influence.
The appropriate balance changes with context, capacity, and consequence.
Family therapists call this "differentiation"—the ability to be both separate AND connected. To have a clear sense of self while remaining in relationship. To honor your own values while respecting that others have different ones [2].
When families get this wrong, you see two extremes. Enmeshment: No one can have a separate thought or feeling. Individual needs are sacrificed for family harmony. Everyone has to think and act the same way. Cutoff: Everyone for themselves. No accountability to each other. Relationships severed at the first sign of conflict.
Neither works. You need both autonomy AND connection. We cannot avoid the fact that interdependence is always happening.
Sound familiar?
Tracing the Impact: The Work Most People Skip
Barry Johnson, who developed the framework of Polarity Management, teaches that some conflicts aren't actually problems with solutions—they're ongoing tensions that require us to honor both poles.1
Think about breathing. You need to inhale AND exhale. If you only inhale, you die. If you only exhale, you die. The answer isn't to pick one—it's to move fluidly between both. Individual autonomy and collective responsibility work the same way.
Here's where most people stop short—on BOTH sides of any contentious issue. They stake out a position. They defend it. They argue about it. But they never actually follow their own logic all the way through to its full consequences.
If you believe abortion should be banned because life begins at conception, have you traced the full impact of that position? What happens to the pregnant person who doesn't want to be pregnant? What happens to children born into situations where they weren't wanted or can't be cared for? What happens when the state has the power to force people to remain pregnant against their will—where else does that power extend? Who bears the cost—financially, physically, emotionally—of this position? Is it distributed equally, or does it fall disproportionately on certain people?
And if you believe in absolute bodily autonomy, have you traced THAT full impact? At what point, if any, does a developing life have interests that deserve consideration? What support systems need to exist so that "choice" is actually free and not constrained by poverty, lack of healthcare, or lack of options? How do we ensure that bodily autonomy is actually accessible to everyone regardless of geography, income, or circumstance?
The point isn't that both sides are equally valid and we should all just get along. The point is: most people aren't actually doing the full work of understanding the impact of their own position. They're stopping at the point where their logic feels righteous. And they're ignoring the parts where it gets complicated.
The Difference Between Disagreement & Delusion
Here's what separates honest disagreement from willful ignorance:
Honest disagreement says: "I've traced the full impact of my position. I understand what it costs. I understand who bears that cost. And I still believe this is the right approach because [specific reasoning]."
Willful ignorance says: "My position is obviously correct and anyone who disagrees is evil/stupid/brainwashed. I don't need to trace the impact because I'm right."
You can tell which one someone is doing by asking them to articulate the strongest version of the opposing argument. If they can't do it—if they can only offer a straw man, a caricature, a version of the other side that no one actually holds—they haven't done the work. If they CAN articulate the other side's best argument, and they still disagree? That's honest disagreement. That's someone who has traced the impact and made a considered choice.
We need more honest disagreement and less willful ignorance.
How to Have This Conversation Without Breaking Everything
So how do we navigate this paradox without tearing each other—and our systems—apart?
First, acknowledge that both poles have legitimate concerns.
Individual autonomy matters because:
Human dignity requires the ability to make meaningful choices about your own life
History is full of collectives using power to oppress minorities
Innovation and progress often come from people who bucked the collective
Collective responsibility matters because:
We’re interconnected; your choices DO affect me
Some problems (climate change, pandemics, inequality) can only be solved collectively
The vulnerable need protection from those with more power
Both. Not either/or. Both.
Second, get curious about the specific context.
Instead of: “Individual freedom always outweighs collective mandates” Ask: “In THIS specific situation, with THESE specific stakes, who is most affected and how?” (notice it’s not a question of what is the “right” answer)
Instead of: “The collective good always comes first” Ask: “Is the collective actually representing everyone, or just the people with power?”
Third, name the tradeoffs explicitly.
Every choice involves tradeoffs. When we pretend they don’t, when we claim our side has no downsides, we lose credibility.
Prioritizing individual choice HERE means accepting THESE consequences. Prioritizing collective mandate HERE means accepting THOSE consequences.
Honest dialog names both.
Fourth, stay in relationship.
When you cut someone off because they disagree with you on this paradox, you lose the ability to influence each other. You lose the chance to find creative solutions that honor both poles.
And you reinforce the very polarization that makes this impossible to navigate.
Why "My Body, My Choice" Does Not Actually Opposed to Collective Good
Here's what I want to be clear about: bodily autonomy IS a collective good.
A society where individuals have sovereignty over their own bodies is a healthier society. A society where the state can force medical procedures, force pregnancies, force bodily compliance is a society where no one is truly free. The collective good is served when individuals have autonomy. These aren't in opposition.
What gets framed as "individual vs. collective" is often actually a question of where we draw system boundaries and whose interests we prioritize.
When someone says "abortion is wrong because it harms the collective," what they're often actually saying is: "I'm including the fetus in my definition of the collective, and I'm prioritizing that potential life over the pregnant person's autonomy."
That's not "collective vs. individual." That's a disagreement about who counts and whose interests matter. And THAT is worth arguing about. That's worth tracing all the way through: Who are you including in your definition of "the collective"? Whose interests are you prioritizing, and why? Who bears the cost of that prioritization? Who benefits? Is that distribution of cost and benefit just?
From Afar, We See How Other Systems Run
We may not understand how a woman can be okay with having her face covered. It could be one or many reasons. It might be she feels safer, that it's her actual choice. It might be that the system has oppressed her.
I can't pretend to know the answer. All I can do is talk to people. Because I can't talk to a system in that instance, in that scenario.
What I can do is refuse to make sweeping declarations about people's lives when I don't understand their context. What I can do is stay curious. What I can do is trust that the people living in that system know more about it than I do.
And what I can do is ask myself: in MY system, where I DO have understanding and proximity, am I honoring both autonomy and connection? Am I giving people space to choose while also protecting the vulnerable?
So What?
The next time you find yourself in a heated debate about any issue where individual choice and collective impact seem to conflict, try this:
Identify where each side is drawing the boundary of "the system." (Who's included? Who's excluded? Whose interests count?)
Trace YOUR position all the way through. (What are all the downstream impacts? Who bears the costs? Who benefits?) This isn't about citing statistics—it's about following your own logic to its full conclusion.
Articulate the strongest version of the opposing view. (Not a straw man. The actual best argument.)
Ask yourself: Am I willing to own the full impact of my position? (Not just the parts that feel good. All of it.)
Notice where you stop short. (That's where the real work is.)
My body, my choice. This is true. I'm not backing away from it.
AND I'm committed to understanding the full impact of that position—all the way through.
That's not weakness. That's not "both sides-ing." That's doing the actual work of thinking clearly about complex systems.
Can you do the same for whatever you believe?
CITATIONS
Johnson, B. (2020). And: Making a Difference by Leveraging Polarity, Paradox or Dilemma, Volume One. Amherst, MA: HRD Press. See also Johnson, B. (1992). Polarity Management: Identifying and Managing Unsolvable Problems. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.
Bowen, M. (1978). Family Therapy in Clinical Practice. New York: Jason Aronson.
Article 4
