Bodily Autonomy

Discussion in 'Civil Rights' started by Jolly Penguin, Oct 14, 2022.

  1. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,776
    Likes Received:
    4,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Where do you stand on Bodily Autonomy?
    Are you consistent on it, and how much importance do you attach to it?

    I can think off the top of my head of 4 distinct issues that involve bodily autonomy. I'm consistently pro-choice on them all, but have noticed that places me straddling the political line, liberal on some issues and conservative on others.

    1. The Draft. Should men be required to fight and die to protect the nation? Does it matter what the war is over? In an invasion I expect more would support the draft.

    But personally I still wouldn't, even though it would mean people would die due to invading soldiers. I don't think any government should be able to force anybody to kill another person or put on a military uniform. But again, I can see why some would. The innocent will die if soldiers aren't there to protect them from invaders. I can see why some see draft dodgers as immoral, even though I do not.

    2. Prostitution. Should people be forbidden from selling sex for money? Should human trafficking concerns stop willing people from engaging in this trade? Should concerns over harm it may do to people and their ability to pair bond or be good parents stop willing people from engaging in this trade?

    I say no. People should be allowed to have sex with whoever they want so long as it is consensual and all are of age and sound mind. Human trafficking of others isn't sufficient reason to infrings on this right, just as it isn't reason to infringe on the right of people to work in the argiculture or textile industries despite slavery existing there too.

    3. Abortion. Does the pregnant woman's right to choose override any concern or moral rights of the unborn? I don't see the unborn as people, especially early on in pregnancy when the vast majority of abortions happen, so pro-choice is an easy call for me.

    But, I do understand that some see the unborn as people, equal to you and I, and that definitely makes the moral computation more difficult. Especially absent rape, wherein the pregnant woman took actions that put the unborn in the danger he/she is now in. I can understand the pro-life folks calling for some responsibility being owed to the unborn, who isn't him/herself responsible for the situation.

    But even then, I think bodily autnomy wins out for me. I don't think the unborn, even if completely dependent on the pregnant woman, and even if put in this horrible situation by her action (and that of the father), has a right to use the mother's body against her will. But I waver on this and I do understand why people would disagree.

    4. Vaccine Mandates. Should people be required to take a vaccine, injecting it into their body against their will? Should the protection others in society who these people may spread disease to override bodily autonomy here?

    Again, I say no. I think people shouldn't have to take any vaccine if they don't want to. But where I differ from the typical anti-vax person is that I also think it is perfectly fair to exclude people who don't get vaccines from services and facilities others may enter. If you want to home school your kids, not get on airplanes other than your private airplanes, etc, then you don't need a vaccine. But if you are going to send your kids into a room with mine or get on a plane with me, I don't want to allow that. No soup for you (Sienfeld reference :) ).
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2022
  2. LiveUninhibited

    LiveUninhibited Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    9,976
    Likes Received:
    3,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I wouldn't support a draft like with vietnam. If there were a defensive war, like truly defensive, then I would support a "draft" by default with the option to be in a supportive instead of a combat role if desired (which would usually, but not necessarily be safer, e.g. in the navy if the ship goes down, the cooks die too), but with a requirement to contribute to defense in some way if called upon. If not enough people are willing to do combat, well then some inspiring speeches are in order.

    Prostitution involving only truly free and consenting adults is okay. If there are inherent costs, that's their choice.

    The crux of the issue is indeed whether the fetus is a person at the typical time of abortion. It's not because it has no mind.

    Yeah I agree with you.
     
    Jolly Penguin likes this.
  3. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    8,135
    Likes Received:
    2,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My first stance on the draft is that if you do have one it applies to all, not just women. That being said, I do not think that a draft should be present in a free society. Now I do not have any issue with military service being a prerequisite for certain privileges similar to Starship Troopers (more the book than the movies), but even that is limited.

    The first thing that has to be noted about this issue is the difference between doing what you want with your body and whether or not you get paid for doing what you want. Bodily autonomy is about the ability to do what you want with your body, assuming that it does not violate another's rights first. Getting paid for an action is a separate things, and one where we have regulations in other areas as well. Simply requiring that a person has a business license is a good example. Or to be certified in a certain field before you can get paid for engaging in that work. I personally see no issue with allowing someone to make money off of the selling of sex, nor, since it is often mentioned in the same debates, selling organs for money

    This is one of those issues, where I try to separate out what is the right and what is the result of exercising of the right. No one has a right, in and of itself, to terminate another human. Keep in mind that I did not say a human being, because that term is fraught with opinion on what is meant by it. But in the same sense that a person can kill another who is assaulting them, if there is no other way to stop the bodily autonomy violation. One of the things I use to illustrate this point is the use of a surrogate, especially via IVF, as to how the two points are separate. If the woman really had the right to terminate her offspring, then she would be allowed to do so when the offspring is in the surrogate's womb. But that is not the case. The woman's right is not the termination of the offspring by the ending of the pregnancy. If the only way to end the pregnancy is the termination of the offspring then so be it. If there exists another way that is less physically traumatic (an objective measurement as opposed to the subjective mentally or emotionally tramatic), then as long as the woman has the ability to end the pregnancy abortion itself can be banned, and the bodily autonomy right is still preserved.

    This is one of those areas that, to me at least, has more of a case by case basis. For somethings, such as the flu, and probably COVID in the near future, no. They are not, or will soon be, not life threatening. However, there have been and could be ones that are. Let's go hypothetical and look at the virus in Resident Evil movie series. For one like that, damn straight your bodily autonomy does not trump in that case. Your mere presence can be detrimental to my health just in a general manner. This is opposed to my being more sensitive to something than most. So generally, I would not make them mandatory (I rarely ever get the annual flu shot), but there can be specific circumstances where that position changes.
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2022
    Jolly Penguin likes this.
  4. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,776
    Likes Received:
    4,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That brings up the curious question of why is sex legal, selling sex illegal, but selling sex while filming and selling the video legal. Makes no sense at all to me.

     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2022
  5. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,776
    Likes Received:
    4,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I ran out of time to edit the above. I misplaced a quote tag.
     
    Maquiscat likes this.
  6. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    8,135
    Likes Received:
    2,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm with you on that. But that simply comes back to the difference between what you can do and what can be sold. Technically, by the constitution, the feds can ban the sale of pretty much anything, no matter how stupid it would be to do so. They can literally ban the sale of medical services, making it so that such services have to be done free, the same as sex. I guess that the only justification when it comes to porn is that one is being paid for their time in front of the camera regardless of whether the sex is real or faked.

    Assault is but one example of a bodily autonomy violation. Anything that forces you to use your body in a way that you do not wish, short of you in turn already violating another's right, is a bodily rights violations, intended or not. It's no different than if I accidentally killed someone even without intending to. I can still be charged and even punished. Involuntary manslaughter is a charge that can be laid. The offspring is the one that is taking from the woman's bodily resources, not the other way around. Now again, if there were a way to end the pregnancy without the termination of the offspring, let's just say through the use of Star Trek transporter technology for hypothetical's sake, since that does cause less bodily trauma, then the more traumatic procedure can be banned, or at the least discontinued by those who practice medicine. The right is not the termination of the offspring. That termination is a result of the right being exercised because today's technology being unable to do it otherwise.

    Here is how to better show how this all works. Hypothetical: There is a procedure that allows a person to be used as a biological life support system for another. You consent to be that life support to another. Do you not have the right to stop being that source of life, especially if you start to feel that the risk is no longer worth the reward, regardless of the outcome to the one you were supporting? With this hypothetical, you can accurately parallel pretty much any pregnancy situation.

    The moment that I grabbed you, I initiated a violation against your bodily autonomy. Turn it around. In order to not fall off the cliff, you grabbed me. Now you are in violation of my bodily autonomy. But we are still back to that one principle that if the violation can be stopped without terminating the violator, then that is what needs to happen. That's why I made the point that the woman only had the right to have the pregnancy stopped, not terminate the offspring outright. Now, with the cliff hypothetical, if in you grabbing me, you keep doing something that is pulling me towards the cliff edge as well, then I have that right to do what is necessary, even killing you, to prevent you from taking me over that cliff with you.

    Thank you. Ironically enough it is the argument that I have to use against those who want to try to claim that since a woman can end her parental obligations, that a man can do so also, or that it is unequal rights otherwise.

    This falls under that "is less physically traumatic to the body than an abortion". IIRC, currently a c-section is less risky than childbirth but still more risky than abortion. And even then, again IIRC, a late term abortion is more risky than an early term one. And that is the key. While a person can choose to take a more risky option, they should not be forced to outside of circumstances. But the inverse is not true, the more risky procedure can be banned. For example, the procedure known as the lithotomy (for removal of bladder stones) is no longer done, and I can't even choose to have it done. But it is the more risky of procedures and there are safer ones out there. Now, if lithotomy was not banned, then I could elect to have it, regardless of the fact that it had a 50% mortality rate. And if there were no other procedure that was available that was less risky than a lithotomy, then the procedure should not be banned. But in the end, the overall right is my having the stones removed, not what procedures are available.

    That's one I waffle on as well. However, I think the difference between selling your own organs (whether you die or not) and having your organs taken when you die is the high potential of someone killing you for your organs to go to their loved one. And in the end the claim will be that the loved one should not suffer from the killer's violation of your bodily autonomy. The loved one gets the organs based upon you being dead and it would not be a violation of your bodily autonomy. If there could be a way to ensure that we would not get murdered for our organs, then I might be able to see it. However, the use of organs in and of itself after one's death I do not see as a violation of bodily autonomy directly.
     
  7. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,776
    Likes Received:
    4,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think the key difference with that analogy is that you created the life in danger and your actions put it in the situation. Maybe the analogy can be adjusted to account for that though. It's why I use the analogy of grabbing somebody and holding them up over a cliffside.

    You could drop me, and I would fall to my death. In the pregnancy situation I think it similar. You (the pregnant woman in this analogy) put me (the unborn in the analogy) into the situation, and I am now depending on you to keep holding me up long enough to put me safely down over where it's not over the side of a cliff.

    Yes. That's definitely a different scenario. If a parasite invaded your body not by your own actions and needed you to birth it, that would be a different case I think. Perhaps that's more the rape analogy and maybe that's why some pro life people make exceptions for rape?

    This I see as clearly correct and can't see any good argument against it. But it's not the same as you grabbing me and putting me in danger, and me depending on you to see me through it safely, as I think is more comparable to an unborn in a pregnancy.

    Good point.
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2022
    Maquiscat likes this.
  8. edna kawabata

    edna kawabata Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2018
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    1,540
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bodily autonomy is the right to governance over one's own body up until it impinges on the rights of others. You live in a society as a member, and you have certain responsibilities as a member. To follow it rules, defend it and not endanger it. If you don't you are being a bad member and pay a price. Prostitution at one time spread incurable lethal STDs and that has changed. You can't "walk" around spreading HIV because you can do anything you want with your body.
     
  9. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,776
    Likes Received:
    4,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In that regard how would you differentiate prostitution from simply being promiscuous?
     
  10. edna kawabata

    edna kawabata Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2018
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    1,540
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The promiscuous likes sex, but without the relationship entanglement. The prostitute uses sex for profit. One form of prostitution has always been legal, they are called trophy wives.
     
  11. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,776
    Likes Received:
    4,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yet another case of special treatment for the rich I suppose.
     

Share This Page