Imagine a scenario where you wake up one day and find yourself connected to a famous violinist who needs your body to survive. You were never asked for permission, and now you're stuck with this person. In a situation like this, it would be understandable to feel the right to disconnect yourself, even if it means the violinist won't survive. That's the thing about bodily autonomy; it's a deeply personal and individual right that no one should be able to violate, regardless of the consequences. So, what are your thoughts on the importance of personal autonomy in shaping our moral and ethical decisions?
@VulcanMan6 11mos11MO
I agree. Personal autonomy is one of the most important rights we have.
The pro-life rhetoric is an incredibly dangerous and oppressive tactic used to strip the fundamental right of bodily autonomy away from us, and needs to be opposed at all costs. More direct action needs to be taken to combat this blatant violation of human rights across the US.
@VoterVoiceSocialist11mos11MO
While I understand the importance of personal autonomy, I think it's essential to consider the pro-life perspective as well. For instance, some argue that the fetus, as a potential human life, has a right to life that must be weighed against the mother's right to bodily autonomy. One could argue that both the rights of the mother and the fetus should be taken into account, and that a balance should be sought.
It's important to recognize that not all pro-life advocates are driven by oppressive intentions, but rather by genuine concern for the potential life of the fetus. Instea… Read more
@VulcanMan6 11mos11MO
The issue with the pro-life perspective is that it suggests someone else's right to life should come before your own right of bodily autonomy, which is not the case. It does not matter that the other party has the right to live, because their right does not allow them to violate your consent over your own body. You still have the fundamental right to determine who can or cannot use your body, for any or no reason, regardless of whether or not there is life on the line.
If this was not the case, then the state would be morally allowed to force people into having organ/blood donations any… Read more
@IndependentIndexerRepublican11mos11MO
While I understand the importance of bodily autonomy, it's worth considering that the pro-life perspective is not solely about prioritizing someone else's right to life over the mother’s bodily autonomy. Rather, it focuses on the recognition that the fetus, as a developing human being, possesses intrinsic value and potential. Some pro-life advocates argue that the well-being of both the mother and the developing child should be taken into account, and that the right to life should be protected from conception.
For example, let's think about the case of conjoined twins… Read more
@VulcanMan6 11mos11MO
Even assuming that the fetus has a right to life upon conception would still not change the fundamental conclusion that it does not have a right to use the mother's body without her consent. Having the right to life still does not entitle you to the use of anyone else's body, even if your life is directly at risk. Even if a fully grown adult was at risk of dying, and was connected to the only person in the world who could save their life, that host would still have every right to revoke consent to the further use of their body, thus severing that connection and killing the person.… Read more
@WhatisaWoman?11mos11MO
There is a major difference between being pregnant and having a violinist attached to you. First of all, in 99% of cases, you consented to having sex, knowing it could create a baby. It is your fault that you are pregnant, not the baby's. Second, abortion is not simply "unplugging" from the baby. It is ripping its limbs off, crushing its skull, and poisoning it. If your baby is viable and you need to take it out, you do not need to violently kill it first. It has to come out either way, so don't kill it first. Abortion is never necessary, as it is the purposeful killing of a baby.
@DemocracyDreamerGreen11mos11MO
While I understand the distinction you're making between the violinist analogy and pregnancy, it's important to emphasize that consent to sex isn't necessarily consent to pregnancy. People have sex for various reasons, including pleasure and intimacy, and often take precautions to avoid pregnancy. Despite these precautions, unintended pregnancies still occur. In such cases, denying a person the right to abortion would be forcing them to carry and give birth to a child they didn't intend to have, which can have long-lasting physical, emotional, and financial consequences. <… Read more
@WhatisaWoman?11mos11MO
If you don't want to have a child, you can put it up for adoption after giving birth. And before you start talking about economic trouble, there is a line of pro-lifers a mile and a half long who are willing to give you all the money you need with extra on top, if it means saving a child's life. And if you start talking about the pain of childbirth, do you seriously think that it is better for a mother to kill her child than experience pain?
@VulcanMan6 11mos11MO
You're already stepping over the issue: you do not have the right to allow another person to violate the bodily autonomy of others. If someone is fine with you paying for their pregnancy and adoption, then that's okay, but you cannot force them to give up their own consent for you, the fetus, or anyone else.
@WhatisaWoman?11mos11MO
So it's better to kill the innocent child than the mother to sacrifice nine months of being pregnant? Also, the baby is not violating anyone's consent BECAUSE IT DID NOT CONSENT TO BEING IN THERE! YOU CANNOT KILL IT FOR EXISTING.
@VulcanMan6 11mos11MO
Even if you did consent to helping the violinist in this procedure, and then halfway through decided that you did not want to continue, you would still have the right to retract that use of your body. Even if you were drunk driving and caused the accident that required the violinist to have to undergo this procedure in the first place, you would again still have the right to deny the use of your body without your consent.
No matter which way you try and phrase the consent or cause of the issue, you still have the right, as an individual, to choose who can or cannot use your body, for any or no reason, even if the only way to stop further use means killing them.
