An interesting take on the concept of bodily autonomy.

Wascurito

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2017
Messages
7,298
This was posted on the Cavan Pro-Choice Facebook page this morning. I don't think I need to add much. However, it's clear that there are limits on someone's right to life when someone else's bodily autonomy is at stake.

Even if infringing that autonomy only involves the taking of blood.

Even if the person whose bodily autonomy is being infringed is already dead.

 


*EPIC SUCCESS*

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2016
Messages
3,087
When I am dead they can dump me in a ditch for all I care.

I'll be dead.
 

Supra

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 31, 2015
Messages
2,168
When I am dead they can dump me in a ditch for all I care.

I'll be dead.
yes, this is the only argument I can have against the OP.

The points made can all be taken separately.
It may become mandatory to donate vital organs after death at some stage.
it may become mandatory to donate blood.
While I have different views on all these topics that serves to make me think these things are different.
Perhaps those making these arguments could also argue for mandatory organ donation in certain cases. Making these different arguments and therefore no related to Repeal
 

*EPIC SUCCESS*

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2016
Messages
3,087
But you'd start to smell. (Worse, or different, can't comment).

Would you not like to be at least not be poisoning the water...
Nope.

Actually, I wonder if I could get thrown into a reservoir rather than a ditch?
 

Wascurito

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2017
Messages
7,298
When I am dead they can dump me in a ditch for all I care.

I'll be dead.
As far as I'm concerned, they can take any bits that someone else might need for life and give the rest to science.

But not everyone feels this way. And they have a legal right to have that respected - even if someone else's life is at stake.

So much for "right to life".
 

*EPIC SUCCESS*

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2016
Messages
3,087
yes, this is the only argument I can have against the OP.

The points made can all be taken separately.
It may become mandatory to donate vital organs after death at some stage.
it may become mandatory to donate blood.
While I have different views on all these topics that serves to make me think these things are different.
Perhaps those making these arguments could also argue for mandatory organ donation in certain cases. Making these different arguments and therefore no related to Repeal
Why not join me in Poulaphouca?
 

*EPIC SUCCESS*

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2016
Messages
3,087
As far as I'm concerned, they can take any bits that someone else might need for life and give the rest to science.

But not everyone feels this way. And they have a legal right to have that respected - even if someone else's life is at stake.

So much for "right to life".
They can take whatever they like but good luck with the liver.

George Best doesn't even rate.
 

Wascurito

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2017
Messages
7,298
yes, this is the only argument I can have against the OP.

The points made can all be taken separately.
It may become mandatory to donate vital organs after death at some stage.
it may become mandatory to donate blood.
While I have different views on all these topics that serves to make me think these things are different.
Perhaps those making these arguments could also argue for mandatory organ donation in certain cases. Making these different arguments and therefore no related to Repeal
Why are they different? It's someone's bodily autonomy vs someone else's right to life. And in the instances cited in the OP, the infringing of bodily autonomy is far far less invasive than what resulted from the 8th amendment.
 

Supra

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 31, 2015
Messages
2,168
Why are they different? It's someone's bodily autonomy vs someone else's right to life. And in the instances cited in the OP, the infringing of bodily autonomy is far far less invasive than what resulted from the 8th amendment.
I suppose in many cases it's because the unborn don't have a voice. We as adults can change laws as we have a voice. We can make that decision as a Country today. I can decide now to try and make changes to the law in case I require an organ in the future and allow democracy to do it's work. Some of that work is ongoing and the laws regarding organ donations are likely to change through the voice of born people. The unborn don't have that,.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
The thing is that these people unless they were raped or are mentally retarded used their bodily autonomy to create the new life in their womb- they knew the risks that came with using their bodily autonomy in this way. Babies aren't magically beamed down into people's wombs. Therefore do they have the right to make another life suffer for their free use of their bodily autonomy in the first place? Also society doesn't allow people to walk around nude in public or to slice open their arms- bodily autonomy isn't absolute ever.
 

Fallacy Police

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
1,382
Forcing someone to take a blood transfusion would involve holding them down or threatening them with prison if they didn't give blood. That would be an act of aggression and an infringement on their rights.

"Forcing" someone to carry out a pregnancy involves doing nothing and only stepping in when someone tries to take steps to end it. It is justifiable, however, to use force to prevent someone from ending a life, therefore a prohibition on abortion is not an infringement of bodily autonomy, because no one has the right to end a life unless they are the victim of aggression. An unborn child is both physically and legally incapable of aggression, and therefore pregnancy is not an infringement of anyone's rights.
 

Supra

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 31, 2015
Messages
2,168
Forcing someone to take a blood transfusion would involve holding them down or threatening them with prison if they didn't give blood. That would be an act of aggression and an infringement on their rights.

"Forcing" someone to carry out a pregnancy involves doing nothing and only stepping in when someone tries to take steps to end it. It is justifiable, however, to use force to prevent someone from ending a life, therefore a prohibition on abortion is not an infringement of bodily autonomy, because no one has the right to end a life unless they are the victim of aggression. An unborn child is both physically and legally incapable of aggression, and therefore pregnancy is not an infringement of anyone's rights.
'Forcing' is a deliberate choice of word in the OP quote.
It's not the right word.
 

Wascurito

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2017
Messages
7,298
I suppose in many cases it's because the unborn don't have a voice. We as adults can change laws as we have a voice. We can make that decision as a Country today. I can decide now to try and make changes to the law in case I require an organ in the future and allow democracy to do it's work. Some of that work is ongoing and the laws regarding organ donations are likely to change through the voice of born people. The unborn don't have that,.
The unborn have no shortage of voices in this country. How do you think we got the 8th amendment passed and maintained for 35 years?

People in a coma (or a baby who hasn't learned to talk) might be the ones in need of a blood transfusion or organ donation. They have no way of articulating their needs.
 

Wascurito

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2017
Messages
7,298
Forcing someone to take a blood transfusion would involve holding them down or threatening them with prison if they didn't give blood. That would be an act of aggression and an infringement on their rights.

"Forcing" someone to carry out a pregnancy involves doing nothing and only stepping in when someone tries to take steps to end it. It is justifiable, however, to use force to prevent someone from ending a life, therefore a prohibition on abortion is not an infringement of bodily autonomy, because no one has the right to end a life unless they are the victim of aggression. An unborn child is both physically and legally incapable of aggression, and therefore pregnancy is not an infringement of anyone's rights.
Taking the instance of an organ being removed from someone who has died recently obviously requires no restraint.

And while the 8th amendment doesn't impose a physical restraint on a woman, it amounts to the same thing if she doesn't have the money to get a termination in another jurisdiction or has some physical or medical impairment which means she can't travel.

It's all very well for you to say that no-one has the right to end a life but what the 8th amendment actually deals with is the "right to life" of the unborn. Should that not also refer to the "born"?

If you're the only person who can give someone a chance to prolong their life (through a blood or organ donation), that person has no rights under the constitution to assert that right - none at all. This is the inconsistency that the OP quote refers to.
 

Seán E. Ryan

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
829
I think the autonomy argument is like relativity. The the further you take it, the closer you bring it to absurdity.

There's no such thing as bodily autonomy, beyond the theoretical. Can I stick an earring on my member? I surely can. Does that mean I have bodily autonomy? No.

I see the mistake people make. They confuse social tolerance with bodily autonomy and even the concept of freedom.

If I or anyone else had bodily autonomy, there'd be no drug laws. The idea of bodily autonomy at death is whimsical too. The state can perform a post mortem regardless as to one's wishes, religion or the wishes of friends and relatives.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anywhere close to being on the pro life side either. "'scuse me miss, I just need to have a look inside your fanny, just to be sure!"

To me, this matter shouldn't be in the constitution to begin with and nobody should have a vote in the matter. It's a deeply personal matter and there should be no authority that outweighs the person or people directly involved, neither the pro choice nor the pro life.
 


Most Replies

Top