• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.

"Bodily Autonomy" is a denial of the Collective Body

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,847
"Bodily autonomy" is a buzzword of the pro-abortion set. They claim that our bodies are the private property of the individual consumer, so nobody else should have any say over it. Every man is an autonomous island, and every women likewise.

This idea of "bodily autonomy" is an offshoot of the idea of the "sovereign individual," much beloved of the Liberal set for some time now. Clearly, if the individual is sovereign, the collective cannot be. We see this with the issue of abortion. The Liberal claims that a woman's body is her own private property. This would be criminal insanity to any traditional human collective. The bodies of the clann members belong to the clann, not to themselves.

Of course, the logic here is that if a person wants to replace his healthy limbs and organs with cybernetic prosthesis, and he has the money to do it, then he has the right to do it, since he owns his own body. It's already accepted that we may mutilate our bodies in an attempt to approximate features of the opposite sex. Indeed, if he wants to create an offspring that is part human and part another species, that's his right too. And indeed, mice have been crossed with humans in a lab in England. In effect, the bourgeois individual has freed himself legally from the constraints of the human body, and projected himself into a realm of solitary fantasy. It has been said that when the modern bourgeois is having sex with another person, he is really just masturbating with an onlooker. This is entirely alien, and criminal, to the traditional human collective, of which the Gael are a part.
 


mr. jings

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
7,853
The thread-starting scutters are a terrible, terrible affliction altogether.
 

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
15,718
I don't see a contradiction, both can be true. the "sovereign individual" still has to negotiate with society. Biologically we are only really designed to see close family as a collective. society or nation or racial identity are constructs which artificially feed off this instinct.
 

edifice.

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
8,325
"Bodily autonomy" is a buzzword of the pro-abortion set. They claim that our bodies are the private property of the individual consumer, so nobody else should have any say over it. Every man is an autonomous island, and every women likewise.

This idea of "bodily autonomy" is an offshoot of the idea of the "sovereign individual," much beloved of the Liberal set for some time now. Clearly, if the individual is sovereign, the collective cannot be. We see this with the issue of abortion. The Liberal claims that a woman's body is her own private property. This would be criminal insanity to any traditional human collective. The bodies of the clann members belong to the clann, not to themselves.

Of course, the logic here is that if a person wants to replace his healthy limbs and organs with cybernetic prosthesis, and he has the money to do it, then he has the right to do it, since he owns his own body. It's already accepted that we may mutilate our bodies in an attempt to approximate features of the opposite sex. Indeed, if he wants to create an offspring that is part human and part another species, that's his right too. And indeed, mice have been crossed with humans in a lab in England. In effect, the bourgeois individual has freed himself legally from the constraints of the human body, and projected himself into a realm of solitary fantasy. It has been said that when the modern bourgeois is having sex with another person, he is really just masturbating with an onlooker. This is entirely alien, and criminal, to the traditional human collective, of which the Gael are a part.
Ultimately it's a mindset that wishes to detach responsibility from rights.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,847
Ultimately it's a mindset that wishes to detach responsibility from rights.
Very true, and I would go further and say that so called human rights only come into existence where the natural human community has been destroyed by Liberal Capitalism. Organic communities have no need of human rights. Everyone knows who and what they are, and what their duties and privileges are within the community.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,847
I don't see a contradiction, both can be true. the "sovereign individual" still has to negotiate with society. Biologically we are only really designed to see close family as a collective. society or nation or racial identity are constructs which artificially feed off this instinct.
If you go back to the hunter-gatherer period in which we evolved as human beings, the collective groups were a good deal larger than nuclear families. I wouldn't think such a thing as a nuclear family really existed. I was reading Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars not so long ago and its very clear that the Celts, over a very wide area of Western Europe, had a very strong sense of who and what they were, as opposed to non-Celtic groups like the Germans.
 

edifice.

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
8,325
Very true, and I would go further and say that so called human rights only come into existence where the natural human community has been destroyed by Liberal Capitalism. Organic communities have no need of human rights. Everyone knows who and what they are, and what their duties and privileges are within the community.
Which may also explain how advanced and progressive Brehon Laws were.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,847
Get rid of the big "L" and I'm with you entirely.

What's more, the liberal view is in this context the only view that makes sense in a modern democracy.
Of course that's correct, as what you call a "modern democracy" represses \ forecloses anything that is outside of Liberal ideology.
 

Old Mr Grouser

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
6,341
"Bodily autonomy" is a buzzword of the pro-abortion set ... in a lab in England ...

This is entirely alien, and criminal, to the traditional human collective, of which the Gael are a part.
Why are you saying such things when there are so many very arguments to be made against on-demand abortion?


 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,847
Why are you saying such things when there are so many very arguments to be made against on-demand abortion?
Why are you getting involved in a thread that is clearly very far above your intellectual level? Stick with the tabloids and you will do better.
 

The_SR

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
18,040
Gael Tadger isn't Irish, doesn't live in Ireland and I suspect has never been here. How would they know the culture of the Gael, collective or otherwise?

This poster lives on the Internet. It's 24/7. Sock or an absolute mental case?
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,847
When I first came across the "bodily autonomy" argument I couldnt believe my ears and thought it was a fanciful ruse to to extract the urine out of naive little me. Before the arguments for legal abortion that I had heard were about what consituted human life but here were law abiding and intelligent people justifying what they knew to be infanticide.
 
Last edited:

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,847
When I first came across the "bodily autonomy" I couldnt believe my ears and thought it was a fanciful ruse to to extract the urine out of naive little me. Before the arguments for legal abortion that I had heard were about what consituted human life but here were law abiding and intelligent people justifying what they knew to be infanticide.
Changing the language people use has always been the main weapon of imperialist domination. What we are seeing here is not an attempt to stop people speaking English, as such, but to command and control the vocabulary of English so that the effect is the same on the population as if the power had forced an actual change of language, as in from Irish to English.
 

loaf

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 2, 2009
Messages
1,230
I think it's a mistake to imply that 'bodily autonomy' is some kind of liberal cultural construct. Bodily autonomy is the existential foundation of human experience.

Cultural constructs are reactions against the terrifying 'real' of bodily existence and autonomy. Constructs such as 'The Collective Body' are precisely designed to assuage the fear of being an autonomous, fragile, transient organism.

I'm not making a comment on the abortion debate here - I'm just suggesting the premise you start with (that bodily autonomy is a political construct) is problematic. And therefore the arguments you put forward following this premise are problematic.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,847
I think it's a mistake to imply that 'bodily autonomy' is some kind of liberal cultural construct. Bodily autonomy is the existential foundation of human experience.

Cultural constructs are reactions against the terrifying 'real' of bodily existence and autonomy. Constructs such as 'The Collective Body' are precisely designed to assuage the fear of being an autonomous, fragile, transient organism.

I'm not making a comment on the abortion debate here - I'm just suggesting the premise you start with (that bodily autonomy is a political construct) is problematic. And therefore the arguments you put forward following this premise are problematic.
If you look at tribal tatooing, you will see that not only is the body claimed for the collective, but even the organs of the body are separately claimed. Clearly, in tribal society, the womb of a young woman is not in any way regarded as her own property. That's not to say that there isn't some individuation - Achilles and Cúchulainn are individuals, but they are individuals within a definite social structure. Ultimately, their bodies are not their own - even though Achilles makes a rebellion by denying his body to the tribe for some time, in the end he has to submit and sacrifice his body to the higher need of the collective. Cúchulainn finds his individuation in this very sacrifice itself.

That said, I fully agree that complex arguments, by their very nature, are problematic.
 

The_SR

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
18,040
Changing the language people use has always been the main weapon of imperialist domination. What we are seeing here is not an attempt to stop people speaking English, as such, but to command and control the vocabulary of English so that the effect is the same on the population as if the power had forced an actual change of language, as in from Irish to English.
So to defend against imperialism you, a foreigner, want to restrict irish women's freedom.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top