this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024
456 points (97.1% liked)
AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND
764 readers
1002 users here now
This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
♦ ♦ ♦
RULES
① Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.
② Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
③ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.
④ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.
⑤ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.
Please also abide by the instance rules.
♦ ♦ ♦
Can't get enough? Visit my blog.
♦ ♦ ♦
Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.
$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The OP makes a clear vision of bodily autonomy, but I question whether the apparent author, Pete Alex Harris, believes it absolutely.
Lets explore what "Bodily autonomy is an essential and unconditional liberty" allows:
I actually agree with some of the above should be legal, but the possibilities of coercion for groups at risk to be forced into some of these to survive raises some troubling ethical questions. If we accept the above absolutely, are we creating markets for human suffering?
You can legalize consumption of anything you want to put in your body, but criminalize sell, purchase and possession.
You can legalize the individual working in unsafe conditions if they so wish, but criminalize any one from running a company with unsafe conditions.
You can legalize consumption of your own brrast mill cheese, other that of others, but criminalize companies from selling it.
I don't see how those 3 things infringe in your bodily autonomy. People can own their bodies but there should be limits on what you can do to others.
And this is the rub. Your argument about legalizing the individual consumption level, but criminalizing the means to for the individual to consume is how we arrive at the abhorrent situations today with abortion in some states:
Under your wording, the woman could own her body, but the law has made it illegal for what "others" (doctors in this case) can do to you. Your approach effectively destroys the absolutes of bodily autonomy stated in the OP.
Yes, there are problems. I was particularly focusing on those 3 you pointed out. But I also think abortions goes beyond bodily autonomy.
First there's the level of being allowed to do it. It's illegal in some states to abort if you find the means.
Then there's the right for medically assisted safe abortion if you so desire. I see that as a human rights issue but not as a bodily autonomy issue.
But maybe I'm being too literal?
I don't think you're being too literal. That's the avenue I'm exploring too.
Thats what I don't understand the absolute nature of the OP picture/quote because it only refers to bodily autonomy is an "essential unconditional liberty". Restrictions on being able to purchase drugs would be a condition to exercising that "essential unconditional liberty bodily autonomy" wouldn't it?
If the avenue to consume the substance is illegal, then how is bodily autonomy unconditional? It isn't. Further, the OP picture/quote cites the acceptance of this flawed premise as a precondition to discussion with them. These kind of topics are rarely compatible with absolutes like the OP picture/quote suggests. Life has more shades of gray rather than the easy absolutes of black and white.
Yeah, this. If there is an employer with an asbestos mine, and an employee in the asbestos mine, one of them should be protected by the law and one of them should be required by law to provide a safe work environment.
All of the unethical dilemmas I see here arise because having money isn't a choice, you have to have it, and people can then decide to sacrifice their autonomy for money.
So, yeah, bodily autonomy is an unquestionable right, but so is the right to exist. And when both of those rights aren't adequately protected, they eat each other.
You're putting everything in a market context which naturally introduces economic coercion because money is essential for life in modern society. This is not an argument against bodily autonomy. It's an argument against capitalism. People can and do donate their organs, noone has a problem with that. The problem is when poor people have no other choice than to sell their organs, and hence, no bodily autonomy.
That would be in conflict with the OP picture/quote then, which is why I agree the OP picture/quote is too broad, but it is presented as an absolute.
We can substitute sex/prostitution here too. People can and do have sex with one another for free. The problem is when poor people have no other choice than to sell their bodies for sex. However, there are nations/cities that have highly regulated prostitution to protect sex workers from violence and exploitation.
Does this mean that sex work should be legal because of the OP quote that the person can choose what to do with their body or does it mean that sex worker's bodily autonomy should be conditional meaning not legal and the OP quote is not valid?
Whether or not prostitution is legal has no bearing on the question of whether a person is free to have sex with someone, ie their bodily autonomy. Only whether they get paid for it. You're confusing two different thimgs.
I disagree. "Bodily autonomy" means you own your body and can decide what to do with it.
If the legal system says you can't engage in sex for money, then the legal system has governance over what you can do with your body. That doesn't meet the OP quote of "Bodily autonomy be is an essential unconditional liberty". It is now conditional. You have autonomy, unless you want to do X with it. That's a condition.
That's not a criticism of bodily autonomy, that is the criticism of work. In other words, it's a criticism of capitalism again
Can you truly consent if the alternative is not having money and everything that entails? When the alternative is starvation and homelessness? Sex work is not meaningfully different to work in general here
Nope, it has governance over what you can do with your money, your ability to have sex is unaffected. You can't seem to separate the two things.
I think you're going too far away from the idea of body autonomy if you get into economics of buying and selling parts of your body. That requires something outside your body as an influence and isn't in the same scope that the author was making.
Then what IS the scope of "bodily autonomy is an essential unconditional liberty". Placing limits like economic interactions sounds like a "condition" which would be in conflict with the quote. My argument is the author's statement is too broad.
I have no context for the quote besides the picture. If you know its context, I'd be interested.
I hope you made this specifically for this conversation because its hilarious and awesome! Its art! You nailed the conservatives dog whistle symbols and narcissistic ideas. Well done sir/madam!
Nah, I found it on [email protected] a while ago.
I love the pack. It's so ridiculous and yet relatable
You've equated absence of regulation of body to absence of regulation of business entities without defining the reasoning (which will fail a low effort challenge if you present it). You then extend that error to examples of sale of body parts and a flawed question.
OPs quote is clear unless you'd working to redefine the word they used: "unconditional". I don't have to provide the reasoning. OPs quote doesn't allow any reason to change the outcome. How is "regulation" which presents specific conditions compatible with the OP's original quote of "unconditional"?
"Unconditional" obviously violates the social contract. My error was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not participating in meaningless mental masturbation. Cum soon. You've better things to do.
Good arguments should stand up to scrutiny. If this one fails its because the premise is flawed. I'm not claiming to have all the answers, but I'm pointing out that the OP's quote stood strong on language but weak under observation. You took up the banner in defense of the OP quote. I don't know if you lost faith in the OP argument or just don't recognize its flawed.
I'm exploring an idea someone else presented. I'm not sure why you engaged if you weren't interested in doing the same.