AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND

597 readers

128 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

DougHolland

457

My body, my choice (lemmy.world)

submitted 6 days ago by DougHolland to c/aiop

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] eatthecake 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] partial_accumen 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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?

[–] eatthecake 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] partial_accumen 1 points 6 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago

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

[–] eatthecake 1 points 6 days ago

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.

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.