Is There Such a Thing as Bodily Autonomy?

FoxHastings said: ↑
No, vaccination does not require anyone using their body to sustain the life of another (without their consent).

No, vaccination does not require anyone using their body to sustain the life of another (without their consent).


Repeating yourself with errors doesn't change the facts.

You say, ""Bodily autonomy does not include supporting the life of another"

So if I need a new heart or a kidney, I can force you to give me yours...?

How?

 

Bodily autonomy does not include supporting the life of another. You seem to think that my statement DOES include supporting the life of another. It doesn't. It's bodily autonomy.

Now, back to the the statement that bodily autonomy includes involuntary vaccinations.....

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
No, vaccination does not require anyone using their body to sustain the life of another (without their consent).

No, vaccination does not require anyone using their body to sustain the life of another (without their consent).


Repeating yourself with errors doesn't change the facts.

You say, ""Bodily autonomy does not include supporting the life of another"

So if I need a new heart or a kidney, I can force you to give me yours...?

Having bodily autonomy means your body is yours...no one can use it without your consent.

If a pregnant woman doesn't consent to let a fetus (or anyone else) use her body to sustain their life she doesn't have to let them use her body to sustain their life.

 

Well your argument was you would like to believe in bodily autonomy but some of the believers are hypocrites. That like saying I don't know if I believe we should be moral because some of the people that say that are hypocrites. Doesn't follow.

Public safety takes precedence over individual rights. A murderer who gets the death sentence loses his right to bodily autonomy.

So if you want a tattoo or breast implants its DIY?

 

Since when? A murder has the opportunity for due process which is a constitutional gate. I expect you aren't aware of this, and perhaps is the first time you've been educated about how our nation works. Public safety as discussed obviates due process entirely. And once you start using it as your excuse, there will be virtually no limits to what you can require folks to do. Total fail on your part.

 

Once you take away bodily autonomy from women "" there will be virtually no limits to what you can require folks""(women) ""to do""

 

I'll put it in more simple words then.

Bodily autonomy means no one has the right to make a woman carry a fetus (life of another).

Bodily autonomy ALSO means that vaccinations cannot be forced onto a person either.

 

Thank you for your condescending bloviating, but a murderer who has received the death sentence has already had "the opportunity for due process which is a constitutional gate". He will be injected with Versed, Pavulon and potassium, in that order, much against his will because he lost all right to bodily autonomy.
Public safety does not necessarily prevent due process. Courts, lawmakers have weighed in on the subject. Forced quarantining of those who refuse treatment of an infectious disease for example.
Then comes the hysterical hyperbole "once you start using it as your excuse, there will be virtually no limits to what you can require folks to do." A ridiculous statement. First you would need to throw out the "Constitutional Gate"...fail.

 

Why not ? They sure seem to be....for the safety and health of others....as it should be.

They are not using their body, or any part of it, to sustain the life of another.

 

No, but presumably you wouldn't say that people have the right to get a tattoo or have breast implants!

 

Sure, but they don't have the RIGHT to any assistance do they?

 

I betcha if they made a law preventing cosmetic surgery the courts would throw it out as unconstitutional.

 

Well there would have to be a reason for banning cosmetic surgery wouldn't there?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Uh, no, one is allowed any "assistance" they choose...or consent to.

What TF are you going on about now...??

What TF do you mean by "assistance" ?? In what circumstances?

YOU are the one who added this meaningless, irrelevant " assistance" crap...you explain it...or just let it go away because it really has no meaning..

 

The sentiment from the anti-abortion people is the right to control one's body does not justify the intentional killing of "others". To their unnuanced, black and white world all "others" are of equal value. Just because they have human DNA doesn't mean they are of equal value. If I had to choose the life of my daughter or a brain dead patient that would be easy. A fetus' value grows as it gestates. Once it reaches viability its rights have increased to where the woman's autonomy is diminished but she never loses it completely. She would be the one to choose who would live or die before birth if necessary.

 

So there should be a term limit or there shouldn't?

 

Should a woman be free to commit suicide? If not, why not? What about her right to her body?

 

Exactly! No reply!

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
What TF are you going on about now...??

What TF do you mean by "assistance" ?? In what circumstances?

YOU are the one who added this meaningless, irrelevant " assistance" crap...you explain it...or just let it go away because it really has no meaning..

What TF do you mean by "assistance" ?? In what circumstances?

YOU are the one who added this meaningless, irrelevant " assistance" crap...you explain it...or just let it go away because it really has no meaning..

 

So, you have no argument regarding due process. When elected or non elected officials choose for you, there is no due process. There is only hope that a legal challenge (again, not due process) might cure the harm government inflicted on you. This isn't China, government doesn't just get to choose for you.

 

Bodily autonomy is not just about abortion.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Why not ? They sure seem to be....for the safety and health of others....as it should be.

They are not using their body, or any part of it, to sustain the life of another.

No, it isn't.

For instance, a person who needs a new heart to keep them alive (or a kidney or a blood transfusion ,etc) canNOT force another person to give them what they need to sustain their life.

But that is similar to a woman being FORCED to use her body to sustain the life of another...something NO one else is forced to do.

 

Yet you support the idea that a person, regardless of gender, must accept a vaccination? What about those who cannot physically accept the vaccination, must they still be vaccinated, and accept the repercussions for the benefit of the 'greater good'?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Why not ? They sure seem to be....for the safety and health of others....as it should be.

They are not using their body, or any part of it, to sustain the life of another.

READ THIS:



For instance, a person who needs a new heart to keep them alive (or a kidney or a blood transfusion ,etc) canNOT force another person to give them what they need to sustain their life.

But that is similar to a woman being FORCED to use her body to sustain the life of another...something NO one else is forced to do.

NO, I NEVER said I did. But , yes, vaccinations are a health concern for others....without them disease, (chaos in society) would ensue.

Vaccinations do NOT require a person to use their body to sustain the life of another.

I doubt those with allergic reactions to vaccines are forced to be vaccinated.

Now, care to get back to bodily autonomy ? It has nothing to do with vaccinations.

 

You missed my point....people have a right to tattoos and cosmetic surgery since they do not effect the public good.

Once the fetus reaches viability its rights have increased to where that should be seriously considered in the decision making.

Are we slapping a dead pony? You seem to not know what due process is. It is basically a legal requirement that no citizen be deprived of their legal rights without properly application of the law and the courts are the preferred method for resolving questions over what process is due not the individual.