3 ms·

Don't we already compel people to use their bodies in ways that may be against their wishes? Let's say I have a 1 month old. Pretty much everyone would agree I

Don't we already compel people to use their bodies in ways that may be against their wishes? Let's say I have a 1 month old. Pretty much everyone would agree I'm not allowed to murder that baby. However, I also need to care for the baby? What happened to my bodily autonomy? Why can't I fly out to vegas for a weekend and leave the baby at home to fend for itself? I have to be a ward for this little blob? Or I have to go out of my way and waste my time to find someone to care for it? Why is it my job to keep this thing alive? Why will I be punished if I neglect that job?

roflyear 4y ago
Are you really this stupid or are you intentionally trying to muddy the waters? You can leave your newborn at any hospital in the US no questions asked if you do not want them.
- googlryas 4y ago
  Excuse me, where exactly is my bodily freedom in that instance? I need to go out of my way to do something with my body, just so someone else will live? We've concluded that that is wrong.
  - nkrisc 4y ago
    You’re not required to give the child any part of your body. You’re misunderstanding what bodily autonomy means. By you argument, prisons should not exist.
    - googlryas 4y ago
      Wikipedia defines bodily autonomy as: > Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy, self-ownership, and self-determination of human beings over their own bodies I would say that part of having "self-determination of human beings over their bodies" is where their bodies are and what their bodies are doing. But fine, we can just talk about tons of other laws which don't support the concept of bodily autonomy, like anti-drug laws, seat belt and helmet laws, etc. > By you argument, prisons should not exist. No, my argument is that bodily autonomy isn't a fully guaranteed concept in our legal system. A prison is exactly another example of the case, not only the main use of the prison, but also forced invasive strip searches there, forced blood draws, etc.
      - roflyear 4y ago
        Arguing to dictionary definitions while absolutely refusing to put any good faith effort into your discussion is telling. Go do that somewhere else.
        googlryas 4y ago
        I was told I didn't understand a concept, so I went to the obvious place to get a primer on the subject. Do you have a better method I can learn about the rights of bodily autonomy in the US legal system? I will state my point directly: To me, arguing that a person has no obligation to care for an unborn human they created is no different than arguing that a person has no obligation to care for a 1 month old they created. I don't see the process of birth as some factor in determining whether someone is a human or not. Please note this is entirely separate from the concept of when someone is a human. I'm all for abortions of non-human-yet things should the mother be desirous.
        roflyear 4y ago
        > To me, arguing that a person has no obligation to care for an unborn human they created is no different than arguing that a person has no obligation to care for a 1 month old they created. Except, in our society you do not have that obligation. Just leave them at the hospital. Of course, you will have to create odd situations where this doesn't work to support your flawed argument, because you're a luddite and have a smol brain. There are FUCKING ZERO situations outside of abortion where you can give up your care for the baby while pregnant, nevermind the many other differences where pregnancy is much more serious for the mother than having a 1mo old.
  - roflyear 4y ago
    Are you seriously telling me you can't use whatever braincells you have left to come up with a few situations where a woman pregnant with a child and a born child are different? Really?
tzs 4y ago
There's a book by Rothbard, I think it is his "The Ethics of Liberty", where he describes a set of libertarian principles and then how he thinks a society could be made based on those principles. What makes it interesting is that he tries very hard to not have to compromise those libertarian principles, following them even if they go to some places he agrees are pretty dark and trying to explain what would prevent that from happening. He covers the issue of parents having to care for children and concludes that they would not be legally required to do so. Go ahead and go to Vegas for a weekend and if the baby can't figure out how to survive on its own that's not legally your problem. His argument for why this would not lead to the large number of baby deaths by neglect that probably most people reading this are sure it would is that adoption would not be regulated in his ideal libertarian state. There would be a totally free market in babies. You could make a lot more than you'd ever win in Vegas in a weekend by first putting your unwanted baby up for sale. I don't find his arguments very convincing, but it is interesting if you treat it more as an intellectual puzzle than how you would actually set up a society.

roflyear 4y ago

Are you really this stupid or are you intentionally trying to muddy the waters? You can leave your newborn at any hospital in the US no questions asked if you do not want them.

googlryas 4y ago
Excuse me, where exactly is my bodily freedom in that instance? I need to go out of my way to do something with my body, just so someone else will live? We've concluded that that is wrong.
- nkrisc 4y ago
  You’re not required to give the child any part of your body. You’re misunderstanding what bodily autonomy means. By you argument, prisons should not exist.
  - googlryas 4y ago
    Wikipedia defines bodily autonomy as: > Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy, self-ownership, and self-determination of human beings over their own bodies I would say that part of having "self-determination of human beings over their bodies" is where their bodies are and what their bodies are doing. But fine, we can just talk about tons of other laws which don't support the concept of bodily autonomy, like anti-drug laws, seat belt and helmet laws, etc. > By you argument, prisons should not exist. No, my argument is that bodily autonomy isn't a fully guaranteed concept in our legal system. A prison is exactly another example of the case, not only the main use of the prison, but also forced invasive strip searches there, forced blood draws, etc.
    - roflyear 4y ago
      Arguing to dictionary definitions while absolutely refusing to put any good faith effort into your discussion is telling. Go do that somewhere else.
      - googlryas 4y ago
        I was told I didn't understand a concept, so I went to the obvious place to get a primer on the subject. Do you have a better method I can learn about the rights of bodily autonomy in the US legal system? I will state my point directly: To me, arguing that a person has no obligation to care for an unborn human they created is no different than arguing that a person has no obligation to care for a 1 month old they created. I don't see the process of birth as some factor in determining whether someone is a human or not. Please note this is entirely separate from the concept of when someone is a human. I'm all for abortions of non-human-yet things should the mother be desirous.
        roflyear 4y ago
        > To me, arguing that a person has no obligation to care for an unborn human they created is no different than arguing that a person has no obligation to care for a 1 month old they created. Except, in our society you do not have that obligation. Just leave them at the hospital. Of course, you will have to create odd situations where this doesn't work to support your flawed argument, because you're a luddite and have a smol brain. There are FUCKING ZERO situations outside of abortion where you can give up your care for the baby while pregnant, nevermind the many other differences where pregnancy is much more serious for the mother than having a 1mo old.
- roflyear 4y ago
  Are you seriously telling me you can't use whatever braincells you have left to come up with a few situations where a woman pregnant with a child and a born child are different? Really?

tzs 4y ago

There's a book by Rothbard, I think it is his "The Ethics of Liberty", where he describes a set of libertarian principles and then how he thinks a society could be made based on those principles. What makes it interesting is that he tries very hard to not have to compromise those libertarian principles, following them even if they go to some places he agrees are pretty dark and trying to explain what would prevent that from happening. He covers the issue of parents having to care for children and concludes that they would not be legally required to do so. Go ahead and go to Vegas for a weekend and if the baby can't figure out how to survive on its own that's not legally your problem. His argument for why this would not lead to the large number of baby deaths by neglect that probably most people reading this are sure it would is that adoption would not be regulated in his ideal libertarian state. There would be a totally free market in babies. You could make a lot more than you'd ever win in Vegas in a weekend by first putting your unwanted baby up for sale. I don't find his arguments very convincing, but it is interesting if you treat it more as an intellectual puzzle than how you would actually set up a society.