4 ms·

Bodily Autonomy

1 points by memorable 4y ago

raxxorraxor 4y ago
It always was a stupid argument for the case for abortion but it does make sense one the question of vaccinations. I think emergency services need a different perspective since this is an occupation by choice. You give up safety voluntarily. Military service sometimes is enforced and it is true that bodily autonomy is disregarded. Many democratic countries have acknowledged the problem and move to professional armies. In case of diseases I have to accept a certain risk if I interact with other people. I can get a vaccination against a disease I am afraid of. An enforcement of vaccination can make sense for certain occupations like health care but the rules need to be laid out to those accepting to give up their autonomy on such decisions. But this is besides the point. Some people regard a growing fetus as a human life. With few or no exceptions every society puts an arbitrary and ideological value on human life. You quickly see that the argument of bodily autonomy can only fall short if the opposition is balancing rights between the mother and the (potential) child. I am for abortion, I think the best one to make the call is the mother and I believe abortions will happen with legal sanction or not. Not having legal access does not make sense and would only increase suffering further. I think recent arguments of activists are not convincing. I don't have to like it but they have to convince others. Maybe they had the wrong speakers but they don't seem too successful as they now might have fewer rights than before and as far as I know started the discussion. But what most people do wrong is that they believe there is a right or wrong answer to any ethical question. There just isn't. In this case legislation should ensure that the decision for abortion is best delegated to the mother. Of course there are not many people around that wish they were aborted and maybe activists should consider that thought for a moment. Likewise there aren't too many expecting mothers that want to kill their children. Same question for the author, even if your upbringing wasn't optimal (whose really is?), would you rather be dead? Very likely not. I doubt there will ever be a study that can prove or disprove anything here. > It is thus in the best interests of society to limit the number of unwanted children I think the goal of an enlightened abortion policy should see that society doesn't really gets a say here. In that regard I align with popular activists. > Unlike with military service, where the state reserves the right to deny bodily autonomy, allowing abortion would actually be upholding bodily autonomy. It is upholding bodily autonomy for the mother but not the child obviously.

1 points by memorable 4y ago

It always was a stupid argument for the case for abortion but it does make sense one the question of vaccinations. I think emergency services need a different perspective since this is an occupation by choice. You give up safety voluntarily. Military service sometimes is enforced and it is true that bodily autonomy is disregarded. Many democratic countries have acknowledged the problem and move to professional armies. In case of diseases I have to accept a certain risk if I interact with other people. I can get a vaccination against a disease I am afraid of. An enforcement of vaccination can make sense for certain occupations like health care but the rules need to be laid out to those accepting to give up their autonomy on such decisions. But this is besides the point. Some people regard a growing fetus as a human life. With few or no exceptions every society puts an arbitrary and ideological value on human life. You quickly see that the argument of bodily autonomy can only fall short if the opposition is balancing rights between the mother and the (potential) child. I am for abortion, I think the best one to make the call is the mother and I believe abortions will happen with legal sanction or not. Not having legal access does not make sense and would only increase suffering further. I think recent arguments of activists are not convincing. I don't have to like it but they have to convince others. Maybe they had the wrong speakers but they don't seem too successful as they now might have fewer rights than before and as far as I know started the discussion. But what most people do wrong is that they believe there is a right or wrong answer to any ethical question. There just isn't. In this case legislation should ensure that the decision for abortion is best delegated to the mother. Of course there are not many people around that wish they were aborted and maybe activists should consider that thought for a moment. Likewise there aren't too many expecting mothers that want to kill their children. Same question for the author, even if your upbringing wasn't optimal (whose really is?), would you rather be dead? Very likely not. I doubt there will ever be a study that can prove or disprove anything here. > It is thus in the best interests of society to limit the number of unwanted children I think the goal of an enlightened abortion policy should see that society doesn't really gets a say here. In that regard I align with popular activists. > Unlike with military service, where the state reserves the right to deny bodily autonomy, allowing abortion would actually be upholding bodily autonomy. It is upholding bodily autonomy for the mother but not the child obviously.