5 ms·

It's seems like absolute bodily autonomy would be an extremely libertarian position. You can't get more hyper local than that.

lettergram 4y ago
Interesting you should say that, what about the other body? Are we okay killing dependents? I don’t think it’s as cut and dry.
- WaxProlix 4y ago
  From a libertarian perspective, if someone is dependent on you for food and shelter, what compels you to continue to provide those? There's no moral burden to help someone else, as they have no claim over your resources. Choosing not to supply a fetus with your nutrients and hormones - the result of hard work, fruits of your labour - is totally in line with my understanding of libertarianism.
  - lettergram 4y ago
    [flagged]
  - anon291 4y ago
    So you must be against child support and child negligence laws right? I for one cannot wait for our new libertarian utopia stepping over the bodies of neglected, abused, and traumatized children. It's scary what some people fantasize about.
zaphar 4y ago
That doesn't solve the problem at all, Because you still have to decide if the the fetus get's the right to that same absolute bodily autonomy. Take that all the way to the extreme though and you would need to wait for the zygote to get to the point that it can give it's opinion on what should be done with it's body. After all letting the mother decide would be going outside the bounds of her own body and would be violating another human beings right to autonomy. Absolute bodily autonomy doesn't even manage to sidestep the issue.
- stuckinhell 4y ago
  I'm hoping artificial wombs will settle the autonomy debate.
  - rory 4y ago
    How would that settle it? Like if you go to get an abortion they extract the fetus and put it into an artificial womb, then put it up for adoption? It's not likely we're all going to stop inseminating each other just because we have a new gestation option.
  - lettergram 4y ago
- dwallin 4y ago
  The fetus is utterly reliant on the mother to provide a hospitable environment, it seems self-evident that a body that is not autonomous doesn't have the same right to self-autonomy. Just think through the consequences of the argument you are making. You've now established the government as the absolute arbiter of that fetuses best interests and given the government absolute control of the environment it relies upon, aka the mother. Should the mother be required to eat a government mandated meal to make sure that the fetus is getting the nutrition required? What if the mother wants to vigorously exercise? Are you going to strap that woman down to a bed and force feed her veggies to make sure the baby comes to term safely?
  - walljm 4y ago
    "The fetus is utterly reliant on the mother to provide a hospitable environment, it seems self-evident that a body that is not autonomous doesn't have the same right to self-autonomy." So you're saying that if a life is reliant on something external for its life, then it isn't autonomous and doesn't have the right to self autonomy? Wouldn't that mean that we don't have to respect the living will of someone on life support? They are entirely reliant on other people to provide a hospitable environment. The same would hold true for new born babies, who can't feed or shelter themselves. And, for that matter, that would hold for small children. At what point does a child become self reliant enough that they don't have the right to decide if they want to be alive? "Just think through the consequences of the argument you are making. You've now established the government as the absolute arbiter of that fetuses best interests and given the government absolute control of the environment it relies upon, aka the mother." You're being somewhat hyperbolic here. But this isn't much different that what the government does now. Government limits our rights in order to provide everyone with a set of equitable rights. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" is what the goal is. And to do that, you have to limit what some people can and can't do in order for everyone else to have those rights. We have already granted the government authority to act on behalf of those who are too young to make decisions on their own. Children who find themselves abandoned, or in homes that are dangerous, can be removed by the state and placed in a safer (hopefully) environment. This system doesn't always work, but its acknowledged that its better than doing nothing at all. "Should the mother be required to eat a government mandated meal to make sure that the fetus is getting the nutrition required? What if the mother wants to vigorously exercise? Are you going to strap that woman down to a bed and force feed her veggies to make sure the baby comes to term safely?" You've pushed the idea to the extreme to prove a point. But what you've shown here is only that an extreme interpretation of this is a bad idea. The other end of this extreme is equally bad. When a mother has total autonomy to decide the fate of her children until they are old enough to live on their own without the support of their parent, then a mother could kill their child right up until they were what, 5 or 6? maybe 10? Or force the child to live under extreme physical or sexual abuse? A better answer here is somewhere in the middle. At some point after conception a child becomes a person. When that happens, the child should have all the same rights as any other person. They should have the right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" the same as any other. And those who chose to bring that life into the world must accept the responsibility to care for that life until it no longer needs that care. To do otherwise is to invite cruelty and societal degradation.

lettergram 4y ago

Interesting you should say that, what about the other body? Are we okay killing dependents? I don’t think it’s as cut and dry.

WaxProlix 4y ago
From a libertarian perspective, if someone is dependent on you for food and shelter, what compels you to continue to provide those? There's no moral burden to help someone else, as they have no claim over your resources. Choosing not to supply a fetus with your nutrients and hormones - the result of hard work, fruits of your labour - is totally in line with my understanding of libertarianism.
- lettergram 4y ago
  [flagged]
- anon291 4y ago
  So you must be against child support and child negligence laws right? I for one cannot wait for our new libertarian utopia stepping over the bodies of neglected, abused, and traumatized children. It's scary what some people fantasize about.

zaphar 4y ago

That doesn't solve the problem at all, Because you still have to decide if the the fetus get's the right to that same absolute bodily autonomy. Take that all the way to the extreme though and you would need to wait for the zygote to get to the point that it can give it's opinion on what should be done with it's body. After all letting the mother decide would be going outside the bounds of her own body and would be violating another human beings right to autonomy. Absolute bodily autonomy doesn't even manage to sidestep the issue.

stuckinhell 4y ago
I'm hoping artificial wombs will settle the autonomy debate.
- rory 4y ago
  How would that settle it? Like if you go to get an abortion they extract the fetus and put it into an artificial womb, then put it up for adoption? It's not likely we're all going to stop inseminating each other just because we have a new gestation option.
- lettergram 4y ago
dwallin 4y ago
The fetus is utterly reliant on the mother to provide a hospitable environment, it seems self-evident that a body that is not autonomous doesn't have the same right to self-autonomy. Just think through the consequences of the argument you are making. You've now established the government as the absolute arbiter of that fetuses best interests and given the government absolute control of the environment it relies upon, aka the mother. Should the mother be required to eat a government mandated meal to make sure that the fetus is getting the nutrition required? What if the mother wants to vigorously exercise? Are you going to strap that woman down to a bed and force feed her veggies to make sure the baby comes to term safely?
- walljm 4y ago
  "The fetus is utterly reliant on the mother to provide a hospitable environment, it seems self-evident that a body that is not autonomous doesn't have the same right to self-autonomy." So you're saying that if a life is reliant on something external for its life, then it isn't autonomous and doesn't have the right to self autonomy? Wouldn't that mean that we don't have to respect the living will of someone on life support? They are entirely reliant on other people to provide a hospitable environment. The same would hold true for new born babies, who can't feed or shelter themselves. And, for that matter, that would hold for small children. At what point does a child become self reliant enough that they don't have the right to decide if they want to be alive? "Just think through the consequences of the argument you are making. You've now established the government as the absolute arbiter of that fetuses best interests and given the government absolute control of the environment it relies upon, aka the mother." You're being somewhat hyperbolic here. But this isn't much different that what the government does now. Government limits our rights in order to provide everyone with a set of equitable rights. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" is what the goal is. And to do that, you have to limit what some people can and can't do in order for everyone else to have those rights. We have already granted the government authority to act on behalf of those who are too young to make decisions on their own. Children who find themselves abandoned, or in homes that are dangerous, can be removed by the state and placed in a safer (hopefully) environment. This system doesn't always work, but its acknowledged that its better than doing nothing at all. "Should the mother be required to eat a government mandated meal to make sure that the fetus is getting the nutrition required? What if the mother wants to vigorously exercise? Are you going to strap that woman down to a bed and force feed her veggies to make sure the baby comes to term safely?" You've pushed the idea to the extreme to prove a point. But what you've shown here is only that an extreme interpretation of this is a bad idea. The other end of this extreme is equally bad. When a mother has total autonomy to decide the fate of her children until they are old enough to live on their own without the support of their parent, then a mother could kill their child right up until they were what, 5 or 6? maybe 10? Or force the child to live under extreme physical or sexual abuse? A better answer here is somewhere in the middle. At some point after conception a child becomes a person. When that happens, the child should have all the same rights as any other person. They should have the right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" the same as any other. And those who chose to bring that life into the world must accept the responsibility to care for that life until it no longer needs that care. To do otherwise is to invite cruelty and societal degradation.