3 ms·
The problem with this kind of thinking is that even though it sounds benign, it takes away agency from individuals. It translates to: “We are all free to make
by jelliclesfarm 4y ago
The problem with this kind of thinking is that even though it sounds benign, it takes away agency from individuals.
It translates to: “We are all free to make decisions for ourselves, but not “you”..and not “that”..”
At the end of the day, we can only live our lives. And can’t control others. We have to be consistent when it comes to the definition of ‘free’.
It is not dissimilar to the idea of children choosing gender transition. Do I have an opinion? Yes. Does it matter? No. Ditto with reproductive rights.
We have to define ‘freedom’ and stick to that definition. “My body, my choice” should fit to all bodies.
- anon291 4y agoYou cannot pretend decisions made about yourself twenty, ten, or even a year ago, being made to apply to you today give you full 'agency'. That's my point
- jelliclesfarm 4y agoPerhaps make it valid for only one year or a limited period or make it conditional. We do it for interest rates. I am sure we can do it for termination of life itself. It is an easy problem to resolve. If living is pain, physically or mentally..let them go. It is an act of compassion. We do it for animals all the time. Suffering is suffering.
- anon291 4y ago> It is an easy problem to resolve. No it's not, and these sorts of reductive absolute statements completely turn me off against allowing any kind of euthanasia. This is an incredibly difficult problem that causes us to question the existence and causes of free will.
- jelliclesfarm 4y agoWhy does it turn you off? Because Freedom is a turn off? If freedom to make decisions about one’s own body is conditional, then it’s not ‘Freedom’. There ought to be another word for it.