Bodily Autonomy

Author: Danielle

Posts

Total: 329
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
Does anyone deny that we have a constitutional right to bodily autonomy, or does anyone feel that we shouldn't have this right?
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
Are you for laws that codify the ownership of a fetus?
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
No, what would be the point of that? 
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Danielle
Because, to a prolifer, the same morals driving them to respect your bodily autonomy drive them to respect that of the fetus inside a pregnant woman.

Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@RationalMadman
The constitution does not afford citizenship (rights) to the unborn regardless of people's feelings on the matter. 

But the constitution does give citizens the right to bodily autonomy, correct? I'm wondering if anyone disagrees.
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Danielle
Does anyone deny that we have a constitutional right to bodily autonomy, or does anyone feel that we shouldn't have this right?
In the wise words of Joe Biden, no right is absolute!

If I can’t own a machine gun, you can’t kill unborn children. Fair is fair
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@bmdrocks21
I love machine guns. They have no relevance to my question about the constitutional right to bodily autonomy.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
The constitution does not afford citizenship (rights) to the unborn regardless of people's feelings on the matter. 
Correct, but if you want to codify a constitutional right to bodily autonomy, you also need a constitutional right to the ownership of your fetus.
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
No, we already have a constitutional right to bodily autonomy while the constitution says nothing about fetal ownership. 
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Danielle
Sorry, it sounded like you were asking what people believed as opposed to what is arbitrarily written on a document they may find hypocrisy or fault with.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
while the constitution says nothing about fetal ownership. 
That's the point. Add an amendment that does if you want a codified right. Why would you object to such an amendment?

Why would you settle for ambiguity?
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@RationalMadman
I am asking what people believe. I specifically asked if everyone believes in or acknowledges the constitutional right to bodily autonomy.

One could acknowledge the right to B.A. exists and disagree with it. For instance some people believe in forced sterilization or vaccination. 

I'm wondering if anyone here believes that government/voters should have a say over what  citizens can or have to do with their bodies. 

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
I'm wondering if anyone here believes that government/voters should have a say over what  citizens can or have to do with their bodies. 
I have not seen any of the mandatory vaccination cases settled before the SCOTUS yet on that matter.

I do know Arver v. United States codified a constitutional right for the government to seize your body and place it on a battlefield.
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,354
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Danielle
I'm not sure that the Constitution 'specifically uses the words "right to bodily autonomy"?

Instead it has other rights related,
Or rights it says we 'don't have.

Then I think there's 'assumed rights it didn't even state.
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
I wouldn't object to a constitutional right to abortion, but we wouldn't need one if SCOTUS interpreted the constitution honestly. 

I'm investigating the logic behind letting states/voters regulate abortion if we have a constitutional right to bodily autonomy (and to a lesser extent, privacy). 

I don't understand the link you're making between SCOTUS' vaccination cases and DART user's opinions, but usually the analogies between abortion and vaccination are pretty weak. Nobody in this country is forced to get a vaccine. There are vaccine requirements for voluntary participation or employment in certain industries, and generally that has been upheld by the Courts as a matter of public safety. The public's safety is not compromised when someone terminates a pregnancy.
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
I do know Arver v. United States codified a constitutional right for the government to seize your body and place it on a battlefield.
This was a narrow decision that's limited to bodily conscription for the purpose of armies. It acknowledges that Congress explicitly has the power to raise armies pursuant to the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8).  There is no constitutional power for Congress to seize your body for any other means, and fwiw conscripted soldiers are paid for their service. I mentioned in another thread how government paying women to become baby makers opens up a whole other can of moral questions and concerns. 
Novice_II
Novice_II's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 174
2
6
6
Novice_II's avatar
Novice_II
2
6
6
Bodily autonomy can be restricted like any other right that exists. It does however seem irrelevant as the pre born child is not the mothers body. 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
 I mentioned in another thread how government paying women to become baby makers opens up a whole other can of moral questions and concerns. 

Like the WIC program?
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
The argument from "my body my choice" is such a poor one I am genuinely surprised that people still use it. 

Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Like the WIC program?
Worse: paying impoverished women for kids they do not want. What could go wrong?

Now let's get back to the question at hand on why abortion be left to the states if we have bodily autonomy. 
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
We should all agree on that before 22 weeks where the fetus can survive outside the womb, it should be legal and it should not be comparable with murder. Outlawing anything after that is understandable, but before 22 weeks it sounds absurd.
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Bones
Did someone say "my body, my choice" in this thread? It's interesting you would argue against a point that nobody made. 
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Danielle
Bodily autonomy unless we deem the human being unworthy of consideration.

Gotcha.
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Intelligence_06
Fetal viability doesn't seem relevant to the question I'm asking about bodily autonomy. Our right to bodily autonomy exists outside the scope of pregnancy. Men and infertile women have bodily autonomy regardless of their ability to get pregnant. The question I'm asking is whether or not aspects of our body in terms of sexual expression, medical care, elective surgery, or forced conditions like pregnancy and vaccination should be subjected to a public vote regardless of our personal will. Before we can answer that question I'm wondering if anyone denies that we have a constitutional right to bodily autonomy, or feels we shouldn't have that right. Only people who deny this right exists have a leg to stand on saying "the states/voters should decide" on the legality of abortion. 
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Danielle
Well the implications are clear as day light, that is the argument you are insinuating. Is the "my body my choice" argument one which you support? I can ask the same to you. Why are you mentioning fetal viability? Nowhere in your OP are the terms "fetal" or "viability" mentioned. 

As for your original stipulation, "does anyone deny that we have a constitutional right to bodily autonomy, or does anyone feel that we shouldn't have this right", I would say most agree, which is why the fetus too ought have the bodily rights not to be killed. 
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@RationalMadman
Not every human being has the same legal rights, that's correct. Just ask any immigrant, mentally impaired, minor or felon. 

Do you think that American citizens have the right to bodily autonomy generally? I couldn't help but notice that you never answered. 
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Danielle
Only if they respect the same for non american citizens. I am not a believer in jingoistic based rights nor in rights based on IQ or income.
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Danielle
Agree. People do have the right to do whatever they want with their body without being controlled by the government or even by the market. I generally disagree with selling kidneys and prostitution: They are basically trading health for money. The body shouldn't be have itself damaged explicitly for the stimulation of the economy, and while a doctor's visit shouldn't be free, it should't cost as much as so it seems the hospital is trying to make money rather than to help people.

And it goes without saying that not only legally intervening with bodily autonomy doesn't make people comply, it makes the problem worse. When abortion is illegalized, people who really are in need are switched from authorized hospitals to shady clinics in reality.
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Bones
Well the implications are clear as day light, that is the argument you are insinuating.
It's fair to speculate about the context of my question, and yes my question does stem from concerns I have about abortion. But my feelings on abortion really don't matter - it matters what the law says.  I'm asking if people agree that a constitutional right to bodily autonomy exists and we can go from there.


Is the "my body my choice" argument one which you support?
Yes, and I think the principle should be extended even further than the status quo (i.e. all drugs should be legal, prostitution should be legal, etc). 

Why do you think the concept of exercising control over one's body is such a stupid idea? 


I can ask the same to you. Why are you mentioning fetal viability? Nowhere in your OP are the terms "fetal" or "viability" mentioned. 
Lol well I only mentioned viability because you brought it up. I was asking about the constitutional right to bodily autonomy and that's it. 


As for your original stipulation, "does anyone deny that we have a constitutional right to bodily autonomy, or does anyone feel that we shouldn't have this right", I would say most agree, which is why the fetus too ought have the bodily rights not to be killed. 
Where does the law  stipulate that  constitutional rights apply to the unborn? I don't believe that the unborn qualify for the right to bodily autonomy the same way they don't qualify for the right to free speech.  

In McVall v. Shimp, the Court ruled that it is unacceptable to force someone to donate body parts even in a situation of medical necessity. So even if we accept that the unborn have a right to not be killed per se, there is a question about the extent to which a woman has to "donate" or utilize her body to keep that fetus alive. But I digress. I really didn't want to debate abortion specifically, at least not yet. I wanted to focus on the constitutional rights to autonomy and privacy, generally, because I so vehemently disagree with Justice Thomas about the futility of the cases built upon those rights (Obergefell, Griswold, etc.). I'm wondering if anyone here genuinely believes that Americans do not have the right to make decisions about their own bodies. I think we all agree that fetuses CANNOT make decisions about their own bodies, so we can talk about fetuses later. 




Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
This was a narrow decision that's limited to bodily conscription for the purpose of armies. 
Narrow or not, it is the law of the land and implies legal exemptions to bodily autonomy in certain cases.