-->
@Danielle
No you don't have this right, sorry
Bodily Autonomy
Posts
Total:
329
-->
@Danielle
What are some other instances where voters should get to make decisions over other people's bodies and medical procedures or elective surgeries? Are there other cases where it would be okay to force someone's body to endure things against their will? For example would it be okay to require vaccination as a prerequisite to rights and citizenship?
Well for one, at the very least preventing the mutilation and sterilization of minors through supposed “transition” surgeries. That seems to be a fairly widely accepted instance of preventing individuals from undergoing medical procedures through the actions of elected officials.
I think we can both agree that pregnancy is a rather unique situation, so I don’t really need to provide another example of when it is okay to “force someone’s body to endure things against their will”. However, an argument that I’ve previously made and am willing to stand behind is that I believe if you injure another person I would support mandatory transplants. For example, if you beat someone with a bat and damaged their kidneys, I think that you should be required to give a kidney transplant if you are a possible donor. The only thing preventing that from being a law would be the logistics of proving guilt and acquiring the organ in time to prevent the victim’s death. However, such limitations don’t exist for pregnancy.
For vaccination, under limited circumstances, people should be required to be vaccinated. If, say, 40% of people died from a disease and the vaccine was safe and very effective at preventing spread of the disease.
-->
@Barney
Until the situations enable it and society turns a blind eye.
-->
@Ehyeh
If you disagree certain vaccines should be mandatory, lets debate.
I can't tell if you're trolling or not, but I do not support mandatory vaccination.
-->
@Greyparrot
I disagree. The SCOTUS answers to legislative amendments, not the other way around.
The constitution is supposed to be broad so that it encompasses a lot of things, and so that we don't have to constantly update it because it's hard to change. I guess I would support a broad amendment for bodily autonomy though considering the scumbags serving on the Supreme Court, but it really shouldn't be necessary with the current text as written.
-->
@Danielle
I'm joking, but I do support mandatory vaccination in certain cases, and I believe Covid was one of them at one point. Do you want to debate it?
-->
@oromagi
I'm just skeptical that the language of the Fourth Amendment really implies bodily autonomy or a Right to Privacy in a modern sense.
I'm not and to be honest I disagree with all of the pro-choice/anti-Roe critics I've heard so far. It's true that society looked much different when the founders were alive, but the fourth amendment gave people the right to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. When the state prevents someone from having an abortion, they are essentially seizing that person's body for nine months and forcing them to house another person inside of it. In what other scenario would the founders believe it is okay to force citizens to host someone or something inside of their body because of an alleged state interest? That was reserved for slaves.
I think the right to privacy is pretty clear in all the cases you referenced. The ninth amendment states that the Bill of Rights does not exhaust all the rights contained by the people, which allows Courts to recognize privacy rights without having to ground it in a specific constitutional amendment. That is huge.
The whole purpose of the third, fourth and fifth amendments are to recognize people's privacy from government intrusion. But I do think the fourteenth amendment is probably the best argument re: privacy when it comes to the aforementioned cases. No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. What kind of due process would be available to a person seeking an abortion? Is the state going to have an investigation or trial every single time someone wants a procedure?
To the extent that our day to day business has become a valuable commodity to commerce, we possess a self-evident right to sell or refuse to sell that data as we see fit.
We don't have (and shouldn't have) a constitutional right to utilize commerce and social websites. Don't get me started on all the freeze peach ding-dongs whining about being banned on twitter lol. We agree to give companies our data / track us / market to us when we click "I Accept" the terms of service or choose to purchase something online rather than in-person. Unless there's some kind of government website required for certain things, I don't see this kind of privacy as a constitutional issue for the time being. Perhaps there should be some more laws for transparency or other regulation measures put in place, but this is something that should probably be dealt with legislatively.
-->
@Ehyeh
I'm joking, but I do support mandatory vaccination in certain cases, and I believe Covid was one of them at one point. Do you want to debate it?
I haven't debated in ages but I guess I could lol. I'm shocked you would support it for Covid. That almost seems too easy to win and I'd feel weird accepting it.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Well for one, at the very least preventing the mutilation and sterilization of minors through supposed “transition” surgeries.
Minors (like fetuses) do not have the same rights as adult humans. It is unconstitutional to prevent neurotypical adults from having elective surgeries.
I think we can both agree that pregnancy is a rather unique situation, so I don’t really need to provide another example of when it is okay to “force someone’s body to endure things against their will”.
I think anti-choice people like to pretend that abortion allows for constitutional and legal exceptions because they can't come up with an analogy that justifies the state exercising control over a person's body and medical decisions. In the example you gave about mandatory transplants (which I don't agree with btw) the victim's rights have been violated, and the offender's punishment is some sort of compensation to them. But a fetus doesn't have any rights that were violated and need compensating.
Admittedly the fact that you would be okay with forced vaccination presents a consistency in that you don't believe in bodily autonomy; you think it's acceptable for the government to seize someone's body and take control over it if it's in the interest of the state. I disagree with that position, but presumably you recognize that the government is not legally able to do that because we do have the right to privacy and bodily integrity. What the government would probably do in a situation of some super-spreading deadly virus is say that you can't be in any public place without proof of vaccination. And as limiting as that would be, it's STILL not as invasive as forcing someone to host something inside of their body and give birth to it.
-->
@Danielle
That's fine as long as I gain knowledge. It's been a while since I've debated vaccine mandates, but regardless of whether the argument is centered on Covid or any other virus, my argument remains the same and consistent. Do you want to start the debate, or do you want me to do it? Do you want to focus solely on whether vaccine mandates should be morally mandated or whether vaccine mandates are unconstitutional? or perhaps both?
-->
@Danielle
I guess I would support a broad amendment for bodily autonomy.
I'm pretty sure bipartisan support for this could happen.
-->
@Ehyeh
That's an amazing attitude and I share your love of learning and challenging my beliefs. The constitutionality aspect of forced vaccination may be more clear-cut than the moral aspect (maybe not!). To be honest I don't expect anyone else to read our debate, and I don't really care about votes, so I'm down to have a conversation about either and both of those perspectives. We can chat about it or hash out the details via PM if you prefer.
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol I was just thinking to myself that would never happen. The opposition to abortion is still too high. Maybe someday.
-->
@Danielle
I agree that the constitutionality is clearer, but they kind of go hand in hand. People wouldn't support a constitutional right if they thought it was immoral. I'll see where it goes, and if its ok, I'll make arguments from both sides. I used to be anti-mandatory vaccination until I lost a debate on the subject! So it would be interesting to see if my opinions changed again. It's important to be open-minded, especially when it comes to topics like this, because they have a huge impact on people's lives; I don't take mandatory vaccination lightly.
-->
@Danielle
The opposition to abortion is still too high.
There's not nearly as much opposition for a 3 week abortion as there is for a 28 week abortion.
-->
@Ehyeh
That's an awesome mentality to have and I respect you for it. I'm constantly trying to challenge myself in the same way. I spent like 2 hours on the beach yesterday debating abortion from the perspective that it should be legal for states to regulate. My wife mopped the floor with me which just solidified my position even further, but I'm still down to rethink it. Always.
Let's think of a resolution about vaccination and go from there. Any preferences?
-->
@Danielle
I'm also fine with abortion, so i guess that shows a bit of nuance of symmetry breaker i think i see between abortion and vaccination. I don't exactly have any preferences about our debate, unless I'm misunderstanding? lol
I'll just open up our debate and give you an invite to it. Preferably id prefer you to do it since i feel like I'm not the best at giving good descriptions and the like, but i can manage.
-->
@Greyparrot
There's not nearly as much opposition for a 3 week abortion as there is for a 28 week abortion.
Sure, but this is the kind of rhetoric that infuriates women. It's the same as Democrats pretending language doesn't matter when they try to enact gun restrictions and throw around words like "assault rifle." Your weeks of pregnancy are dated from the first day of your last period. That means you aren't even pregnant in the first two weeks – your body is preparing for ovulation. Urine tests can't reliably detect pregnancy until like 2 weeks after conception when you're already considered four weeks pregnant. That's why five week abortion bans when the "heartbeat" starts are so ridiculous. Most people don't know they're pregnant until that time or later.
I g2g for now but I wonder if securing an amendment for bodily autonomy wouldn't prohibit abortion restrictions based on viability. That's something I always thought was kinda weird about Roe. Like I understand the state interest argument but I think it can be challenged by solidifying more rights to our person.
-->
@Danielle
Sure, but this is the kind of rhetoric that infuriates women
Well they better get over it if they want codified rights.
-->
@Danielle
throw around words like "assault rifle."
Viability isn't nearly as vague as "assault". Every gun is capable of assaulting a person.
-->
@Danielle
Minors (like fetuses) do not have the same rights as adult humans. It is unconstitutional to prevent neurotypical adults from having elective surgeries.
It is still limiting what surgeries that children can receive even with adult parental permission. Is calling things 'unconstitutional' that you don't like the new buzzword for you? Not all treatments for illnesses and surgeries that are allowed outside of the US are allowed here. We can Constitutionally ban medical treatments in the country, which is what repealing Roe allows.
I think anti-choice people like to pretend that abortion allows for constitutional and legal exceptions because they can't come up with an analogy that justifies the state exercising control over a person's body and medical decisions. In the example you gave about mandatory transplants (which I don't agree with btw) the victim's rights have been violated, and the offender's punishment is some sort of compensation to them. But a fetus doesn't have any rights that were violated and need compensating.
I think that anti-life people like to say that pregnancy is unique and that's why termination of human life is allowed, then pretend it isn't unique because they don't like responsibilities.
Well if you disagree with the transplant example, I think we are going to disagree about the application to pregnancy..... The right to life of victims is more important than the supposed right to bodily autonomy that an aggressor would have, in my opinion. Why would you disagree?
Admittedly the fact that you would be okay with forced vaccination presents a consistency in that you don't believe in bodily autonomy; you think it's acceptable for the government to seize someone's body and take control over it if it's in the interest of the state. I disagree with that position, but presumably you recognize that the government is not legally able to do that because we do have the right to privacy and bodily integrity. What the government would probably do in a situation of some super-spreading deadly virus is say that you can't be in any public place without proof of vaccination. And as limiting as that would be, it's STILL not as invasive as forcing someone to host something inside of their body and give birth to it.
By forcing vaccination, I didn't mean tie people down and stab them with needles. Not allowing them in public would be sufficient. And the interest of the state is rather unimportant for the abortion issue. In fact, it is probably opposed to the interest of the state to limit abortion. And of either of the two, vaccine mandates should be met with much more scrutiny. Abortion is a procedure specifically designed to end life, whereas accidentally getting someone sick who may die isn’t as causally related
Now to know exactly what flavor of sadism that I'm dealing with, could you enlighten me of the point at which elective abortion should be prohibited? At what point from Plan B to ripping a fetus apart with forceps does it become unacceptable?
-->
@Greyparrot
Well they better get over it if they want codified rights.
I disagree. If someone says they oppose abortion after three weeks, they should be educated on the fact that someone three weeks pregnant literally just conceived and there's no way to know if you're pregnant that early (not even by blood test). We shouldn't entertain people's nonsensical ideas. People in general need to stop pushing for laws on things they don't understand. It's dangerous.
-->
@Greyparrot
Viability isn't nearly as vague as "assault". Every gun is capable of assaulting a person.
Anti-choicers are not okay with allowing abortion to the point of viability though. That's why they've devoted their lives to overturning Roe.
Personally I don't agree with viability as the line anymore. I used to, but I really can't see a justification for the state to ever be able to force someone to host another person (or thing) inside of their body against their will. I know you'd oppose that for vaccines. Presumably you'd oppose that for microchips. Why then would it be okay to force someone to house a HUMAN BEING inside their body?
I mean what if some people developed a rare tumor that scientists wanted to study, and criminalized the attempt to remove those tumors so society could research and learn more about them. That's fucked up lol. And unconstitutional. The state should not have that kind of control over people's bodies ever in my opinion, and I really think the constitution already establishes that.
But even if we accept that we have to balance the right to bodily autonomy with a state interest in the unborn child's life (as was decided in Roe), then viability seems like the only justifiable line for restriction. It shouldn't matter in any way, shape or form what voters think on bans before then.
-->
@Danielle
then viability seems like the only justifiable line for restriction.
More importantly, likely to be codified into law with overwhelming bipartisan support.
-->
@Danielle
Think about it this way. we got the CRA ONLY after the 13th and 14th amendments
Think of it a stepping stone if it were codified into law a right to have an abortion up to viability. It would be much easier to expand an already existing right.
-->
@Danielle
Imagine how backward America would have been if abolitionists refused to vote for the 13th amendment because it didn't outlaw Jim Crow laws lul.
-->
@Danielle
Anti-choicers are not okay with allowing abortion to the point of viability though.
There's enough bi-partisan support for a right to abort up to viability.
-->
@bmdrocks21
If I can’t own a machine gun, you can’t kill unborn children.
Fetus/baby is organism of the pregnant woman that has not taken its first inspiration of air into its lungs. Even born-out people who cannot breath use lung machines.
No organism of pregnant woman uses a lung machine.
These pro-lifers are perverted virtual rapist who lack ethically moral abilities to make the clear distinction between and organism of pregnant woman and a born-out breathing child.
Why is this? It is based in some Bilblical partriachal systems that exist to dominate women, and make prolifer appear as if morally superior to all others, because they can stick their nose into a pregnant womans bodily business without her consent. Sic-n.head is what these people, are plain and simple, and,
any who disagree with them can talk to their semi-automatic assault weapon about it. Sick
-->
@ebuc
You could have been a bit more concise:
It’s okay to kill things that haven’t breathed for the first time yet
Religious people bad and only think killing bad because they hate women
Only religious people can think killing bad
Quite the thesis pro-choicers have, diabolical virtual murderers
-->
@Danielle
Personally I don't agree with viability as the line anymore. I used to, but I really can't see a justification for the state to ever be able to force someone to host another person (or thing) inside of their body against their will. I know you'd oppose that for vaccines. Presumably you'd oppose that for microchips. Why then would it be okay to force someone to house a HUMAN BEING inside their body?I mean what if some people developed a rare tumor that scientists wanted to study, and criminalized the attempt to remove those tumors so society could research and learn more about them. That's fucked up lol. And unconstitutional. The state should not have that kind of control over people's bodies ever in my opinion, and I really think the constitution already establishes that.
well stated