this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024
456 points (97.1% liked)
AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND
686 readers
157 users here now
This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
♦ ♦ ♦
RULES
① Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.
② Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
③ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.
④ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.
⑤ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.
Please also abide by the instance rules.
♦ ♦ ♦
Can't get enough? Visit my blog.
♦ ♦ ♦
Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.
$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The OP makes a clear vision of bodily autonomy, but I question whether the apparent author, Pete Alex Harris, believes it absolutely.
Lets explore what "Bodily autonomy is an essential and unconditional liberty" allows:
I actually agree with some of the above should be legal, but the possibilities of coercion for groups at risk to be forced into some of these to survive raises some troubling ethical questions. If we accept the above absolutely, are we creating markets for human suffering?
You can legalize consumption of anything you want to put in your body, but criminalize sell, purchase and possession.
You can legalize the individual working in unsafe conditions if they so wish, but criminalize any one from running a company with unsafe conditions.
You can legalize consumption of your own brrast mill cheese, other that of others, but criminalize companies from selling it.
I don't see how those 3 things infringe in your bodily autonomy. People can own their bodies but there should be limits on what you can do to others.
And this is the rub. Your argument about legalizing the individual consumption level, but criminalizing the means to for the individual to consume is how we arrive at the abhorrent situations today with abortion in some states:
Under your wording, the woman could own her body, but the law has made it illegal for what "others" (doctors in this case) can do to you. Your approach effectively destroys the absolutes of bodily autonomy stated in the OP.
Yes, there are problems. I was particularly focusing on those 3 you pointed out. But I also think abortions goes beyond bodily autonomy.
First there's the level of being allowed to do it. It's illegal in some states to abort if you find the means.
Then there's the right for medically assisted safe abortion if you so desire. I see that as a human rights issue but not as a bodily autonomy issue.
But maybe I'm being too literal?
I don't think you're being too literal. That's the avenue I'm exploring too.
Thats what I don't understand the absolute nature of the OP picture/quote because it only refers to bodily autonomy is an "essential unconditional liberty". Restrictions on being able to purchase drugs would be a condition to exercising that "essential unconditional liberty bodily autonomy" wouldn't it?
If the avenue to consume the substance is illegal, then how is bodily autonomy unconditional? It isn't. Further, the OP picture/quote cites the acceptance of this flawed premise as a precondition to discussion with them. These kind of topics are rarely compatible with absolutes like the OP picture/quote suggests. Life has more shades of gray rather than the easy absolutes of black and white.
Yeah, this. If there is an employer with an asbestos mine, and an employee in the asbestos mine, one of them should be protected by the law and one of them should be required by law to provide a safe work environment.