Post

Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:

No human being can be legally required to use their body as an incubator to preserve another life. Life is precious, but not as much as freedom.

You make some good points in your post, but I take issue with this statement, as well as your example with John's kidney transplant.

My question is, at what point does the right to bodily autonomy vest in a human? Conception? Birth? Age of Majority? Ever? Every law that has ever existed restricts what humans can do with their bodies (and therefore, body autonomy).

Further, at what point does one's "body" matter end? Or to what point can you reasonably, legally lay claim to matter that is considered "your body" and therefore have legal, autonomous control? Just the extent of your person? That would be a narrower view than I'd take.

My view on the extent of "body" a person is entitled to full, legal autonomy over is any matter originating from the body containing DNA that hasn't been willfully or freely relinquished. So, saliva on a fork at a public restaurant? No longer your body, since you've freely given that saliva up in order to eat, and left the fork there willingly. What about plasma you've decided to donate to a relative that needs it for an operation? I'd argue that plasma belongs to you, even after it's been removed from your body until the point it's been used in the procedure for your relative--for its proper purpose. Therefore, the medical professionals transferring the plasma from you to your relative have to respect your autonomy over your body while performing the procedure, and cannot do anything with your plasma that hasn't been expressly authorized.

Now, to illustrate my point, I'm going to use your example of the kidney transplant, because I believe your premise is flawed--that the state is forcing individuals to sustain life at the expense of their own bodily autonomy. This is because the state (at least in the US) has not forced anyone to perform *the required actions* that result in pregnancy. Therefore, using your kidney transplant example, the abortion debate looks more like this:

John is having kidney failure and needs a transplant. You volunteer to donate your kidney to John. Prior to the procedure to remove your kidney, your doctor advises you of the potential terminal and non-terminal risks associated with removing your kidney, so you are well aware of anything and everything that could possibly go wrong. He even provides you with a list of things you could do the week leading up to the procedure that could reduce the risks associated with kidney removal (eating certain foods, avoiding certain activities, etc.) so that you are at minimal risk during and after the procedure. You do all the things on the list and still agree to the procedure. A week later, the procedure is performed, your kidney is removed, John receives the transplant, and all is well.

But low and behold, a week after the procedure, you start to experience symptoms of one of the non-terminal diseases your doctor warned you about prior to the procedure--despite doing everything he recommended and knowing of all the risks associated with the procedure. The only way to remedy the condition is to get your kidney back.*

*(Not necessarily the case, because you could wait for another donor to come along, and you could live with some discomfort while taking medication, since its a non-terminal disease, but since we're intentionally limiting everyone's choices, as in most abortion scenarios, we'll do the same here... i.e. no chance for adoption).

However, luckily for you, there is a law that allows you to force the recipient of your donated organs to give them back up to 12 weeks after the procedure (or at any point in time after the procedure, depending on how pro-choice you really are), regardless of the effect to the donee. So being a pro-choice, pro-body autonomy individual, you force that parasite John to undergo the required procedure to remove your kidney. You get your kidney back, you're no longer suffering the disease, and--unable to find another donor in time--John dies shortly thereafter.

The state hasn't forced pregnancy on anyone, its entered into freely by performing certain *acts* (at least the overwhelming majority of the time) with full knowledge of the risks and potential consequences, even with preventative measures in place. This is true for every living species on the planet. Technically every birth that's ever occurred is a "forced" birth since birth is the natural consequence of pregnancy. So one cannot force birth unless one forces pregnancy, and that just isn't the case for the vast majority of pregnancies.

Now, going back to what I mentioned earlier--regarding the bounds of "bodily autonomy" and the example about the fork in the resturaunt--I brought that up because a unique set of DNA is created at the moment of conception. A fetus, from the moment of conception, has already developed a completely unique and complex set of genetic material that is distinguishable from the mother carrying it. Who's to say that fetus/unborn child can't have autonomy over its DNA, effective against 3rd parties, the moment that DNA comes into existence?

Sure, the unborn cannot express an opinion, at the time, on what he/she wishes to do with their DNA (body)--but we already have (somewhat) arbitrary laws denying persons under the age of majority from entering into business contracts, or buying certain items, working under the presumption that those who do not seek to contract/buy do not wish to do so--and even if they did, would be denied from doing so if under a certain age. So how can any 3rd party make decisions interfering with the genetic material of a fetus, when that fetus hasn't freely given its express permission to do so?

This is operating under my personal standard of what falls under the realm of "bodily autonomy" (which I understand may not align with everyone else's, but I don't believe it to be egregiously poor given the universal application, and the need for practicality in lawmaking), and I'm more than open to discussion and persuasion on that standard (because at the end of the day, I don't have every piece of relevant information--but I believe I have enough to hold a valid opinion on the matter).

Further, I do not wish to start a fight with anyone with this post, and I apologize if any part of this comes off as combative, as that is not my intention (an I apologize if I sound snarky, I haven't been able to express my views on the matter in a meaningful way since the Roe decision, and I thought this would be a good time/place to do so)--I only wish to participate in the discussion, given the magnitude of the issue.

I welcome any and all debate/discussion/muckracking, and I hope to remain y'all's good graces, as I appreciate this Forest's welcoming debate from both sides of the issue.

:)

EDIT: In response to the arguments I'm seeing regarding the legal aspect of a fetus's personhood, I would also like to add that abortion is and has been, an exception to the legal rights of a fetus, as they relate to 3rd persons. From the moment of conception, a fetus can be the beneficiary of a will. Parents can sue & recover medical malpractice/tort damages on behalf of a fetus, from the moment of conception. In most states (if not all) a person will be charged with double homicide if they murder a pregnant woman. It is not that the law doesn't recognize the rights of fetuses, its that the law makes an exception for abortion. (and personally, I'm not a fan of most legal exceptions)