Skip to main content
Philosophy

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

9
  • 1
    No. This right does not exist. We had the draft, we imprison and even execute people, we perform surgery on those who come in unconscious... What we do have is the right to freedom from unwarranted interference -- in the US, the 4th amendment. Then the question is not a compromise between rights, it is about the definition of 'warrant' in each situation. At what level of certainty of saving another's life can I use you temporarily as a slave? Obviously, I can arrest you and compel action within reason for a limited time if you are obviously dangerous. We can negotiate from there.
    – user9166
    Commented Jan 15, 2019 at 13:06
  • 1
    @Cell I am saying that we do not have this right. We never have. And either everyone has bodily autonomy, or nobody does. Nobody does. It would be impossible. It would still outlaw jail and make emergency medicine impossible. There are four examples, strike two and there is still an argument. It is still impossible. We have instead the normal, limited right we have always had, and it is already adequate. Advancing any right meant to apply only to men or women is also not OK. Rights cover everyone, and we need to look at what historically it would mean for everyone to have that right.
    – user9166
    Commented Jan 15, 2019 at 21:17
  • 1
    @jobermark I think you are taking bodily autonomy too literally. I have never heard of anyone defending bodily autonomy and also outlawing prison. There is a difference between say being arrested for public urination/defecation and being told you are not allowed to go to the bathroom. Or being arrested for stealing food vs being denied the ability to eat. Finally your examples are controversial; maybe conscription was wrong, maybe execution is wrong. Especially since laws involving them change.
    – Cell
    Commented Jan 15, 2019 at 21:54
  • 1
    @Cell That is because a very limited set of people are pushing for this right, and they are not thinking about men. I am not changing the meaning, I am just applying it to all of reality, because that is what rights are -- general principles. What does bodily autonomy mean if I can lock you up and cavity search you? If I can determine your occupation for a range of years, set your wages by fiat, and do damaging things to you if you do not work? It means nothing. But that is prison. So bodily autonomy eliminates prison. It is not a trick. It is just not ignoring anyone.
    – user9166
    Commented Jan 15, 2019 at 22:03
  • 1
    @Cell The intended example is controversial, but what I compare it to must not be? And some of them are not, emergency medicine is a good thing. And if I cannot open you up because I have to ask, that is over, too. So are required vaccinations, and a bunch of other stuff. It is the wrong focus, it is ad hoc, and it is impossible. I only stays seemingly relevant because our historical view of men is totally skewed.
    – user9166
    Commented Jan 15, 2019 at 22:06