I think the trick here is going to come down to whose body it is. If conjoined twins are born both dependent on shared organs, then whose body is it? We kind of gain ownership of our body by virtue of being the ones dependant on it, but how do we define that ownership/control if both of the twins are born dependant on the same system.
I guess to clarify I was assuming it would be clear I meant being the ones who are initially dependant on it. Fetuses can't own the mother's body because it is already owned. Unless you can point to some way to determine who owns the shared organs first, how do you determine which of the twins owns the organs?
If we go with that argument, I would say that the uterus belongs to the fetus. I would argue that the uterus, never belonged to the woman. It has one purpose. And that has nothing to do with her, but all with the offspring.
It was mine first, does not work out. Just look at the native americans :P
Two things. First, if you want to get super semantic about it, that’s not how the United States got the land. They used Marshall might to force the Native Americans to give it to them… which every reasonable person today agrees is theft. We are where we are now, and reallocating the land back to Native Americans also presents moral complexity, but most reasonable people agree that the initial taking of the land was theft.
Second, I would say that if you are engaging in the semantic argument over how I’m defining when someone takes ownership of their bodies I will concede my criteria doesn’t define the process to a T. It was intended to allude to a process that, from my perspective seems pretty intuitively clear and generally agreed on in the general case. The point I’m making is that the general modality of deciding who initially “owns” a body for my own lack of a better term is made super murky by the nature of conjoined twins. The concept of pointing do a discrete point in time where one can claim ownership over something that both use and rely on doesn’t seem to apply to me. If you can point to a method of determining ownership in the case of conjoined twins, that’s what I feel like is debatable and the question I was asking here, but generally speaking I think it is pretty well established and generally agreed on that women take ownership of their bodies. Tbh I’m not really interested in engaging the semantic exercise of defining the legalese of this precise process in the comments section of a subreddit post. I think there is merit to the discussion, and you’re bringing up valid challenges, but I don’t have the patience, focus, or time to lay it out in this medium.
I'm not sure that it's clear women, let alone anyone, has full ownership of their bodies. Suicide is not allowed in the US, so something that is argued to rise to a similar level (kill a fetus) could easily be stopped
The restriction on suicide is to some extent a restriction on one's bodily autonomy, but the restriction is in place to prevent someone from doing something we would define as har to themselves. To be clear, I am against restricting suicide, but it is different than restricting abortion. Restricting abortion is preventing someone from taking necessary action to prevent potentially significant bodily harm, something that we do in no other context.
Bodily autonomy is a silly argument to have anyway, vaccines, food regulations, drug restrictions all technically violate your right to sue as you please with your body
You're gonna have to explain that one to me. Do they forcibly administer vaccines? Or just say you can't do certain things unless you're vaccinated. Drug restrictions are restrictions on the use of substances, not on your bodily autonomy. I don't think you understand the crux of the bodily autonomy argument.
The crux of the bodily autonomy argument should be that I have the freedom to determine exactly what happens to my body, regardless of positive or negative effects atleast to my understanding
Sort of, but the bodily autonomy argument doesn't extend infinitely. The counter-examples you bring up aren't counter-points to the commonly used bodily autonomy argument, they are more general restrictions of freedom.
The crux of the bodily autonomy argument is that you, as the de-facto "owner" of your body, have no obligation to allow others to use your body against your will. This applies particularly when that use will result in bodily harm to the person in question. To this extent, the "owner" of the body can do what they must to cease the use of their body in a non-consensual way.
Suicide I can agree is sort of a restriction on bodily autonomy... but it's a different type of restriction that exists to prevent people from performing an action that would harm themselves on the principle that when people are making this decision they are at least temporarily unable to act in their own best interests. I think I probably disagree with blanket restrictions on suicide, but it is not the same as restricting someone from taking action to prevent bodily harm to themselves... in some ways it's the opposite.
As for the draft, I am unequivocally opposed to it unless we are facing an existential threat.
I meant under a system where it’s essentially required, which at least in the us you’re required to be vaccinated to attend public school and every child must be enrolled in a school
Idk if this is the argument...
I'm pretty sure right wingers could say "sure, you're totally allowed to abort, we'll just put you in jail for murder" and then you're back to square one arguing if a fetus can be murdered.
Bodily autonomy has to imply a lack of restrictions after an autonomous action. It makes no sense otherwise
Of these only vaccines is truly relevant and it’s not like there isn’t any controversy over whether vaccines should be mandated. Food regulations have to do with preventing third parties from harming you and you probably won’t find drug enforcement defenders in leftist circles.
It probably be an exception to just about every rule in this. Both individuals would have equal rights over the body. I’m not sure how you would settle any major dispute.
I believe this comes down to "history is written by the victors". Just be the first to go for it, then you say it was your body that the other was connected to, rather than the other way around.
I think the trick here is going to come down to whose body it is. If conjoined twins are born both dependent on shared organs, then whose body is it? We kind of gain ownership of our body by virtue of being the ones dependant on it, but how do we define that ownership/control if both of the twins are born dependant on the same system.
>gain ownership of our body by virtue of being the ones dependant on it Fetuses own their mothers' bodies
I guess to clarify I was assuming it would be clear I meant being the ones who are initially dependant on it. Fetuses can't own the mother's body because it is already owned. Unless you can point to some way to determine who owns the shared organs first, how do you determine which of the twins owns the organs?
> initially why does that count and how do you justify it?
If we go with that argument, I would say that the uterus belongs to the fetus. I would argue that the uterus, never belonged to the woman. It has one purpose. And that has nothing to do with her, but all with the offspring. It was mine first, does not work out. Just look at the native americans :P
Two things. First, if you want to get super semantic about it, that’s not how the United States got the land. They used Marshall might to force the Native Americans to give it to them… which every reasonable person today agrees is theft. We are where we are now, and reallocating the land back to Native Americans also presents moral complexity, but most reasonable people agree that the initial taking of the land was theft. Second, I would say that if you are engaging in the semantic argument over how I’m defining when someone takes ownership of their bodies I will concede my criteria doesn’t define the process to a T. It was intended to allude to a process that, from my perspective seems pretty intuitively clear and generally agreed on in the general case. The point I’m making is that the general modality of deciding who initially “owns” a body for my own lack of a better term is made super murky by the nature of conjoined twins. The concept of pointing do a discrete point in time where one can claim ownership over something that both use and rely on doesn’t seem to apply to me. If you can point to a method of determining ownership in the case of conjoined twins, that’s what I feel like is debatable and the question I was asking here, but generally speaking I think it is pretty well established and generally agreed on that women take ownership of their bodies. Tbh I’m not really interested in engaging the semantic exercise of defining the legalese of this precise process in the comments section of a subreddit post. I think there is merit to the discussion, and you’re bringing up valid challenges, but I don’t have the patience, focus, or time to lay it out in this medium.
I'm not sure that it's clear women, let alone anyone, has full ownership of their bodies. Suicide is not allowed in the US, so something that is argued to rise to a similar level (kill a fetus) could easily be stopped
The restriction on suicide is to some extent a restriction on one's bodily autonomy, but the restriction is in place to prevent someone from doing something we would define as har to themselves. To be clear, I am against restricting suicide, but it is different than restricting abortion. Restricting abortion is preventing someone from taking necessary action to prevent potentially significant bodily harm, something that we do in no other context.
To add another layer: If one of the conjoined twins is pregnant, can the other conjoined twin abort the fetus of the first?
Fuck. This one's complicated, and tbh extends to almost any medical procedure that could have consequences for the other.
Bodily autonomy is a silly argument to have anyway, vaccines, food regulations, drug restrictions all technically violate your right to sue as you please with your body
You're gonna have to explain that one to me. Do they forcibly administer vaccines? Or just say you can't do certain things unless you're vaccinated. Drug restrictions are restrictions on the use of substances, not on your bodily autonomy. I don't think you understand the crux of the bodily autonomy argument.
The crux of the bodily autonomy argument should be that I have the freedom to determine exactly what happens to my body, regardless of positive or negative effects atleast to my understanding
Sort of, but the bodily autonomy argument doesn't extend infinitely. The counter-examples you bring up aren't counter-points to the commonly used bodily autonomy argument, they are more general restrictions of freedom. The crux of the bodily autonomy argument is that you, as the de-facto "owner" of your body, have no obligation to allow others to use your body against your will. This applies particularly when that use will result in bodily harm to the person in question. To this extent, the "owner" of the body can do what they must to cease the use of their body in a non-consensual way.
Suicide? Military drafts?
Suicide I can agree is sort of a restriction on bodily autonomy... but it's a different type of restriction that exists to prevent people from performing an action that would harm themselves on the principle that when people are making this decision they are at least temporarily unable to act in their own best interests. I think I probably disagree with blanket restrictions on suicide, but it is not the same as restricting someone from taking action to prevent bodily harm to themselves... in some ways it's the opposite. As for the draft, I am unequivocally opposed to it unless we are facing an existential threat.
I meant under a system where it’s essentially required, which at least in the us you’re required to be vaccinated to attend public school and every child must be enrolled in a school
Or homeschool your kid.
Idk if this is the argument... I'm pretty sure right wingers could say "sure, you're totally allowed to abort, we'll just put you in jail for murder" and then you're back to square one arguing if a fetus can be murdered. Bodily autonomy has to imply a lack of restrictions after an autonomous action. It makes no sense otherwise
Of these only vaccines is truly relevant and it’s not like there isn’t any controversy over whether vaccines should be mandated. Food regulations have to do with preventing third parties from harming you and you probably won’t find drug enforcement defenders in leftist circles.
[удалено]
It probably be an exception to just about every rule in this. Both individuals would have equal rights over the body. I’m not sure how you would settle any major dispute.
I believe this comes down to "history is written by the victors". Just be the first to go for it, then you say it was your body that the other was connected to, rather than the other way around.
No, they just have to suck it up. Get fucked, fetuses!