Is There Such a Thing as Bodily Autonomy?

I agree with your post except for one thing..the fetus never has rights, it does have protections after viability.

 

Actually yes forcing people to get a vaccination is supporting the life of another, and you've said it in your own posts.

For the record, I am pro-CHOICE. I don't have the right to tell someone else what to do with their body. It doesn't mean I am pro-abortion, that is the woman's choice. I am also proc-CHOICE when it comes to vaccinations, because it to is forcing someone to have something put into their body to support the welfare of others. No one has that right.

You have yourself a wonderful day.

 

Here's the case a new SCOTUS will be reviewing when this goes to them.
HENNING JACOBSON, Plff. in Err., v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/197/11

Read the decision. It will be the reason that this condition would be turned by the current courts. This is government telling you that you have no due process.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Why not ? They sure seem to be....for the safety and health of others....as it should be.

They are not using their body, or any part of it, to sustain the life of another.

READ THIS:



For instance, a person who needs a new heart to keep them alive (or a kidney or a blood transfusion ,etc) canNOT force another person to give them what they need to sustain their life.

But that is similar to a woman being FORCED to use her body to sustain the life of another...something NO one else is forced to do.






NO, I NEVER said I did. But , yes, vaccinations are a health concern for others....without them disease, (chaos in society) would ensue.

Vaccinations do NOT require a person to use their body to sustain the life of another.

I doubt those with allergic reactions to vaccines are forced to be vaccinated.

Now, care to get back to bodily autonomy ? It has nothing to do with vaccinations.

I am sorry that you don't read my posts before commenting but there is nothing I can do about that.

So go to the Vaccination Forum...this is the Abortion Forum. You are wrong about vaccinations....NO one takes or uses any part of a vaccinated person's body.

I always do.....….

 

There will always be tension between individual rights and state rights, necessitating intervention by the courts. You do know this is a 100 year old case? Since then the courts have decided on both sides of the issue. The last time Jacobson was brought up was when Texas in 2020 called abortion a non-essential procedure and halted it because of the pandemic. The conservative states more often restrict individual rights, not the federal government.

For something more level headed.....https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/

 

Know why the anti-vaxxer's 3 year old was crying?

Midlife crisis.

 

Where exactly in the Constitution is the right to tattoos and cosmetic surgery?

According to what?

 

Should a woman be free to commit suicide? If not, why not? What about her right to her body?

 

Well we're talking about abortion - so the "assistance" in abortion is obviously the person performing the abortion! What does another person have to do with a woman's right to HER own body?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Why do YOU want that right but don't want pregnant women to have that right?

LOL, still can't answer the question.....as to your questions here (to hide the fact you have no answers to my question)...why are you singling out women? Aren't they humans?

 

NOTHING......so why TF did you bring up "assistance" ?

LOL....

 

Where exactly in the Constitution is the right to abortion?

The law and ethics.

 

Like classical Libertarians would say, your rights to bodily autonomy end where someone else's bodily rights begin.

Pregnancy is certainly not a normal situation of bodily rights, and so it's kind of unfair to casually compare it to other normal forms of bodily independence.

 

You: "your rights to bodily autonomy end where someone else's bodily rights begin""

Remember that when you want fetuses to have rights... wouldn't do them much good ...

 

Natural rights could suggest that she gave up her rights when she got pregnant.

(depending on the interpretation of "natural")

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Remember that when you want fetuses to have rights... wouldn't do them much good ...

LOL, Ya, YOUR interpretation....an interpretation of something else that doesn't exist

Still can't address the post of mine you quoted...

 

Natural rights are the basis of rights, according to many philosophers like John Locke. Or don't you know that?

 

They aren't law ...and I doubt he would agree with your interpretation of his words...or care


Whoever or whatever thought up these make believe rights they obviously don't apply....

No one gives up their rights because they become pregnant....

See, that is a FACT....that can't be altered...

Oh, ya in your dream world women would be punished for becoming pregnant but not in the real world..



You STILL haven't showm proof of your "uterus privileges"... LOLOLOL!!!

 

Because abortion cannot take placed without it. Why else?

 

LOL, when one has no point, no argument, no facts one must talk in circles about nothing.....

Bye.

 

It's not unfair, it's just difficult to answer. What's not fair is to dodge it.

 

Thats why it is a perpetual issue. Both sides are fighting for bodily autonomy. It can also be said that both sides are fighting against bodily autonomy.

 

How, under natural law, do you gain the right to know what a woman does with her body?

 

The zef is not a person, so therefore it is not a "someone". It is affecting HER body, so she can have it removed if she so chooses.

 

No its not.