Should a woman's bodily autonomy be disregarded when it comes to pregnancy?

[leibowde84]

So two people who have no rights to give anyone else get together and agree to assume rights into existence? I am glad this nation did not chose such an ambiguous foundation.

Look it is a trick question, you will never find an actual source for rights in anything natural because nature does not have rights to dispense. I was just trying to the you to discover that for your self. So it's a dead end no matter how you dress it up. However you are probably the best person to ask what the laws actually state. Can you paste the relevant laws concerned here.

In what way does a right exist that is not acknowledged by the state beyond theory? A legal right is certainly created by the law, which is the topic of this thread.

 

[jchristopher]

Not according to the constitution.

Do you celebrate your date of "becoming" based on your birthdate or the date of your conception?

All I'm saying is that humans become humans at conception, not some arbitrary point long after. Peas are peas even before they sprout out of the ground

Why do you think that the fetus has a right to part ownership of the woman's body? Simply out of necessity?

As you should know, the right to live or survive does not obligate anyone to give up the use of their body against their will. For example, if someone is dying from a faulty liver, the state cannot force anyone to donate the liver simply because the person needing it has a "right to life." So, your logic is severely flawed on this. A person's right to life does not give authority for the right to bodily autonomy to be infringed.

Did you forget that pregnancy is the result of a choice except for cases of rape? A woman relinquishes at least part of her right to do whatever she wants with her body when she chooses to have sex. It is her doing that results in the presence of a fetus inside her. She has been granted that reproductive power from God and along with it comes responsibility and consequences. You can choose to do what you will, but you can't choose the consequences of those choices. Your "liver" analogy does not even remotely apply to this issue.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

All I'm saying is that humans become humans at conception, not some arbitrary point long after. Peas are peas even before they sprout out of the ground.

Soooo....that answers my question how?

Do people normally celebrate the day of our "becoming" on the day we were born or on the date of our conception? Do we bury fetuses that were rejected through spontaneous miscarriage? Should we if we don't? Do zygotes have legal recognition by a governing body? How do we legislate that if we do?

And the Roe vs Wade decision was the best compromise into granting women autonomy while offering a developing fetus a measure of protection, and that is the introduction of "fetal viability", which occurs at roughly 23-26 weeks of gestation. Nothing arbitrary there.

By the way, I garden. I don't recgonize a seed or a seedling as "peas" until they are in full bloom. I don't recognize the avocado seed as an avocado, just a potential to become one.

It's important to honor the stages of becoming, but it's also important to honor and recognize the many conditions that must occur with Mother Nature, with humidity and air pressure changes, with rainfall or droughts, and the fact that we have very very little control over whether or not that seed will grow into a full blooming plant in comparison to what the environment offers us. We can do our best, but sometimes Mother Nature has other plans and can only do so much on Her end too.

 

[leibowde84]

All I'm saying is that humans become humans at conception, not some arbitrary point long after. Peas are peas even before they sprout out of the ground


Did you forget that pregnancy is the result of a choice except for cases of rape? A woman relinquishes at least part of her right to do whatever she wants with her body when she chooses to have sex. It is her doing that results in the presence of a fetus inside her. She has been granted that reproductive power from God and along with it comes responsibility and consequences. You can choose to do what you will, but you can't choose the consequences of those choices. Your "liver" analogy does not even remotely apply to this issue.

Legally speaking, having sex has never been recognized as an acceptance of pregnancy. Thus, no right can be diminished. I understand that you think sex SHOULD be a form of acknowledged relinquishment of rights, but that is not the case. There is a major issue because this relinquishment would only effect women, not men who whose bodily autonomy would not be at issue in the least. So, how would you suggest we get around this legal dilemma?

 

[leibowde84]

All I'm saying is that humans become humans at conception, not some arbitrary point long after. Peas are peas even before they sprout out of the ground


Did you forget that pregnancy is the result of a choice except for cases of rape? A woman relinquishes at least part of her right to do whatever she wants with her body when she chooses to have sex. It is her doing that results in the presence of a fetus inside her. She has been granted that reproductive power from God and along with it comes responsibility and consequences. You can choose to do what you will, but you can't choose the consequences of those choices. Your "liver" analogy does not even remotely apply to this issue.

Further, I agree that life begins (in a way) at conception. It's hard to argue that a living human fetus isn't "alive" or "human." But, again, legally speaking, "personhood" is the point where rights are acknowledged, not the point when life begins. Personhood seems to be rightly defined as when the fetus becomes viable outside the womb.

 

[Revoltingest]

Legally speaking, having sex has never been recognized as an acceptance of pregnancy. Thus, no right can be diminished. I understand that you think sex SHOULD be a form of acknowledged relinquishment of rights, but that is not the case. There is a major issue because this relinquishment would only effect women, not men who whose bodily autonomy would not be at issue in the least. So, how would you suggest we get around this legal dilemma?

There is a possible effect on men's bodily autonomy in Americastan. A pregnancy can result in court ordered child support payments. If the man is unable to make them, failure to meet a court order can (& does) result in imprisonment. This can happen if he loses his job. Thus pregnancy can have adverse consequences for both, albeit different in nature.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

There is a possible effect on men's bodily autonomy in Americastan. A pregnancy can result in court ordered child support payments. If the man is unable to make them, failure to meet a court order can (& does) result in imprisonment. This can happen if he loses his job. Thus pregnancy can have adverse consequences for both, albeit different in nature.

Imprisonment itself is not quite the same. Unless men are imprisoned, chained to a gurney, and forced to donate blood and plasma to area blood banks. Then that is closer to what is suggested when it comes to women being forced or coerced into continuing an unwanted pregnancy.

Oh and tell the men that the donating of plasma and blood continually for the duration of their sentence is taking responsibility for their behavior during sex.

 

[Revoltingest]

Imprisonment itself is not quite the same.

Thank you for reminding me of what I just pointed out.

 

[viole]

My absurdities have been explained exhaustively. Determinism cannot adequately explain why it produces desires, plans, intentions and then actualizes them billions of times each day (even cooperatively) despite it not having any interest in gratifying anything. It does not want to give you the desire for a new house and then conveniently provide the millions of things necessary to get one. No thought experiment will explain that away. Only freewill explains those billions and billions of intentional actions.

I mean the ability to conceive a plan and then intentionally carry out the myriad of actions to achieve it. Determinism is even a bad explanation for the desire it's self but it is no explanation for the intent to carry it out, at all.

Your right but I was willing to rant determinism could bang together molecules in different variations just to have a debate at all. Determinism is a poor but possible explanation for the human eye, it is a pathetic explanation for our ability to repair it.

I am not, I granted that even love could be determined (I think it ridiculous but I granted it anyway). The problem is that determinism does not want to actualize love, we do. Determinism make my love another person but it is just as likely to produce an action like me jumping off a bridge, yelping like a coyote, killing the person I love, selling my children, invading Canada, or any other act an unintentionally agent might determine. It does not want to gratify any desire even if it could produce one.

Look I think your just not going to get this. I am only repeating myself at this point. Heck maybe your determined not to get it.

We are looping because I believe you are equivocating determinism with something else. What you are really attacking is: "blind, unintentional forces, cannot possibly generate things with intent". Forgetting for a moment that this has no rational justification, that has nothing to do with determinism. Determinism simply states that, ceteris paribus, the results are the same.

You can actually have all combinations of blindness, determinism or lack thereof:

1) Blind forces are deterministic. Same initial conditions, same result
2) Blind forces are not deterministic. Same initial conditions. more than one possible result. For instance, purely random mechanisms present.
3) Intentional forces/agents are deterministic. Same initial conditions, same decisions, intent. Will defined uniquely by brain states. Not really free.
4) Intentional forces/agents are not deterministic. Same initial conditions, different decisions, intent. Free will, possibly.

So, you can have not deterministic forces generating intentional agents that are deterministic in their intents (for instance, blind forces leading to agents are subject to pure random events, macroscopic brains are not).

I am deterministic for everything (blind forces and intentional agents), but in order for you to defend free will, you need only to find defeaters of the following statement: the intentions of an intentional agent depend only on the current state of her physical brain (no matter what forces led to its development, deterministic or not).

What are those defeaters?

Ciao

- viole

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Thank you for reminding me of what I just pointed out.

Hey, we gotta find common ground somewhere.

 

[leibowde84]

There is a possible effect on men's bodily autonomy in Americastan. A pregnancy can result in court ordered child support payments. If the man is unable to make them, failure to meet a court order can (& does) result in imprisonment. This can happen if he loses his job. Thus pregnancy can have adverse consequences for both, albeit different in nature.

First of all, what country on this planet is better to live in than the US? I'd like to explore why you have so much anomosity toward this country. Obviously, there are major issues, but when comparing it to the rest of the world, it seems like the best to live in.

Second, your example doesn't involve bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy means a person has control over who or what uses their body, for what, and for how long. Its why you can't be forced to donate blood, tissue, or organs. Even if you are dead. Financial obligations do not effect bodily autonomy.

 

[1robin]

I'm not interested in the opinions of others no matter how scholarly they are. I'd like to explore why you think the Bible is infallible even though it was written by imperfect men who most likely did not even know the living Jesus. But I still don't understand what we agreed to in step one. But we've spent enough time on that. Let's move this over to a chat session though. We have gotten too far off topic.

We have not spent even a tiny fraction of enough time on systematically establishing the reliability of the bible. However as you seem to have no real interest in doing so ( I imagine so you will have the luxury of plausible denial for anything you may not like that it contains) I will respond one last time to biblical reliability with why I personally believe it is accurate. Besides that mountains of scholarly scrutiny and the data they produced I used the Gospels as a road map of a spiritual kind. I kept seeing it promise something and it claimed to contain the methods for finding it. I followed along and found it intellectually inescapable. That process got me 90% of the way to the treasure it promised. The last 10% was purely spiritual. I can remember the details like it occurred yesterday. I suddenly knew what I was reading was absolute to a higher degree of certainty that I have ever known anything. I did not gain that certainty through any of the normal means by which we gain confidence in claims. I spiritually discerned it. I could not stop reading and one night it was as if the fact that I was a sinner and needed the salvation Christ offered was the one thing I know with more certainty than anything else on earth. I asked Christ to save me and had an experience which human language is powerless to fully describe. Addictions instantly disappeared, depression over the death of loved ones instantly vanished, tons of guilt I had no idea I had instantly disappeared, I experienced for the first time in my life perfect and complete peace and contentment, and I felt the Holy Spirit within me for the first time in my life, etc.........


One final note. I began that journey hostile to God and to everything Christian. I actually set out to once and for all condemn the bible and leave it behind. I had never heard of born again, never seen anyone saved, never understood all those verses about the Holy Spirit, the new man, being in Christ, being a new creature, being made right, etc......... Despite never having heard the term before the only way I could describe the effect of that event to myself was by saying I felt brand new, like a new born. Only later did I find out that is what Christ required of us, and in those very words. So between us it would have to be an academic probability issue as for the bible's reliability, for me personally it is a spiritually experienced fact. Over the years I studied salvation more than anything else by far and have written papers on it and talked to hundreds of other born again Christians. Everything I have seen in the past 20 plus years since then has confirmed the verse you say was put in Christ's mouth by others without any justification for saying it. I know it was true, I lived it and hundreds of millions like me have as well.

Anyway, hope that helps but I am done with biblical reliability discussions between us for the time being.

 

[leibowde84]

We have not spent even a tiny fraction of enough time on systematically establishing the reliability of the bible. However as you seem to have no real interest in doing so ( I imagine so you will have the luxury of plausible denial for anything you may not like that it contains) I will respond one last time to biblical reliability with why I personally believe it is accurate. Besides that mountains of scholarly scrutiny and the data they produced I used the Gospels as a road map of a spiritual kind. I kept seeing it promise something and it claimed to contain the methods for finding it. I followed along and found it intellectually inescapable. That process got me 90% of the way to the treasure it promised. The last 10% was purely spiritual. I can remember the details like it occurred yesterday. I suddenly knew what I was reading was absolute to a higher degree of certainty that I have ever known anything. I did not gain that certainty through any of the normal means by which we gain confidence in claims. I spiritually discerned it. I could not stop reading and one night it was as if the fact that I was a sinner and needed the salvation Christ offered was the one thing I know with more certainty than anything else on earth. I asked Christ to save me and had an experience which human language is powerless to fully describe. Addictions instantly disappeared, depression over the death of loved ones instantly vanished, tons of guilt I had no idea I had instantly disappeared, I experienced for the first time in my life perfect and complete peace and contentment, and I felt the Holy Spirit within me for the first time in my life, etc.........


One final note. I began that journey hostile to God and to everything Christian. I actually set out to once and for all condemn the bible and leave it behind. I had never heard of born again, never seen anyone saved, never understood all those verses about the Holy Spirit, the new man, being in Christ, being a new creature, being made right, etc......... Despite never having heard the term before the only way I could describe the effect of that event to myself was by saying I felt brand new, like a new born. Only later did I find out that is what Christ required of us, and in those very words. So between us it would have to be an academic probability issue as for the bible's reliability, for me personally it is a spiritually experienced fact. Over the years I studied salvation more than anything else by far and have written papers on it and talked to hundreds of other born again Christians. Everything I have seen in the past 20 plus years since then has confirmed the verse you say was put in Christ's mouth by others without any justification for saying it. I know it was true, I lived it and hundreds of millions like me have as well.

Anyway, hope that helps but I am done with biblical reliability discussions between us for the time being.

Would you mind cutting out the personal judgments as to why I do not believe that the Bible is completely accurate. It is an extremely common opinion to have, even amongst Christians and even more so amongst Skeptics, so I think it would suit you to keep the assumptions about my personal beliefs to a minimum. It just comes off as you trying to hurt my feelings about something that you know absolutely nothing about.

 

[Revoltingest]

First of all, what country on this planet is better to live in than the US? I'd like to explore why you have so much anomosity toward this country. Obviously, there are major issues, but when comparing it to the rest of the world, it seems like the best to live in.

It has to do with familiarity rather than animosity. I cited Americastan because I don't know other places where the Friend Of The Court can impose jail time over a debt.
Regarding animosity towards my own country, here are just a few of the things which really burn my bacon:
- Military invasions of foreign countries for reasons other than self defense.
- Increasing elements of a police state, eg, domestic surveillance
- Wasteful spending & high taxes

Second, your example doesn't involve bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy means a person has control over who or what uses their body, for what, and for how long. Its why you can't be forced to donate blood, tissue, or organs. Even if you are dead. Financial obligations do not effect bodily autonomy.

There are many aspects to bodily autonomy in addition to reproduction. When one goes to jail, one's bodily autonomy is compromised, often to an unpredictable extent. And as I explained earlier, a man can be imprisoned for a debt.
The prisoner....
- Is physically confined.
- Unable to freely communicate.
- Must eat what is provided.
- Is subject to assault & injury.
- Has no health care options. (One guy I know has a permanent leg injury due to injury & poor care.)
- Is subject to legal beatings & probings.

If you don't find the above to be matters of bodily autonomy, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[1robin]

Sorry I haven't gotten a chance to get case citations quite yet, but you have to be reasonable in understanding how US Law works. Bodily autonomy is spoken of quite a lot, but the limits are only realized by studying multiple cases. Stay tuned on that though.

Very well.

Also, what is the point of discussing your subjective view of what a "real" right is? This thread was only questioning the legal necessity of a woman's right to choose, as arguments based on compassion or empathy, while merited in their own rite, do not get us anywhere in the discussion of rights based on and defined by law.

It is subjective which rights we actually have it is not subjective to say that rights are inherent to things and require a transcendent source.

Further, laws do create rights. Imagine if you lived in the IS and you weren't permitted to go to church. While here in the states your right to do this is expressly granted by law, that "right" does not exist in reality. Sure you can say the right should exist, but should implies that it isn't the case currently. I agree that the declaration claims to rights come from God, but that is yet another document written by imperfect men, and should not be a basis for proof of the supernatural. It was not meant to be interpreted as such.

Rights are not things that cannot be infringed upon. I can have the inherent right to life and still be killed, I can have the right to pursue happiness and be stuck in an inescapable miserable situation, I can have the right to liberty and have it taken away in about a million different ways. If God grants rights we actually have them but in this world others can infringe upon them, but the fact I actually have them will mean they will be judged for infringing upon them in an absolute manner. However if only law grants a right (which they seldom even attempt to) then the right can still be infringed upon and the person who did so can very easily escape responsibility.

You keep claiming that this or that was written by fallible humans. You seem to do so to provide your self with an excuse to ignore whatever you do not like, that was written down. What Jefferson said about rights is infallible even if he was fallible.

 

[leibowde84]

It has to do with familiarity rather than animosity. I cited Americastan because I don't know other places where the Friend Of The Court can impose jail time over a debt.
Regarding animosity towards my own country, here are just a few of the things which really burn my bacon:
- Military invasions of foreign countries for reasons other than self defense.
- Increasing elements of a police state, eg, domestic surveillance
- Wasteful spending & high taxes

There are many aspects to bodily autonomy in addition to reproduction. When one goes to jail, one's bodily autonomy is compromised, often to an unpredictable extent. And as I explained earlier, a man can be imprisoned for a debt.
The prisoner....
- Is physically confined.
- Unable to freely communicate.
- Must eat what is provided.
- Is subject to assault & injury.
- Has no health care options. (One guy I know has a permanent leg injury due to injury & poor care.)
- Is subject to legal beatings & probings.
If you don't find the above to be matters of bodily autonomy, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I didn't ask what your problems were with the Government. I asked what countries are better to live in than ours. For, after all, we can't expect perfection, but being the best to live in is pretty darn good.

If you brake a law, you have to face the consequences. That is not a violation of Bodily Autonomy, first because it is not the direct use of one's body against their will, it is merely confinement, and, second, because those that are confined first get due process. Once imprisoned, even for life, guards aren't legally permitted to physically hurt you without justification, kill you, force you to donate organs, etc. On the other hand, a pregnant woman has broken no law and has not agreed in any way to give up her bodily autonomy. So, there really is no connection.

Bodily autonomy is a well-protected and extremely well-defined (limited) legal right. It only applies to the direct use of one's body. Taking away freedoom of movement, conversation, money, or even some other rights does not fit into the definition. Slavery and rape are the two main examples of infringement of bodily autonomy.

 

[1robin]

In what way does a right exist that is not acknowledged by the state beyond theory? A legal right is certainly created by the law, which is the topic of this thread.

No it is not, read up on legal theory. Laws only recognize rights, and attempt to protect them. They do not and cannot create them. The best a law can do is grant selective, limited, and geographical permission for a right we inherently have to be exercised.

The Declaration of Independence draws a very clear line between sanity and insanity by proclaiming the existence of certain self-evident truths that all rational men should recognize: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

A self-evident truth is, by definition, evident to anyone who is sane. Persons who do not accept that all human beings are endowed with an inalienable right to life—for example, the 82 percent of Americans who think abortion should be legal—are, by this definition, insane.

The right to life is inalienable because it is not of human, but of divine origin. 1 Because man does not create himself, he cannot deprive himself of the primary goods that are inherent to human existence: life, freedom and happiness. Just as no government can deny its citizens these inalienable rights, neither can a man deprive himself of these rights. The “inalienable” right to life thus precludes abortion as well as suicide.
lifeissues | The Founding Fathers and the Right to Life

"No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand,
which conducts in the affairs of men more than the people of the United States.
-- Every step, by which they have been advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency." George Washington

THE Founding Fathers proclaimed liberty to be an "unalienable right" bestowed by our Creator, as witnessed by their signatures to the Declaration of Independence which states: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- ." The Constitution states that it was ordained and established to secure the "Blessings of Liberty" to succeeding generations. According to Webster's Dictionary to "bless" is to invoke divine care, and to be "blessed" is to enjoy the bliss of heaven. Thus, both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence make reference to a divine connection with liberty. Numerous references may also be found in the writings of the framers which acknowledge divine inspiration and the hand of providence in the birth of the American nation and the establishment of the Constitution. James Madison said: "It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in [the Constitution] a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution." Patrick Henry stated: "There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations." Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address, closed with the appeal: "May that infinite power which rules the destinies of the universe lead our councils to what is best." And, Charles Pinckney said: "Nothing less than the superintending Hand of Providence, that so miraculously carried us through the war . . . could have brought it [the Constitution] about so complete, upon the whole." If we fail to acknowledge this principle, we effectively disregard the works and faith of our Founding Fathers.

This first principle serves as the cornerstone for all others. Just as man alone cannot originate life, a people acting alone cannot obtain liberty without divine sanction. Similarly, like life itself, one cannot fully comprehend or appreciate liberty without reference to inspired principles. Liberty simply does not exist in a secular vacuum. Liberty is a divine promise -- it begets hope. John Foster Dulles stated: "Our nation was founded as an experiment in human liberty. Its institutions reflect the belief of our founders that men had their origin and destiny in God; that they were endowed by Him with unalienable rights and had duties prescribed by moral law, and that human institutions ought primarily to help men develop their God-given possibilities." Patrick Henry warned: "It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains . . ." George Washington said: "[W]e ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained. Our currency states, "In God We Trust"; we pledge allegiance to "one nation under God"; and in the well known patriotic hymn "My Country, 'Tis of Thee," we sing, "Our father's God, to thee, Author of Liberty . . ." -- do we so believe? "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?
Seven Principles of Liberty

This last one was written by a man who did not have faith in the biblical God but knew that rights, if they existed, must come from a transcendent source he called "God or the creator". He had every incentive to find law sufficient to ground rights but gave it up as a useless effort. Read these sites or any of the thousands like them from the Hebrews, the Greeks, Romans, all the way to the modern US.

 

[Revoltingest]

I didn't ask what your problems were with the Government. I asked what countries are better to live in than ours. For, after all, we can't expect perfection, but being the best to live in is pretty darn good.

Oh, I thought it was a rhetorical question. Better to live in than Americastan.....hmmmm....that would vary from person to person. At the moment, USA is best for me. In the 1970s, Canuckistan was almost better (til Nixon cancelled the draft). I know Aussies who find their desert homeland the best. This is perhaps too big an issue to cover in this thread.

If you brake a law, you have to face the consequences. That is not a violation of Bodily Autonomy, first because it is not the direct use of one's body against their will, it is merely confinement, and, second, because those that are confined first get due process. Once imprisoned, even for life, guards aren't legally permitted to physically hurt you without justification, kill you, force you to donate organs, etc. On the other hand, a pregnant woman has broken no law and has not agreed in any way to give up her bodily autonomy. So, there really is no connection.

Bodily autonomy is a well-protected and extremely well-defined (limited) legal right.

So your "well-defined" definition is the only one....but you don't even provide it, eh?
You must face the reality that some of us will see it differently. I see it more broadly.

Btw, you meant "break" instead of "brake".

It only applies to the direct use of one's body. Taking away freedom of movement, conversation, money, or even some other rights does not fit into the definition. Slavery and rape are the two main examples of infringement of bodily autonomy.

We must agree to disagree about what bodily autonomy is. I say it's more than just what is surgically moved in or out of one's innards. Moreover, if you believe that bodily autonomy is not violated in prison, I hope you never discover your error the hard way. Keep yer nose clean.

Btw, in the example I gave of a man who loses his job & therefore cannot meet Friend Of The Court payments, he has broken no law. Even if he tries to make payments the best he can, he can still be imprisoned for the debt.

 

[leibowde84]

Oh, I thought it was a rhetorical question. Better to live in than Americastan.....hmmmm....that would vary from person to person. At the moment, USA is best for me. In the 1970s, Canuckistan was almost better (til Nixon cancelled the draft). I know Aussies who find their desert homeland the best. This is perhaps too big an issue to cover in this thread.

So your "well-defined" definition is the only one....but you don't even provide it, eh?
You must face the reality that some of us will see it differently. I see it more broadly.

We must agree to disagree about what bodily autonomy is. I say it's more than just what is surgically moved in or out of one's innards. Moreover, if you believe that bodily autonomy is not violated in prison, I hope you never discover your error the hard way. Keep yer nose clean.

Btw, in the example I gave of a man who loses his job & therefore cannot meet Friend Of The Court payments, he has broken no law. Even if he tries to make payments the best he can, he can still be imprisoned for the debt.

No offense, but I'm curious as to why you feel it acceptable to define words as you see fit. Bodily autonomy is a legal term, and, as such, is very well defined. It came about through discussion of legal rights. I provided the definition before, but here it is again. This definition is the only one accepted under the law, which is the topic of this thred.

Bodily autonomy means a person has control over who or what uses their physical body, for what, and for how long. It is the basis for all other rights, and grants every self-sustained person dominion over the use of their body. It can, without a doubt, be given up through permission or due process, but, unless a law is seen to have been broken, it can't happen against one's own will.

 

[Revoltingest]

No offense, but I'm curious as to why you feel it acceptable to define words as you see fit.

So far, I don't see you providing any authority for your definition below.
Secondly, who is to say there should be no other?
Thirdly, there will be much leeway in common usage.
And finally, I may argue for a broader definition of this right.

I started a new thread about it, & invite you to join it.

Bodily autonomy is a legal term, and, as such, is very well defined. It came about through discussion of legal rights. I provided the definition before, but here it is again. This definition is the only one accepted under the law, which is the topic of this thred.

Bodily autonomy means a person has control over who or what uses their physical body, for what, and for how long. It is the basis for all other rights, and grants every self-sustained person dominion over the use of their body. It can, without a doubt, be given up through permission or due process, but, unless a law is seen to have been broken, it can't happen against one's own will.

By your own definition, my application of the term comports better than yours, which is so narrow as to allow for much mischief by government.