Oh, just to be clear, I am not discussing "atonomy" in general, but "bodily autonomy" specifically. Only the physical, direct use of another's body without their permission or the due process of law is at issue here. The Government cannot infringe on "bodily autonomy" in the way you describe. "Autonomy", obiously, is a different matter.
It may be a different matter, but not separate -the matters are intermingled. Bodily autonomy may be the issue here, but as it relates to autonomy.
I disagree with the idea that government cannot infringe upon bodily autonomy (and it often does -whether it has the right to or not).
If a born child's mother's milk was the only available food source because they were isolated somehow -and the mother refused to feed the child because she had bodily autonomy and the child did not -then the matter became known -is that outside the realm of what government should consider or act upon? They might have difficulty infringing upon the bodily autonomy of the mother directly by forcing her to feed the child -but they are likely to act in some way due to neglect of the child -such as possibly moving the child's body elsewhere and putting her body in the pokey.
If the mother had all sorts of food other than breast milk -but did not feed the child because, by her bodily autonomy, she decided to be elsewhere doing otherwise while the non-bodily-autonomous child was left to whatever became of it, is that all kinds of OK? Can the government infringe upon that situation?
If zygote or gestationally-young fetus can be called a
human zygote or gestationally-young fetus, could not a miscarriage
seem like an abortion by some means -or neglect and/or deliberate action to cause a miscarriage -and be subject to doubt as to which it actually was -leading to arrest on
suspicion of something which was against the law?
Should the law be based on bodily autonomy.... -or location, perhaps? A newborn does not have bodily autonomy -but how far back up in there does it begin to have rights -and when do others become responsible or possibly guilty of neglect or harm?
If it is neglected or harmed after it sees daylight -is that wrong? Is it OK before it sees daylight at some point?
If one who is left unharmed and is not neglected will continue on the already-initialized path toward human bodily autonomy -which does not truly begin with their birth -are they not human?
If one happens upon a child whose mother, by her bodily autonomy, is elsewhere doing otherwise, do even they
truly have the basic right to leave that child to whatever might befall it -regardless of human laws which may or may not be in effect?
The child does not have bodily autonomy, but does that make the issue a non-issue which is not up for consideration? Are we to say a human which does not have bodily autonomy is a non-issue -not up for consideration?
People who are incapacitated do not have bodily autonomy -and the law does not necessarily hold those responsible who do not render aid -but is human society as whole not responsible to provide someone to render aid?
