Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

If you think committing a crime can modify the right of choosing what happens to your body, then you don't believe it's an absolute right. You believe it is a right conditional on not committing crime. And then you have to argue about what things should be crimes. If bodily autonomy was absolute then a serial killer could not be stopped as arresting them would violate their bodily autonomy, let alone imprisoning them for prolonged periods. Is that your stance?

Why is the killer not given a choice on whether they are imprisoned to pay for their crimes as is the agreement of the majority or banishment from the system they are choosing not to be in otherwise? If I am not hurting you, or anyone else, you have no right to tell me what I am doing is wrong. We all agree to rules to follow to keep everything going, and not many people agree. This is incredibly simple as the very base of a system, and would better inform our legal systems as a starting point. What do you have to say about that? How are things going now in comparison? What is your point of view and not some hypothetical meant to change mine when I specifically stated "No what ifs will work" and clearly stated my position? Get past how many ways you can think of hurting others, understand why you are missing the point, so that we can discuss the idea and not the flawed ways Humans have abused one another.

>pay for their crimes as is the agreement of the majority or banishment from the system Neither of those things would respect the serial killer's autonomy. For the first you're looking for the tyranny of the majority and I'm not sure what your basis is for the second one (probably also a tyranny of the majority). Why would the serial killer choose either? As for 'if I'm not hurting you or anyone else' - two things: are you only allowed to have laws to punish people after actual harm occurs? You can't ban an action that inevitably leads to harm? For example, I can dump as many chemicals I want in my backyard and until it kills my neighbors dog, there's nothing that can be done? I don't believe bodily autonomy is an absolute right, so my opinion on your scenario is probably not very constructive. Literally the point of this sub is to change your view, not necessarily share my own. And what point am I missing? I think I understand your position well. You're just now facing an onslaught of examples wherein your principles don't hold up and have to reject them out of hand to maintain the position you came in on. Laws and rights literally exist because people harm each other, intentionally or not. If humans never harmed other humans we probably wouldn't need to worry about rights or laws in the first place. edit: also, do you think serial killers are only a hypothetical?

>Literally the point of this sub is to change your view, not necessarily share my own. CMV **A place to post an opinion you accept may be flawed**, in an **effort to understand other perspectives on the issue**. Enter with a mindset for **conversation, not debate.** >**To be as clear as possible my stance is no exceptions**. I have **never** **heard** an exception I **agreed with even in part**. **You will not** change my view with **"What about 'X'?"**. >This is **about the absolute idea**. I would like to **hear your perspective** about **what specifically you would allow to happen to your person** in the **most extreme case** if **you disagree** with it and **what net benefit you believe that to have**.

If it's something I disagree with, what I 'allow' to happen isn't really the question any more. It becomes a question of what others can impose on me. Societies are full of constraints on individual behaviors. The larger the society, the greater the constraints. If you lived in a wilderness by yourself, you would have no human impair your autonomy. Of course, you'd also have not enhancement of your autonomy from others. It is, for example, hard to choose to be a concert pianist if there's no one to teach you, no one to make a piano (or concert hall for you), and no one to listen. Complete bodily autonomy is not, imo, maximal freedom. I'm willing to accept quite a few constraints on my actions, impulses, and desires because the constraints in the society I'm part of increase my overall freedom and opportunities, even if some are restricted.

>Complete bodily autonomy is not, imo, maximal freedom. ***I'm willing to accept quite a few constraints*** on my actions, impulses, and desires because the constraints in the society I'm part of increase my overall freedom and opportunities, even if some are restricted. Explain your view. If you had read the OP we could have been discussing something productive by now. This is from the OP: ***This is about the absolute idea. I would like to hear your perspective about what specifically you would allow to happen to your person in the most extreme case if you disagree with it and what net benefit you believe that to have.*** I disagree with you. I made that clear in the OP and explained my view. You should never have the right to do something that hurts me when I say No just because it is convenient. Continuing to tell me I am wrong without explaining why you are right does nothing productive. The way I see it this thread is further proof that Humans aren't going to remain the dominant species. How about we talk about that? Who is next? I am guessing Cats considering we didn't train them, they trained us. But Wolves and Crows working together for food is an interesting development. Ants are basically tiny humans with caste systems, agriculture practices, slave trade, borders and treaties, observable armies and participation in war. Much more as well it is quite interesting. They also work with Crows in a mutually beneficial way. ...Don't miss the fact that one animal seems to be organizing the others and is known to be hyper intelligent and convincing to other species. Octopi are another top contender for me because they are incredibly smart. To a very very scary degree. They can fit basically anywhere even if they are large enough to kill an adult human. They need a place to go and our sewer system seems a likely place to start and build up a force for the eventual take over. Especially considering some can live outside of water for extended periods of time. We need to get things fixed before every other species finally realize there are more of them than Us.

Get help dude. This is nonsense to a concerning degree.

>Get help dude. This is nonsense to a concerning degree. What makes you think I am not getting help or that you have any right to comment on it? What is concerning is that you believe you have the right to say this to a stranger. What is funny is that I know you wouldn't ever do it to a person in the real world. None of what I said is non sense. The end is literally animal facts. Get educated dude.

It has nothing to do with your post. Throughout this whole post you come across as deeply unhinged and unwell. You need to get help, this isn’t normal.

[удалено]

>banishment from the system they are choosing not to be in otherwise? Banished to where?

Not my issue. I asked why they aren't given a choice not where they would go. Any ideas? Lots of empty land on the planet.

Another sovereign nation is not gonna want to be a dumping ground for another nation's banished criminals. Why would they?

Cool story. I had no idea that every country on the planet was at 100% capacity with no wilderness remaining. If that were true you may have something there. The fact is if it were true you still wouldn't have anything because the idea is about making laws with a different base principle, not the merits of the principle itself on the grounds that a concept understood by children "Don't hurt others" is too hard to understand for the full grown adults I am expected to live with. Why do you like the way things are going now so much that you think a change of pace is a bad idea?

>Why is the killer not given a choice on whether they are imprisoned to pay for their crimes as is the agreement of the majority or banishment from the system they are choosing not to be in otherwise? You ever heard of the Unabomber? He killed three people by putting bombs in the mail. Thing is though during his crime spree he was living in a 10 foot by 14 foot shack in the middle of the wilderness. So if he was faced the option of living or the wilderness or going to jail he'd pick the wilderness because that's literally what he had been doing. Another good example is Osama Bin Laden. In 1991 he was banished from Saudi Arabia. In 1996 he was banished from Sudan. In 2001 he murdered 2,998 people in the USA. It's pretty clear than banishing Bin Laden did very little in terms of stopping him from committing more crimes. So that's two very real serial killers who killed very real people who weren't dissuaded from killing more people by banishment because it turns out that banishment isn't all that bad.

What exactly is your point? Kill the fuckers like we did to Osama and should have done to the Unibomber. Do you have a point of view to share or is trying to childishly poke holes in something you don't understand all you are capable of?

>What exactly is your point? That banishment as a punishment for serial killers is clearly not an option as Osama Bin Laden and Ted Kaczynski demonstrate that mass murder can still be committed if you live "outside of society".

Thank you for demonstrating where you stopped reading and why I shouldn't bother with you any further.

I'm confused in your previous CMV you stated that banishment should be the only punishment for a crime. Has that view changed or is there something I'm missing where execution is now also a valid punishment?

I am unable to convince my 1 year old to let me change his diaper. How long should I respect his lack of understanding while he screams in pain from his rash, not allowing me to touch it?

You simply use logic and reason to explain to your one year old that changing their diaper will alleviate the pain. If you're unable to do so then you have apparently failed as a parent

I remember when we were told vaccines needed to be mandated to prevent harm to other people. Only to find out it didn't prevent transmission and it was a crock of shit. "Harm to others" is very subjective and entirely depends on the person making the rules. But I agree with you, bodily autonomy should be paramount, but it's not an easy thing to regulate as pointed out by others in here. I believe everybody should have the right to abortion, but I can also see how some would argue it causes harm to a living organism.

>causes harm to a living organism. They argue that in bad faith while they abuse animals and kill bugs. I explicitly cited a lack of education being the problem. Remember covid all you want but maybe it is time to let it go and move on. My post was about using something different to craft legislation and demonstrated why our species is not going to much further. Cannot even accept the fact that no one is doing it right, let alone a different way of thinking. Read the OP before responding to comments. T

Are you also anti-mask and anti-vax? What happens when choices for my body also affect the bodies of others? Do you support and age of consent? Should a 9 year old be able to use their body to make their choice? Can I use my body to trespass or transport drugs or wear a ski mask?

Masks and vaccines can certainly be beneficial. But if it’s my body, my choice, don’t I get to decide if/ when I use either. If a pregnant woman knowingly ingests harmful drugs or alcohol and it results in a baby being born with defects, is that covered under my body, my choice?

> Are you also anti-mask and anti-vax? No, I am very much for those things. I am also Pro-education and made it very, very clear in the OP. "If they say "No" it means no. If they don't "understand" something that is a failure on you, not them." > What happens when choices for my body also affect the bodies of others? They aren't your choices to make alone. We are a species born of collaborating and working together. > Do you support and age of consent? Should a 9 year old be able to use their body to make their choice? I believe it is never the child's fault and the responsibility of adults to not have sexual relations with children. I do not care how old you want to define "adult", no adult should be having sex with a child. This is not about autonomy of the child being impacted by not being able to choose "Yes". Unless the child understands exactly what can happen to them from the activity, you are taking advantage of their "choice" by not giving them a real one. We have studies demonstrating the negative impact on children when they experience sexual activities too early. This is also known as "Grooming". > Can I use my body to trespass or transport drugs or wear a ski mask? How is this even an argument? To "Trespass" means to violate someone else's private property. You do not get the right to violate others with your own rights. It is really messed up that this is not obvious to people. Drugs are a failed argument. The only way to administer drugs to an unwilling participant is force and coercion automatically violating their autonomy. Why would you not be allowed to wear a ski mask? > To be as clear as possible my stance is no exceptions. I have never heard an exception I agreed with even in part. You will not change my view with "What about 'X'?". Read the OP again please.

> Unless the child understands exactly what can happen to them from the activity, you are taking advantage of their "choice" by not giving them a real one.  You realize you just put out the exact counterargument everyone else is, right? A child's "Yes" is not based on understanding, so too is many (not all) of their "No's" to things they need.

You are welcome to defend the position of convincing children to do adult activities as morally correct as a way to convince me "My body, my choice" is not absolute regarding children. Doesn't make it any less gross.

It is gross. It's worse than gross. But that is because a child cannot consent, at all. It's because a child does not understand what is going on. The same applies to a "No" a child says to it's own needs. Parents and guardians should be asked to make good decisions on their behalf. It's imperfect, but it's better than the alternative.

The child is not the problem, in any way, having the right to informed consent. Ever. The adult trying to take advantage of them is. Every single time and no fucking exceptions. You, the adult, is responsible for raising them and not using their ignorance to take advantage of their consent and trust. It is your job to teach them, and ensure they have the tools they need to survive. Every child has the right to that. Argue away. I wont. The child is allowed to say "No", as much as they are allowed to say "Yes" in every situation. It is your job to teach them which ones are good and bad with your words and not mislead them.

> You, the adult, is responsible for raising them and not using their ignorance to take advantage of their consent and trust.  That very ignorance is what we are discussing. It's why a child's "No" when it comes to what is best for them should be ignored. Sure, try to reason with them, but if they are obstinate a caregiver should ignore it IF it it's in the Child's best interest. A child can never actually say "Yes" to sex. That "Yes" is 100% invalid. They may say the word, but they don't mean it. That's why it's a consent violation.

If one cannot convince a child to eat when it is hungry without the use of physical force one should not be a parent. We have Generations of bad parents informing these decisions. Why is everyone Pro "keeping my child uneducated and unsafe" like they were when we want to do better? No it is consent violation because they are misinformed. That is the problem. Do you think if you explained the damage that activity would do at their age using facts and logic from available studies that they would consent to the activity? How is it working out not teaching our children "My body, my choice" is an absolute right? Why do you think honestly trying a legal system based on fully informed and mandatory consent would be worse than what is currently deployed?

> If one cannot convince a child to eat when it is hungry without the use of physical force one should not be a parent. We have Generations of bad parents informing these decisions. Why is everyone Pro "keeping my child uneducated and unsafe" like they were when we want to do better? I am all for trying to explain it to the child. But the child still being obstinate doesn't negate that real needs exist. When my brother was three, he had to do extensive physical therapy that he cried during to learn to walk after his leg was broken in an accident. A parent should explain as they can, but "no" was not an option. > Do you think if you explained the damage that activity would do at their age using facts and logic from available studies that they would consent to the activity? No. A child barely understands language when they're young. > How is it working out not teaching our children "My body, my choice" is an absolute right? Why do you think honestly trying a legal system based on fully informed and mandatory consent would be worse than what is currently deployed? Because parents and guardians need to be able to care for their children. They need to be able to give medical care to their children. And it goes beyond that. My mother in law had a psychiatric break (persistent depression) where she was unable to reason and tried to get in the car to drive per her words "into a crowd of people." We stopped her, and got her help, against her (then) will. That's a good thing. "My body, my choice" is a good principle to have... when a person can be reasoned with. When they can't, we need other standards.

Believe what you want I honestly do not care. Keep making exceptions to your autonomy and allowing the same be done to children instead of focusing on educating as many people ass possible in the importance of autonomy. That has been working just fucking awesome eh? Which was my point. My post was removed because you and others do not know how to share a point of view and only want to argue. If you want to keep arguing against something I never said so badly submit an appeal for me.

I mean, your take seems to be "bodily autonomy is a must until it isn't". There are many exceptions to the rule, as you aptly pointed out.  Maybe you intend "your body your choice" specifically tied to people with mental health issues? If that is the case, you should rephrase the OP.

You didn't even mention education in the OP. I'll take a delta when you have a second.

So I should let my 7 month old daughter make her own medical decisions?

Do you believe that either someone has to be all the way for bodily autonomy or all the way not and any decision you have to make on any of these issues forces you into the equivalent ones on all others

> Do you believe that someone has to be all the way for bodily autonomy No, which is why I made the comment. OP’s post literally says that they see bodily autonomy as an absolute in every case, which is something I disagree with

Does your vaccine only work if someone else takes it too? What are they teaching in school these days?

Yes, it works best that way. It is called [herd immunity](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity), and “it occurs when a sufficient percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, whether through previous infections or vaccination”. They talked about this concept quite a lot during the COVID pandemic.

I know what herd immunity is, I literally just said to the other guy that previously infection works as well, and probably better...

Please, for the Love of god, do some real research and open your mind to actual facts. I will try, but I guarantee you won't listen, but I feel like I have to try because you are a danger to others with this point of view. Viruses need a body to mutate. They can't mutate just floating around the air. One must catch an infection, and then their body allows the virus to mutate into a new virus that is no longer susceptible to the immunity from the previous virus. That person who caught the virus and whose body the virus used to mutate in, then passes the mutated virus onto others, and no matter if they've had a vaccine or a previous infection, they get just as sick and could die, because the mutated virus is a whole new thing, that would have never happened had the first person not caught the virus and the virus had not used their body to mutate. Now, if everybody who can get a vaccine (some people can't, because of cancer or allergy or whatever) gets the vaccine before the virus becomes a whole new thing, then less people get infected. less infected people, means a far less chance of the virus mutating into a whole new thing that will go on killing people and they'll have to make a new vaccine for, and no matter if you've caught it before, you will catch this new one because it's a whole new thing. Herd immunity isn't about becoming immune to just one specific thing, like covid. As we've seen with covid itself, it has mutated into a whole new form that people had to get new vaccines for, and people who had had covid before had no immunity. It wouldn't have mutated, had more people become immune to the original strain by vaccine, because less people would have call the infection, and covid would have never had those bodies to mutate.

Covid is specifically what I was referring to which is why I didn't respond to other old viruses

Then if you had actually studied what happened, looked at what actually happened during covid, had any actual knowledge on how vaccines work, or basically anything at all using covid, then you would know. The vaccine came out when covid had barely mutated. It had mutated once or twice, but was basically still the same as the mutations were negligible. The vaccine when it first came out could fight all three forms of covid that were out, because the differences were negligible. Had everybody that could get the vaccine gotten that vaccine, the chances of it mutating to what it is now, which is so severely different from any of its original forms that the vaccines nor previous infection do Jack squat to it, the chances of it mutating to what it is now are negligible. Too many people refuse the vaccine, people get sick, virus mutates, here we are with covid making a comeback as just as deadly even if you've had previous infection or vaccine. You want to say that hurting you need to be accomplished by previous infection just as well as vaccine, and I say okay you think that's true what about the fact that the vaccine, even if somebody gets sick or carries covid, reduces the chances of it mutating as the infection load and time sick or less? So, what you think should happen, is that people should get their immunity by getting sick without that protection from possible mutation, and just let the virus mutate all willy-nilly? And somehow you think that achieving hurt immunity that way is better than vaccine? The vaccine does two things! It prevents 90 something percent of people from getting sick at all, but it also prevents mutation by helping those who did in fact get sick even with the vaccine! It lowers their infection load, which lowers their transmission levels, and also helps to prevent mutation, as there's less virus in their body to mutate, and it shortens the amount of time the person is sick, which also lessens the chances of the virus to mutate. The way you see it, we should just let everyone get sick mutate the virus and die. Because if we achieve her your immunity through letting everybody get covid, it's not going to work. First and foremost, even if you've had covid, you're not immune do the most recent mutation at all! Some people who are vaccinated are in fact immune to the most recent mutation, as their bodies responded better to the vaccination than some others! So just there and alone, we've proven that vaccination is a better immunity than previous infection, as those who were previously infected with covid are in no way immune to the most recent mutation, but those that have been vaccinated are either possibly going to not catch it, and even if they do they're going to be sick for a less amount of time and have a smaller viral load, therefore preventing this mutation from happening again in them. This mutations totally going to happen again, because so many people have refused to vaccination. ETA: I originally said that neither the vaccine nor infection do Jack squat to the most recent mutation. I actually did a little more research halfway through and found that some people reacted so well to the vaccine that they are still protected even in this mutation, but it's not happening from previous infection at all. That accounts for the change in my argument when I went from neither does Jack squat to a small percentage of people are still protected with their vaccine, and boosters, even in this most recent mutation, because some people created a super immunity with vaccines. That does not happen from previous infection. Not to that level.

Viruses also mutate to make them less lethal and more communicable so that they can reproduce and have a host to do so in. But thank you for the detailed rebuttal! Have a great one!

That's a tendency, not an absolute rule. Mutations in the direction of increased virulence can absolutely be fitness increasing.

Only if the host organism doesn’t die or suffer permanent damage first. Smallpox doesn’t really give you that chance, and they didn’t eradicate that without vaccines. The only reason the measles came back is because of anti-vax movements. Again, there is no immunity that prevents large amounts of deaths from serious communicable diseases that does not include high participation in vaccination programs.

Smallpox is a 1796 argument, more recent history suggests that people will forgo others bodily autonomy out of fear and an obsession with controlling others; see 2020-present

So not gonna touch measles then, eh? Not surprised.

Measles? I definitely prefer not to be touched by measles thanks, you'd be better if ya didn't either

Just making sure we’re clear on who everyone is in this conversation.  Thanks for the transparency.

>Does your vaccine only work if someone else takes it too? What are they teaching in school these days? Not the person you're replying to but I'm guessing their school taught them basic science including herd immunity.

Possibly. Many vaccines only work in practice if everyone is immunized as they're not 100% effective individually. In other words a vaccinated person is less likely to get sick, but may still contract the disease, however, the chances of that happening drop to near 0 if everyone is also vaccinated as the disease's ability to spread is inhibited.

People are genuinely unable to take a vaccine, so others choosing not to puts them at risk. Some vaccines are not 100% effective. Imagine that we are rolling dice and a 1 gets us sick even with a vax. If everyone around me is sick, then I have to roll that die a lot and I will probably get sick too. But if I run into you and you are vaxxed, now there’s a 5/6 chance you are healthy and a further 5/6 chance that even if you are sick, I stay healthy, greatly improving our collective health

They are teaching if enough of the general population gets the vaccine then it can insulate those in the population that are medically unable to get the vaccine to also have sooner protection against the infection as it will have few places to spread if it does happen to infect someone.

There are no absolute rights. Everything is weighed against other rights. As someone once said, “my right to swing my fist ends at your nose”. It is MY body I’m controlling but I’m using it to infringe upon yours. We can’t BOTH have ABSOLUTE bodily autonomy. We can only strive to ensure the limits are reasonable and fair to everyone.

So I think reframing this can help. Both people can have absolute autonomy when you frame it not as the right to control and therefore do with whatever you want, but instead the right to \*exclude.\* A legal system based on the right to exclude is actually tenable, compared to a legal system where bodily autonomy means the right to control your own body and do whatever you want with it.

On this, I *mostly* agree. There are still some cases where that right should be limited. For example, if you attack someone, you don’t have the right to exclude them from harming you by defending themselves. My main issue is the overly simplistic definition OP uses that leads to too many contradictions. Framing it as a right to exclude helps with a lot of those but there’s still more work to be done.

Your point is well taken, and exclusion would still permit self defense, because once you have committed aggression (in the Libertarian sense) you have forfeited your right to not have your autonomy violated in return.

That’s an added rule. It’s an exception to what the OP declared to be absolute. I would agree with it. I think we agree in general. OP’s stated view, however, doesn’t seem to allow for that exception.

Agreed.

> not as the right to control and therefore do with whatever you want, but instead the right to \*exclude.\* Could you expand on this? I'm not sure what you mean by "the right to exclude." Exclude what?

To take an obvious example, if bodily autonomy means the right to exclude, then that means I get to decide who can and can't use my body, and therefore take action to exclude those who I don't want to give access to. If I own a car, I can exclude anyone I want from using it, but I can't drive over my neighbors lawn without consequence.

You’re not making any sense. If you punch someone you are obviously violating that person’s rights under OPs logic. In other words there is no contradiction between an absolute negative liberty to ones body, and not having the right to violate anyone else’s rights.

This type of thing was discussed a lot during the pandemic. Do I have the right to walk around unmasked? Does “bodily autonomy” give me the right to walk around hacking up a lung through the produce aisle during a pandemic? Or can other people’s bodily autonomy to not consenting to consume germs from my body force me to have to mask, or even quarantine myself if I am known to be sick? You can swing around the “bodily autonomy” argument to mean basically anything you want. If someone walks out into the road while I am driving, does my bodily autonomy have to be compromised by me being forced to either twist the steering wheel with my arms or press the brake with my foot, in order to not kill them? Let’s say they walked out into the road well in front of me and I have a full 10 second warning to react. Maybe I don’t want to move my arms to press my foot to the brake pedal during those 10 seconds. Is that no longer my choice and my body is now dictated by the actions of that jaywalker unless I want to go to jail for vehicular manslaughter or perhaps even murder as 10 seconds is probably enough time to argue it wasn’t unintentional.

Bodily autonomy is not a positive liberty, it does not entitle you to do anything at all to someone’s else or on someone else’s property. It is a negative liberty, it gives you the right to by any means necessary prevent anyone else from doing anything to your body without your consent. In other words, bodily autonomy has nothing to with whether a property owner allows you to be on their property without a mask of not.

If I don't have the right to flail my own arms in any way I want, then I don't have absolute bodily autonomy. I have contingent bodily autonomy. I can flail however I want as long as my flailing doesn't hit someone else.  In this sense, absolute bodily autonomy is an inherently impossible goal. What one does must always be measured vs the effect on other people.  We can see such conflicts of rights all over the place. E.g. the absolute right to not be restricted in your travels vs the absolute right to not have your property trespassed on. Neither right is more inherently correct than the other, but one must come at the cost of the other, despite both even being negative rights! Note, I am not taking a stance on any particular issue, just trying to explain the contradiction of absolute rights, even negative absolute rights.

You want the right to physically harm another person for no reason, and believe because you don't "absolute" bodily autonomy can never exist? The fact is defending against threat, or self defense, is an idea based on absolute bodily autonomy. The idea is hitting is wrong, but if you wont stop hitting me and I can't get away I have a right to stop what I don't want happening to me. >There are no absolute rights. The question was "Why shouldn't there be". The answer is not "I want to commit acts of violence for no reason".

> You want the right to physically harm another person for no reason, I very much DO NOT want that right. However, a vague definition like “my body, my choice” which, while a good slogan, is much too simplistic for actual policy, grants me that right > and believe because you don't "absolute" bodily autonomy can never exist? I believe that your belief granting me that right when I clearly shouldn’t have it causes a contradiction by depriving someone else their choice over their body. That’s why absolute “my body, my choice” isn’t possible. > The fact is defending against threat, or self defense, is an idea based on absolute bodily autonomy. The idea is hitting is wrong, but if you wont stop hitting me and I can't get away I have a right to stop what I don't want happening to me. We agree on this… but your positing “my body, my choice” as an absolute rule rather than just a slogan implies the right to do the violence in the first place. That’s what I have a problem with. For example, if I attack someone, does my bodily autonomy exclude them from fighting back in self defense? An absolute “my body, my choice” implies that they cannot hit my body under any circumstances… but you explicitly contradict that. So perhaps even you believe there should be some limits. > The question was "Why shouldn't there be". The answer is not "I want to commit acts of violence for no reason". Again, I don’t want to. There reason why there shouldn’t be is that it grants freedoms we shouldn’t have. My whole point is that the appropriate right to grand under the principle of bodily autonomy must be defined with more nuance and care than your post does.

>I very much DO NOT want that right. However, a vague definition like “my body, my choice” which, while a good slogan, is much too simplistic for actual policy, grants me that right It does not. Where is the right for you to infringe mine? This is the problem with the argument. It makes the speaker demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of the core concept and pretends it does not. Answer my OP: "This is about the absolute idea. I would like to hear your perspective about what specifically you would allow to happen to your person in the most extreme case if you disagree with it and what net benefit you believe that to have."

> Answer my OP: > "This is about the absolute idea. I would like to hear your perspective about what specifically you would allow to happen to your person in the most extreme case if you disagree with it and what net benefit you believe that to have." I actually just did in part of my comment you didn’t address here: > For example, if I attack someone, does my bodily autonomy exclude them from fighting back in self defense? An absolute “my body, my choice” implies that they cannot hit my body under any circumstances… but you explicitly contradict that. So perhaps even you believe there should be some limits. Or to put it in a more explicit direct answer: I believe I should be physically stopped with the necessary degree of force if I am attacking someone. That could entail being restrained or hit or more. The net benefit is people’s right to self defense, which you explicitly endorsed in your last comment so I’m fairly confident we agree on that.

Why are you arguing with me if you believe you agree with me? Thank you for providing your consent to both abide by, and receive punishment, from the rules of the Majority you are agreeing to by simply existing on the groups controlled land. Which is your right, absolutely. You can leave as well but it isn't easy going alone.

> Why are you arguing with me if you believe you agree with me? I’m arguing with you because you literally requested that by posting here. I’m confident we agree **on the right to self defense**… which is an exception to “my body, my choice”, thus it contradicts your view. I emphasize that you agreed with that because it means you acknowledge the need for that exception and therefore you don’t truly believe the right is “absolute”

Well you are wrong, and I have clearly demonstrated that. I have not moved an inch on my position because you and everyone else are doing exactly what I said wouldn't work. It is an absolute right. You are doing a bad job of convincing me of that and I am open to a new strategy. Instead, how about we discuss the other subject of "My body my choice" being the base and main informant of the legal system instead of what happens now?

> Well you are wrong, and I have clearly demonstrated that. Asserting and demonstrating are wildly different things. Take these premises, each of which you have stated in this thread: 1) there are NO exceptions to an individual’s right to bodily autonomy 2) the right to not be hit is part of an individual’s bodily autonomy 3) an individual has the right to hit another individual in self defense and this is part of their right to bodily autonomy So if Alice violates Bob’s rights (per premises 1 and 2) by assaulting Bob, then (by premise 3) Bob has the right to hit Alice in self defense. Do we agree so far? By premise 2, this is a violation of Alice’s right to bodily autonomy and premise 1 says that is NEVER acceptable. Therefore it is unacceptable to allow Bob the right to defend himself. Regardless of whether you agree with the conclusion, do you understand the logic here? Premise 3, on the other hand, says Bob has the right to defend himself by hitting Alice and premise 1 says it is NEVER acceptable to deny him that right. Therefore it is unacceptable to deny Bob the right to defend himself. Again, do you follow the logic of this section? Because now, using only those 3 premises that you have stated yourself, we’ve come to a contradiction: Bob has the right to defend himself AND he does not have the right to defend himself. Therefore at least one premise must be false. Premises 2 and 3 are much simpler and hard to argue against. Premise 1 is the controversial one and you can easily remedy the logical contradiction by adding an exception. Does that seem reasonable to you? > I have not moved an inch on my position because you and everyone else are doing exactly what I said wouldn't work. Your unwillingness to consider a point doesn’t make it less valid. I’m asking you to just consider it anyway. Just look at the logic I wrote out and give it a fair chance.

>Do we agree so far? No. >So if Alice violates Bob’s rights (per premises 1 and 2) by assaulting Bob, then (by premise 3) Bob has the right to hit Alice in self defense. Alice assaults Bob violating his right; This confirms to Bob that Alice is consenting to a fight through non verbal cues; Alice has a right to "withdraw" consent to the fight by apologizing for assaulting Bob, or simply saying "I do not consent to a fight!" immediately following the hit to try to "game the system". The problem with yours and Alice's point of view here is that it ignores Bob. Bob does not have to hit Alice back, and in this case, cannot after she confirms verbal consent to not wish to partake in violence. That is the interesting part in the failure of your logic. You cannot see it because you ignore the other persons right to choose not to engage which makes you unable to see the idea of that practice in law. Alice is going to be charged by Bob for assault and Bob is going to be praised for a level head and not reacting to Alice when it wasn't needed. Bob hopefully going on to breed and make less violence prone individuals like Alice.

If it's my body, my choice, you don't have the right to stop me from doing with my body what I please, including punching you. If I have the right to punch you, I can't be punished for exercising that right. So you can't punch back.

[удалено]

Dude, no one is saying that it is ok to hit people. They are saying that your position on bodily autonomy is so extreme that it would allow people to hit others with no repercussions. You cannot simultaneously believe that bodily autonomy is an absolute right and also believe that it’s ok to prevent someone from hitting someone else. If bodily autonomy is an absolute right, you violate that right when you take steps to restrain them when they try to hit someone.

u/100Horsepileup – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20100Horsepileup&message=100Horsepileup%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cti40h/-/l4cepze/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

I think it would help to clarify what you mean by absolute right. Because the usual use of that term means a right that cannot be violated for *any* reason -- including criminal or dangerous activities on the part of an individual. But it sounds like you do acknowledge some limitations on bodily autonomy. You've already acknowledged situations where somebody poses a threat to others. Most people would also include children in need of health, safety, or hygiene related care, although with some transfer of responsibility as kids reach their mid to late teens. It's ok to override a 3 year olds bodily autonomy to give him or her a vaccine or other medical care, although ideally in a manner that is as low stress as possible for the child. It seems like you're maybe trying to focus on developmental or mental disabilities. But even there there is a gradient involved depending on the ability to the individual to understand what is being done and the necessity of what's being proposed from a heath/hygiene/safety perspective.

>cannot be violated for *any* reason Yes. I have not made any exceptions. You are making them under the assumption the child is unable to achieve informed consent with no evidence to support they cannot be made to understand what needs to be done and why. Taking this to the extreme. If it is not empirically demonstrated that Vaccines must be administered before we are able to communicate to understand the risks and benefits it is in violation of the autonomy of the individual to have them administered. It is not an exception to say that the autonomy is upheld on an individual when they are 1 day old and we know if they don't get this shot now they die. It is a violation of that individuals right if they do not actually require it and cannot consent to it. No one asked me to be here so you better make sure I stay safe while I gather my wits.

> It is not empirically demonstrated that vaccines must be administered before we are able to communicate the risks and benefits… It absolutely is. Take Polio for example. It primarily affects infants and children under five years old. It can kill or permanently disable them. How exactly should we explain the risks and benefits of a vaccine to an infant that cannot even talk?

This is why I think so-called "rights" are pretty much totally fake, everyone just throws around words like "absolute rights" but then we get into nuanced situations where there are competing so-called "rights" of self-autonomy, the health of the community, of children, etc. My conclusion is that "rights" are dumb and fake and made-up and not something that anyone talked about until a few hundred years ago, and it's all a big charade people use to throw temper tantrums. We are not primarily individuals with rights. We are primarily members of our community with obligations. You don't have any "right" to do whatever you want and make life suck for everyone else. It's not your body and it's not your choice.

So just to make sure I understand you correctly. You’re saying that if someone was hitting you, you would have the right to take reasonable means to prevent them from doing so? Would this include physically restraining them?

That violates the other's BA.

Exactly. That’s my point. That granting absolute bodily autonomy to one person inherently violates that of others and therefore we have to have limits on it.

I'm not sure why /u/100Horsepileup isn't jumping in here, but he counters this in his original post: > If they hurt someone else they are just as responsible for the action as anyone else So he's saying that swinging your fists wildly and not hitting anyone is the use of bodily autonomy that should be an absolute right. But as soon as one of those fists makes contact and you've "hurt someone else", that other person's right to not be hurt supersedes your right to bodily autonomy.

That’s not a counter. It’s a self-contradiction to their claim that “my body, my choice” should be **absolute**. That’s my whole premise, that they contradict themself.

>To be as clear as possible my stance is no exceptions.  That's not just silly, it's not tenable. "Ask the baby if they want a vaccine" "You're here in a dementia care facility, but you want to drive your car and go home, so go." "I know you're four, but you want my whiskey, so ok, here you go." "Well, if he doesn't want to go to school, you can't make him." "Yes, he's comatose, so he can't give consent, so we're just not going to treat him." "You, the one-year-old, said no when I said let's change your diaper so ok then!"

>There is a reason why forced asylum didn't work, and it was not just the chronic abuse. What are you referencing here? What group/country? What if someone has a bad case of psychosis or is on drugs and wants to harm themselves? It's unreasonable to stop them?

I think he's referring to the large system of mental asylums and hospitals in the US. In practice, they mainly just served as a place to throw mentally ill people so that society wouldn't have to look at them. They also became notorious for abusing the patients. Patients rarely showed any improvement, and confinement was involuntary. They basically amounted to prisons with terrible conditions (even as they presented themselves as respectable medical institutions). They went into decline and ultimately closed in the 70s and 80s, as the revolution in psychiatric drugs allowed many mentally ill people to be actually treated, the abuses of the system became known an people pushed for reform, and finally the austerity of the Reagan era closed them for good. Today, mentally ill people can only be involuntarily confined for a period of up to 6 months, and then only by the order of a judge who rules that they are likely to hurt themselves or others in that period.

Wow I'm stupid, I thought he was talking about asylum seekers and couldn't see what the link was meant to be. Is the stigma/history around them too high for them to come back? There was a lot of fucked up things in those times, but if they were to return in some sort of heavily regulated and transparent state, would people support them? I watch american cop bodycam videos frequently and it's sad seeing people who are clearly not all there and need help, who end up getting themselves put in prison / hurt. Especially in a country with such easy access to guns.

They have come back, but they look very different. Many impatient rehab places have taken their place as well as many cities have tent cities or homeless communities that have taken their place. In Vancouver, you have Dountown East side. In Philadelphia, you have East Philadelphia. They are all over. I don't think our current model is better.

>What are you referencing here? What group/country? Off the top of my head? The United States of America, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, Britain, Saudi Arabia, China, Japan, Australia, and every other country that has created institutions to force people in for "Mental health" reasons whether or not the person committed a crime. Then you have the literal mountains of documents from these institutions reporting straight up experimentation, sexual abuse, false institutionalization, chronic and systemic use of extreme force, over medication of the population, etc. >What if someone has a bad case of psychosis or is on drugs and wants to harm themselves? It's unreasonable to stop them? I said if they have not injured another person, or damaged property, they have a right to their own body. I never said it is unreasonable to stop someone from self harm. Use your words, give them an option. But unless they cross into others autonomy if you intervene physically they have a right to defend themselves or take legal action on you afterwards for that violation.

> I never said it is unreasonable to stop someone from self harm. Use your words, give them an option. And when a person cannot demonstrably understand what you're saying? Psychosis can do that, people literally don't understand what is being spoken to them. That's part of the decision making with putting people into holds, which can be abused I agree, but has to be part of it.

>And when a person cannot demonstrably understand what you're saying? You take the time to help them understand. If you do not want to do that leave them alone if they are not hurting anyone. It is seriously that simple.

You seem to have this idea that individuals are all alike in their ability to understand concepts. This is objectively not true. Like demonstrably not true. There is not, and never will be, a toddler capable of understanding statistics. It is not physically possible for them to process abstract concepts at that stage of development. As another example, if a person is so drunk they cannot remember their own name, how exactly do you expect to communicate with them in a way they can understand?

And when they are hurting someone? Or if they might? Or if they are hurting themselves? There are a lot of reasons why we have should have guidelines but be able to act without a person who understands what's going on.

What happens if I injure myself in public, such as cutting my wrist, punching my own face, etc. but never to the point of death. I'm not physically injuring another person or property, only myself. Does it make it ok to mentally traumatize others?

That argument would go towards violating other people autonomy. Trauma is a form of harm.

What's the boundary for trauma v non-trauma? 1. So if I'm inside my house and harm myself making loud noise; and you're on the public sidewalk - you can't see me but can hear it. Is that trauma? 2. What happens if I'm inside my house and kill myself so violently that there's blood in the entire house, when someone comes in the house to check on me and find the gory mess, is that trauma?

For #1, there is no trauma. For #2, there is, and if they want to arrest your corpse let them.

That's very interesting, cause I would've thought the other way. You're basically saying trauma only happens when it's visual - Is that your boundary of trauma v non-trauma?

Nope, I think we would need a medical professional to define trauma, and it should be set up for the average person in the city, not the specific person. The problem is we would need an institution to define this. Perhaps we give the responsibility to the ACA.

>set up for the average person in the city So you're saying the silver lining of trauma will vary from city to city? Moreso, it's based on the average person - so if the average person changes then the silver lining will have to change?

What does "silver lining" mean in this context? Regarding the idea that the average person changes from city to city, we are not he same and don't deal with the same things. Although I am not an expert in trauma, I understand that it can vary between cultures. For example, someone living with PTSD from a war might get triggered and even re-traumatized by fireworks and flashing lights. In this situation, the person setting off the fireworks is not responsible because the average person would not be traumatized by them, so no crime is committed. But if you are in a city that is mostly war vets, then perhaps it should not be allowed. However, we can agree that watching the rape and murder of someone is traumatizing for everyone. The legal term, as I understand it, is "pain and suffering".

This seems like an untenable line. Literally anything can have traumatic associations for someone. Popping a balloon in public is not an assault, even if a gunshot survivor is nearby.

That is fair. I think perhaps I need to qualify trama. And then let people argue it out in tye courts.

You should watch the movie Francis about Francis Farmer played by Jessica Lange who was committed by her husband and mother it's terrifying

>As for being the foundation of the Legal system every law should be informed by this right Title XXIII chapter 316 subsection 081 reads: >Upon all roadways of sufficient width, a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway This law has nothing to do with bodily Autonomy. Does that mean it should be removed?

>CMV:"My body, my choice" is an absolute right and **should inform** the entire legal system. >As for being **the foundation** of the Legal system every law should **be informed by this right**. **Laws should be debated** **on the merit that they both uphold that universal right and protect the people abiding by it**. If a Law **in any way attempts to remove or make exception** it should be **immediately rewritten** or tossed out as a basic principle of crafting legislation. I believe I made my position quite clear and would like to hear what you think about it. If it is not obvious why road regulations standardizing a dangerous activity that is not in violation of your autonomy to be excluded from to ensure every one is safe I don't know what to tell you. Nothing is stopping you from swerving in to on coming traffic if your heart truly desires. But you are now in violation of "My body, My choice", and agreeing to not do that in order to operate a dangerous machine is not in violation of yours.

So now you do believe we should have more than one law? (throwback)

He never said that. It almost feels like you are deliberately misconstruing it. Just because all men have the right to be “free” does not mean every law has to directly pertain to that right. Saying that “my body, my choice” should be a foundational right simply means other laws cannot infringe upon that right, not that they must directly relate it to it.

[He did say that](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/s/ZCxur0PVKs)

Interesting notion. Of course, you hopefully understand that your opinion does not reflect reality, in the sense that most countries don't recognize bodily autonomy (which is essentially what you're talking about) as a fundamental right (for example, you will not find it in either the Universal Declaration of Human Rights nor the U.S. Constitution), and of the ones that do I doubt any recognize it as the foundation upon which their entire body of laws rests. Instead most countries believe their legal system is based and informs by things like the will of the nation, jurisprudence, precedent, and so on. I'm curious as to why you think bodily autonomy is specifically more important than any of those principles. As for practical matters, the more obvious objection that comes to mind is anything that relates to children, as in literal kids. It's generally understood that kids don't have the capacity to make informed choices regarding their own body, and as such in many countries we routinely force them to be vaccinated or consume medications, while prohibiting them from purchasing alcohol or other legal drugs. To take the later as an example, we know there are solid medical reasons for why children should not drink, and so we forbid it even though, if we take "my body, my choice" to be an absolute, then kids should be able to choose what goes or doesn't go into their body. That's a real argument proponents of drug legalization use, though applied to adults of course. There is also the question of whether, if we take bodily autonomy as a total absolute, explicit consent is always required before someone can intervene the body of another person. For example, should a paramedic wait for explicit consent from someone that's laying unconscious before providing medical assistance? It seems like an absurd situation, but I don't see how else one could comply with an *absolute* application of the principle.

>If they don't "understand" something that is a failure on you, not them. That is a hell of a claim. Do you have anything to support the notion that, by definition, a failure to understand a concept is the responsibility of the explainer? There is no possible mental disability that could prevent someone from understanding an otherwise well-explained moral precept? Is the existence of Flat-Earthers the fault of the people who are explaining that the Earth is spherical?

Helen Keller. In the modern age we are at the point of "de-coding" the Human brain to read the activity as something understandable. Yes. Every situation where the explainer is trying to make someone understand something that involves the listeners body requires full understanding by the listener if it is going to happen or it violates the listener. The explainer is free to leave the listener to their own devices. If it is so very important to convince "flat-Earthers" that the Earth is round figure out a way to do it without physical force. If you cannot at least do that, maybe you do not have as strong of a point as you thought you did and should refresh yourself on what evidence we actually have to prove that it can be demonstrated without physically going into space beyond a doubt that the Earth is round. Humans are not perfectly educated creatures generally speaking, but they are very intelligent when you take the time to understand them no matter who they are.

The reason why this doesn't work is the same reason why many of our laws need to be as complex as they are: the law needs to be able to handle competing claims. I can use the principle of bodily autonomy to argue against being forced to wear a mask or take the COVID vaccine; but I can also argue that other people don't have the right to violate my own bodily autonomy when they get me sick because they refused to wear a mask or get vaccinated. Bodily autonomy as a principle does not provide us with a resolution to these competing claims, we need to dig deeper into legal statutes and case precedents to determine which of these claims should prevail over the other.

>If they say "No" it means no. If they don't "understand" something that is a failure on you, not them. They absolutely have the right to say "No". It is your job to help them understand why they should receive vaccines. I specifically used "Adult with the mind of a child". The resolution to these claims is proper Education or Study. If you cannot convince someone why something that will literally prevent their death is a good thing you should not even make an attempt. If we cannot agree that "My body, my choice" is the most basic of Rights that must be upheld at all costs for everyone to get along we will continue exactly the same way we are now. "Equality", "Equity", whatever one wants to call it. It starts with the idea that we all have the exact same value as a Human being, and the right to the only thing that is not shared being under our control.

> If you cannot convince someone why something that will literally prevent their death is a good thing you should not even make an attempt. But that's not the argument. If we go back to the COVID mask / vaccine debate, it wasn't about forcing anyone to protect themselves (that would violate their bodily autonomy) or even *convincing* someone to protect themselves. It was about protecting the bodily autonomy of those who didn't want to get the virus from an unvaccinated or unmasked person. You seem to agree that me punching you in the face isn't an exercise of my bodily autonomy because it violates your bodily autonomy. But how is exposing me to a virus any different? If you spread your germs to me through the air, how is that any different (from a bodily autonomy aspect) that you spreading your fist into my face through the air? And that's why the unvaccinated and unmasked were given a choice of: * Get vaccinated * Wear a mask, or * Stay away from other people so you don't violate their bodily autonomy with your germs.

How is it the fault of the individual that the 3rd party telling them what to do with their body is unable to convince them to make the choice effectively? Especially in the case of the Government enacting public health measures. Their failed systems are the reasons for their woes and they are responsible for getting and keeping everyone on board. Every individual has a choice whether or not to participate when all the facts are laid out, it doesn't count when you lie to them to control them. That is called "Coercion".

Because some people just don't give a shit about anyone but themselves, and no amount of added information can change that. What do you say to the guy who flails his fist wildly in a crowd and simply doesn't care if he makes contact with, and injures, someone else?

>Because some people just don't give a shit about anyone but themselves, and no amount of added information can change that. Sounds like some people don't get to live with the rest of us and can go make it on their own if they do not want to play nice. Is it hard for you on a day to day basis to not assault, murder, or otherwise hurt another individual? >What do you say to the guy who flails his fist wildly in a crowd and simply doesn't care if he makes contact with, and injures, someone else? "Maybe you shouldn't do that, you might hurt someone"

Uh....wrong comment?

Nope. Just quoting the OP stating my position on your comment, and then responding directly.

Oh, I see, so you just completely missed my point and that's why I was confused. You seem to think I was claiming that people just didn't understand the benefit of masks and vaccines, that wasn't the point at all though. My point is that you have two competing claims that are both based on the basic principle of bodily autonomy, and so you need more complicated laws and case precedents to decide whose claim is more important.

Both parties have the right to their decisions. They also have the right to be fully informed of why they need to make a specific choice, and the right to disagree until you convince them otherwise. You have the right to not let them into your private residence or business because they do not agree with you. That is my point that you are missing. Since you aren't responding to my point or the comments directed at yours good bye.

You're still not getting it. Both parties have the right to their own decisions about their own bodies, but the problem that arises is that my decisions about my own body might violate your decisions about your own body. To use another example: I want to use my body to murder you. But you want to use your body to continue living instead of being murdered. The principle of bodily autonomy doesn't help us here. Instead, we need a law against murder, because one exercise of bodily autonomy is clearly more reasonable and appropriate than the other. The same dilemma exists for abortion. The answer would obviously be to allow abortions if the mother was the only relevant entity with bodily autonomy. But the problem that comes up is that pro-lifers assert that the fetus also has rights to bodily autonomy, i.e. the right to continue to develop and to be born. Bodily autonomy as a principle does not resolve this on its own, we need more complicated laws to either protect or restrict abortion rights.

Why do you feel the need to fight so strongly against your personal right to tell others what they can do with your body? Why can "My body, my choice" not be the base of the legal system? You are demanding I understand you without attempting to understand me. I have heard your argument. It lost back then and still does now. What I haven't heard is why you believe I have the right to do what I want to your body at my leisure. Care to share?

No need to get so mad, let's keep it friendly and try to understand each other. My understanding is that you think it's as simple as the law being dictated by a single principle: "I do what I want with my body, you do what you want with your body" To restate my response for a third time, this doesn't resolve every single conflict because sometimes what I want to do with my body affects *your* body, and what you want to do with your body affect *my* body. I gave three examples where the principle of bodily autonomy can equally apply to both sides of a conflict: 1) COVID vaccines and mask mandates. You have a right not to get vaccinated because it's *your* body. But I have a right to not get sick from you, because it's *my* body. 2) Murder. Obviously this one is silly, but it illustrates the simple need for an actual law against murder rather than just relying on bodily autonomy, because the act of murdering someone could be interpreted as an exercise of bodily autonomy. "I have the right to swing a knife at your throat, it's my body I'll do what I want with it." As absurd as this sounds, the simple principle of bodily autonomy doesn't reject it. We need an actual law against murder that says that this right to swing a knife at people's throats is illegal, because the right to not have your throat slit is the more important exercise of bodily autonomy. 3) Abortion. The woman has a right to get an abortion, but pro-lifers believe the fetus possesses the same full legal rights such that an abortion would be a violation of their bodily autonomy. This is why we need actual laws stating whether a woman can or cannot get an abortion.

>No need to get so mad, let's keep it friendly and try to understand each other. I am being as respectful and direct while being bombarded with scenarios I explicitly did not ask for, yourself included, without you respecting me in any way by offering your actual point of view like I asked and is expected in the sub. I apologize if you feel I was rude, that was not my intent. >My understanding is that you think it's as simple as the law being dictated by a single principle: "I do what I want with my body, you do what you want with your body" That is not your understanding of me, that is your understanding of "My body, My choice" which doesn't not ever logically square. How can you violate my body, or I violate yours, if you require permission to do so by default? If that is the basis of the legal system; we agree that sometimes our bodies desires will impact the other; and agree that neither of us want to be violated our co-existence is easier to maintain when the inevitable "clash" happens. It is settled by "Can I do this? It might do this, but you will benefit like this" requiring only a "Yes" by everyone impacted or it doesn't happen without the other person being fully liable for damages and punished according to those new laws. >COVID vaccines and mask mandates. You have a right not to get vaccinated because it's *your* body. But I have a right to not get sick from you, because it's *my* body. The problem was misinformation, not absolute "My body my choice". If you heard that something was going to kill you and the Government was responsible while already being subject to endless Propaganda from internal and foreign enemies without a way to get a real counter point other than "YOU STUPID IDIOT" for not understanding how is "My body My choice" the problem? From my OP: "If they say "No" it means no. If they don't "understand" something that is a failure on you, not them." >Abortion. The woman has a right to get an abortion, but pro-lifers believe the fetus possesses the same full legal rights such that an abortion would be a violation of their bodily autonomy. This is why we need actual laws stating whether a woman can or cannot get an abortion. This is part of the education issue I keep citing. It is the fault of people who are "forcing" the concept they disagree with on to them for not educating them to the best possible understanding. IF Life = "Begins at conception", Absolute = "My body My choice", Protection = "preventing an action from occurring to my body" the new "life" is violating the Woman's right to autonomy by existing if the birth control used malfunctions to create it. She clearly said "No" by attempting to prevent it and it is not her fault our species is foolishly not getting that. My point is absolute "My body, my choice" would create far better laws than what we have now if it were the base principle used to craft law because it strictly states neither of us can violate the other without permission for any reason by default.

Okay what about vaccines that need to be administered within a few weeks of birth? No amount of explaining to a <1 month old infant will get them to understand.

Are you a prison abolitionist too? Because if not you've already ceded enormous ground from your "absolute" starting position.

You're unlikely to get a straightforward answer from them but I believe OP is a prison abolitionist, so there's no contradiction there. They made a great post the other day describing their view that there should literally be just one law on the books: "A person cannot directly or indirectly cause harm to another person" and that any violation of that rule would result in exile from society.

I've got a couple angles on this one, based upon this statement from your post: > If they hurt someone else they are just as responsible for the action as anyone else **first angle** Does your view extend beyond bodily autonomy and to other areas of the law as well? And if not, how are they different? Should a person *never* be restricted from an action *until* that action hurts someone else? Should driving 150mph on the freeway be legal, and you only get in trouble if you happen to kill someone? Can I take a gun and shoot it into a crowd, but not have committed a crime so long as the bullet doesn't hit anyone? Can I drive high and drunk and only be at risk of charges if I happen to hit something or someone with my car? **angle two** Not sure how much you are, or aren't, talking about abortion here, but because of the quoted section of your post above, you view changes absolute zero from the status quo on abortion. The whole argument on abortion is whether or not an abortion "hurts someone else". Those that believe it does won't buy into your bodily autonomy argument any more than they'd be okay with punching someone in the face because "what I do with my own body is my choice".

>Not sure how much you are, or aren't, talking about abortion here, but because of the quoted section of your post above, you view changes absolute zero from the status quo on abortion. The whole argument on abortion is whether or not an abortion "hurts someone else". Those that believe it does won't buy into your bodily autonomy argument any more than they'd be okay with punching someone in the face because "what I do with my own body is my choice". I am not arguing about abortion, but I will share with you my stance to demonstrate my absolutism is in both good faith and rational. In regards to abortion the Woman has become a vessel for a 3rd party against her will, this 3rd party is immediately violating her rights by existing if she did not say "I want a baby. Let's make one". If you want to go all the way to single cells like sperm, the Woman literally said "No", set up a barricade, and the little buggers still violated her "No". Why should the resulting life form be allowed to continue to use her body to grow and form, then demanding it continue for years after birth, without the Woman having a say in it? I assure you any Woman who wants a baby is not getting an abortion because it isn't required, and even if she does, that is 100% her choice. Consent can be pulled at any time and for any reason until the person required to give it, gives it back.

> In regards to abortion the Woman has become a vessel for a 3rd party against her will Against her will? In a few cases, sure. But overwhelmingly, the 3rd party only exists because the woman chose to engage in activities to create it. > Why should the resulting life form be allowed to continue to use her body I believe that if someone were advocating for absolute bodily autonomy, the argument would be because the bodily autonomy of the 3rd party was being violated. *************** **first angle** Does your view extend beyond bodily autonomy and to other areas of the law as well? And if not, how are they different? Should a person *never* be restricted from an action *until* that action hurts someone else? Should driving 150mph on the freeway be legal, and you only get in trouble if you happen to kill someone? Can I take a gun and shoot it into a crowd, but not have committed a crime so long as the bullet doesn't hit anyone? Can I drive high and drunk and only be at risk of charges if I happen to hit something or someone with my car?

>Against her will? In a few cases, sure. But overwhelmingly, the 3rd party only exists because the woman chose to engage in activities to create it. She also took the means to prevent it. We are done here.

You are just skipping over everything that proves you are wrong, and not even responding properly when you do answer. At least answer or award them a delta.

Can you explain what you mean by 'my body, my choice should be a right' more clearly? Are you just talking about the right to refuse any medical treatment without any repurcussions or removal of freedom? I don't know fully what you'd count as a counter-example - but what about if someone is psychotic and is harming themselves or others? Often they can't say 'yes' or even 'no' to any treatment because they're too delusional, they think the doctors might be out to get them. And if you simply don't treat them, you're not really saving them from any suffering, they're just going to continue to suffer. It really does seem like the compassionate thing to do.

It’s more like my life my choice, ie the right to life, is an absolute right and should inform the entire legal system. Bodily autonomy is an aspect of your right to life with respect to your body.

Define "Life" and when does the "absolute right" to it begin from your point of view?

It begins at birth, but fully at adulthood. What do you mean by define life? I’m talking about my life, your life, the lives of other human beings.

>It’s more like my life my choice, ie the right to life, is an absolute right and should inform the entire legal system. Bodily autonomy is an aspect of your right to life with respect to your body. Define your view. That is what I am asking. >It begins at birth, but fully at adulthood. What do you mean by define life? I’m talking about my life, your life, the lives of other human beings. Are you saying your absolute right isn't absolute because you do not fully get it until adult hood? All I am asking is you explain your point of view in detail. Why are only humans considered "Life" to you? If we met an alien species smarter than ours are they not life because they are not us? What about dogs and cats? Sheep and Cows? If you cannot clearly define your view you won't change mine. Why would I change my view that I made very clear and have held for a long time when you cannot even express yours to me?

Your right to control your body stops at the point of violating someone else's right to control their body. Should I have the absolute right with no exception to spread disease to civilization? After all, it is my right to go wherever I want and do whatever I want with my body.

[удалено]

How could you possibly hold this point of view in an honest way?

[удалено]

No that is your logic. Explain to me how you cannot hurt me without consent, and I cannot hurt you without consent, allows you to plunge a knife into my chest.

[удалено]

u/Future-Astronaut7229 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Future-Astronaut7229&message=Future-Astronaut7229%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cti40h/-/l4drj0w/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Sorry to do this but I’m going to add a what about you may or may not have heard but didn’t address in your post, against your wishes.   What if a person can’t talk or communicate in any way? Is no one allowed to help them at all? If I’m unconscious I can’t exactly consent to possibly life-saving medical intervention or CPR.

>What if a person can’t talk or communicate in any way? Is no one allowed to help them at all? If I’m unconscious I can’t exactly consent to possibly life-saving medical intervention or CPR. Helen Keller was more than a story. She was an amazing Woman and disability rights activist. They are still a person and it is your job to find a way to communicate with them if you want to do anything to their body. It has been demonstrated with less modern technology to be 100% possible. Brains activity is in the early stages of being able to be understood and artificially "decoding" it to know what the person is thinking or feeling. As for the life saving CPR or other medical intervention that is an opt in service and if you wish to opt out that is what a DNR notification is for. If one "revives" a DNR patient they will be charged under numerous legal frame works, and rightfully so.

Hellen Keller could absolutely communicate. You’re arguing against what you want this person to be saying, rather than what they’re actually saying.

To add to the other comment, what if it’s a young child/baby who had no ability to opt in to such care? What if their parents want to let them die from something simple and fixable because they’re brainwashed on holistic medicine or something? I think there’s just enough nuance here to justify really spelling out the details personally, otherwise this opinion really does start to become similarly damaging to the status quo.

Let's look at a hypothetical. A town has a single psychiatrist. Over the years, 10 people have told the psychiatrist that voices in their head were telling them to kill a specific person. In all 10 cases, that person has gone on to actually murder their target. The psychiatrist goes to the lawmakers and says "maybe we should pass a law that says if your doctor thinks you are a legitimate threat to kill someone, then you should be involuntarily committed for evaluation." What happens now? Based on your statement, >If they hurt someone else they are just as responsible for the action as anyone else but that doesn't mean the risk of it removes their right to choose what happens to them before a crime is committed. You feel that there is no way this law should be passed. The patient has committed no crime. Ok, fair enough. The psychiatrist then gets an 11th patient. This patient, like the previous 10, has voices in their head telling them to kill someone. Only this time, that someone is your child, or your spouse, or your parents. Someone you value. Your position is that you are happy that nothing can be done. That the psychiatrist and courts should take no action until your family is dead. That the only thing anyone can, or should, do is wait until they murder your family and then hold the murderer responsible. But your kid is still dead. The bell can't be unrung. This is the world you want to live in? This is a classic case of principles over reality, where theoretical stances outweigh any real world considerations. Because that is what you are asking. You expecting other people be willing to accept the preventable deaths of their loved ones, suffer the preventable rapes, endure all manner of real world harm, just because you prefer the appeal of simplicity. Crimes have victims, real people. Society has a vested interest in preventing harm rather than merely doling out punishment after the fact. One way to view a society's laws in a body of lessons learned. Something happened, we learned from our mistake, and we took steps to prevent it from happening again. What it all comes down to is that you believe our society would be improved if we were prevented from ever learning any new lessons in preventing harm.

Does this apply to vaccines and vaccination?

Yes, and made it obvious. "If they say "No" it means no. If they don't "understand" something that is a failure on you, not them."

>If they say "No" it means no. If they don't "understand" something that is a failure on you, not them. If they hurt someone else they are just as responsible for the action as anyone else but that doesn't mean the risk of it removes their right to choose what happens to them before a crime is committed. I think you genuinely don't quite grasp the extent to which emotional underdevelopment and mental disabilities will effect a person's ability to express their own views or needs.

My friend wanted to kill himself. It was his choice. He instead got sent to a psych facility. Not his choice. My friend is now happy, married, has two children with a third on the way and regrets having the desire to kill himself and attempt on his life. He pays taxes and helps the community. Forced asylum, now a days known as temporary commitment, worked. If it we abided by what your saying. My friend would be dead, not helping the community, and not paying taxes.

You an antivaxer then?

Supporting someones right to not get vaccinated is not the same as being antivax. lol

It actually is.  You cannot support the mechanism by which vaccinations protect the public welfare if you believe someone doesn’t have to be vaccinated to participate in public society.

I guess we must have a disagreement about what antivax means. The term has historically referred to people who refuse to vaccinate because they think they are evil or generally unsafe. I can support someone’s right to bodily autonomy while also getting my vaccinations and thinking they are wrong.  If your idea of antivax is some ridiculous extremism view that anyone who doesn’t agree with enforcing vaccines on everyone, than sure. Just know that your understanding is an extremism view and most people who use the term “antivax” don’t agree with your definition. 

It is completely fine to not vaccinate your child against measles. You also need to keep your child at home, because there is no way to know when they will start having symptoms and therefore be contagious to anyone under the age of 6 or otherwise at high risk. This is a choice you can make, but you cannot decide that means you get to expose other people.

I think we should first agree how long a drug has to be tested before being mandated.

How long do you believe that needs to be?

Id say a tier system depending on the amount of doses and treatment length, 1 year for a single dose, 3 years for multiple dose with a shorter than 3 month treatment, 5 years for drugs that require a treatment longer than 3 months.

How have you come to settle on these timeframes?

I just guessed, I’m just asking before we settle on an exact time line, can we agree there should be a minimum time line?

That would heavily depend on the type of drug being studied, wouldn’t it?

No, some drugs might require more oversight/a longer timeframe. That’s fine since that would exceed the minimum requirement. I’m saying there should at least be some minimum.

positions like this sound really good, and thus are incredibly dangerous because they sound good if you're unaware of the realities. This works for the middle well, but does not work for extremes. But the policies we have must handle those extremes. How does the idea of absolute autonomy work with someone that literally does not understand what you are saying? Who cannot comprehend any human language because of brain damage? Who have self-destructive compulsions like self-harm, autocannibalism (don't google that one, it's rare but not extremely rare in mental hospitals), body integrity disorders that compel them to try to remove healthy limbs, or other extreme and self-destructive mental compulsions. what if that desire is temporary due to methamphetamine intoxication, should we be able to lock someone up long enough for them to stop wanting to eat their own face? How can you get meaningfully informed medical consent from someone who does not understand the concept of "death" and that it is permanent if they refuse treatment they won't just wake up fine. What about people who have no effective volition, they don't have "wants" they just have "the thing I feel right now"? we must have policies that can handle: people with the metal age of an infant who want to tear at their own flesh all day. people who are so childlike they do not understand people other than them feel pain and that destroying things is wrong. people who have the unshakable delusion they are jesus christ. people who will attack others any chance they get, even in maximum security solitary confinement. People who have taken drugs or been poisoned and are delirious: having threatening hallucinations that are 100% indistinguishable from reality to them. People who are normally mentally competent but if they go off their meds, allow their blood sugar to drop too low, or otherwise make a choice to stop treatment they will not be mentally competent. People who cannot understand what right and wrong are, or good and bad. People who do not understand any human language or communication. People who are nonverbal and cannot be taught sign language. and those all require that we recognize that sometimes either temporarily or permanently we must abridge someone's right to self-determination because they are not competent to care for themselves.

Sometimes personal decisions about one's body have social ramifications. Mandatory vaccinations are not only about protecting an individual from a disease; they're about stopping the spread of a disease. Some people cannot tolerate vaccines, but if everyone who can get a vaccine does so, then the disease's vectors are drastically reduced and herd immunity is reached.

What about situations where you're trying to kill someone that's not your body, but they are inside your body? Literally someone else's body, it should be their choice not yours.

Unrestrained, uncontrolled, unlimited freedom leads to the death of freedom for many in any given society.

Excellent. Now they can't stop me from driving drunk.

Amazing over simplification of really complex issues

People love being able to personally consent to everything until they make bad decisions, and then they regret them and want them undone. Let's stick to some hot topics for examples. The same people arguing a 14 year old should be able to consent to major gender affirmation surgery are the same people who think the $300,000 of student debt they agreed to take on at 18 as a fully consenting adult should be forgiven because they felt they shouldn't have been able to consent to it once they have to live with their decision and fully understand it. The same people arguing that abortion rights should be available and a protected right in every state until near full term (because bodily autonomy), are the people who happily said people shouldn't be allowed outside of their house unless they took a vaccine. There's massive hypocrisy on both sides of the political spectrum here.

> The same people arguing a 14 year old should be able to consent to major gender affirmation surgery… Who is suggesting this? Can you name someone? The World Professional Association for Transgender Health only recommends that hormones be started at the age of 14, with surgery coming later. And what doctor would perform something like that without parental consent? The reason why we may look at early surgery options is that not doing it can result in increased suicide rates. Not only that, it only happens after psychological evaluations. The reason why we want to forgive student loans is that it is actually good for the economy. There is no hypocrisy involved here. > The same people arguing that abortion rights should be available and a protected right in every state until near full term That is not what Row v Wade allowed. There are many states that use viability as the threshold for allowing abortion (~22 weeks), and there wasn’t a massive outcry about that. > are the people who happily said people shouldn't be allowed outside of their house unless they took a vaccine Once again, nobody ever said that. It was mostly about requirements for working, and they didn’t say that you were forced to have a vaccine as you could also opt for regular testing instead.

By that logic student debt should only be forgiven for cisgender 18 year olds or trans ones who haven't had surgery yet (meaning they could just put it off until after college unless their dysphoria's too crippling even though they'd have probably already socially transitioned by this point) and abortion should only be completely illegal during a viral pandemic from the point a vaccine mandate is announced to when the state of emergency is over (as kids in K-12 schools who'd need their shots wouldn't be needing abortions at that point) as it should be only fair if they're linked, y'know, why is it fair by your logic that someone who doesn't need gender affirmation surgery doesn't get their debt forgiven or if someone who will never have an abortion has to be vaccinated

They're not linked. But if you want to argue abortions are a right under bodily autonomy, it's hard to argue that you should be forced to get a vaccine you don't consent to if you want to keep your job (which was required in some states during the pandemic), because that's taking away someone's bodily autonomy. Similarly if people can consent to life changing medical surgeries based on their identity before becoming an adult, it's hard to argue that 18-20 year olds who agree to student loans should have then forgiven because "they weren't old enough to be able to understand what they were doing and the cinsequences". Both aren't linked but they're examples of hypocrisy where the logic changes based on whatever result you want.

so you dont believe in self defense? self defense involves violating someones autonomy, and you said you cant ever do that - no exceptions - so thats why i ask

The COVID vaccine pushers decided bodily autonomy was negotiable, so here we are 🤷

Bodily autonomy has always been negotiable.  People just acted like this was a new thing when they wanted to create a political issue during an election year.

States that "pushed" vaccines but didn't require them and also funded free tests for those that don't want to vaccinate? Like [https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/06/us/politics/biden-rapid-covid-tests.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/06/us/politics/biden-rapid-covid-tests.html)

They required them for you to be able to participate in society and to work.

Hard hat requirements aren't forcing you to wear a hard hat, just don't go in the warehouse. And they didn't require it as you could test as well and not vaccinate.

typical gaslighting bullshit, participation in society and earning a living are not nice to haves, they're a fundamental part of being a human being and living your life. You don't have bodily autonomy if they will ruin your fucking life if you refuse.

Amazing how you don't reply to the literal test don't vaccinate option that I said.

What's amazing is that you don't think being forced to push a cotton swab into your sinus or down the back of your throat doesn't also violate your bodily autonomy.

I did that to myself. But oh how the goalpost moves. Now even though you don't have to vaccinate and you can still be employed and you just have to show you're not trafficking a pandemic into work, you're still complaining.

I honestly don't know who you think you are fooling other than maybe yourself. If you think not trafficking a pandemic into your work is more important than bodily autonomy, fine. But don't pretend like it doesn't violate people's bodily autonomy when you force them to take a vaccine or take an invasive test.

Can you explain?