this post was submitted on 16 May 2024
452 points (97.5% liked)

World News

32180 readers
685 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Lightor 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

My objection, my objection to what? I think you're maybe taking the whole "roleplay your username" a bit far. You don't even know what you're arguing at this point. You brought up a person wanting to get injected with bleach randomly like some gotcha when everyone here is in favor of autonomy. I agree people should be able to do it at home. Others shouldn't be compelled to help but they should be allowed to help if they want to. What exactly did I object against?

You're the one who said "I don’t support any right as an absolute principle." If anything you seem to be against %100 body autonomy.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Your objection to my position, which is that you claim it's contrary to bodily autonomy.

Of course I'm against taking bodily autonomy as an absolute principle, because no rights are absolute. However, the way you've defined it, "absolute bodily autonomy" still allows you to be barred from doing something if a doctor decides you're not informed enough, or if it would mean compelling someone to assist you. That isn't what absolute means to me, but I'm willing to accept your definition. But by that definition, opposition to assisted suicide is comparable with "absolute bodily autonomy." So your claim that I don't support bodily autonomy is baseless.

I don't see what the confusion is. If absolute bodily autonomy can't compel people to act, then assisted suicide, which by definition involves another person's assistance, isn't covered by bodily autonomy.