From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: bodily autonomy
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:16:19 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1jl12jINNl7o@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
>>let's take this "bodily autonomy" thing for a minute, and see where it leads
>>us....
>
>>Would you agree that one's mind, and its output, is under a person's control
>>as bodily autonomy?  That is, that the output of a mind is something which a
>>person has absolute control over?
>
>>Would you agree that the output of one's muscles and other body processes is 
>>also under a person's control as bodily autonomy.  That is, the physical 
>>exertion (excretion, etc) of a person is something which a person should 
>>have absolute control over?
>
>The mind itself, yes.  The body itself, yes.  The output, no.
>This runs into issues of property rights, with which I am largely unfamiliar.

The output comes from the mind and body.  I can choose to not exert either
of them, in which case I have no output for someone to take.  Therefore, if
I own my mind and body, I must own their output.

>>Both mental and physical stress can cause injury (as could pregnancy).
>>Injury comes in many forms, as you are well aware.  Therefore, there is a
>>clear and present risk of injury from the exertion of either mind or body,
>>and therefore a person should have absolute control over their bodily output
>>and the uses to which it is put.
>
>>This is the argument which you have made in support of legal abortions; that
>>a woman has the right to control the use to which her body (which includes
>>both the physical and mental) is put.  
>
>>I think we've set out the basis for your argument.  Do you agree?
>
>Yes.

Good!

>>Now, in order for a person to earn money, he or she must exert either mind
>>or body.  Therefore, in order to earn money, one must <willfully> cede their
>>control over their body in return for something to eat.  However, this is a
>><willful> transaction.
>
>The person must cede control over the output of their mind or body, not
>of the mind or body itself.  The USA does not allow the selling of body
>parts for profit.

Not true.  If you cede control over the output, you have ceded control over
the item itself.  Just how do you think that the muscle turns into money?
Without being used by conscious choice?

>>Now by just what leap of reasoning do you then conclude that a woman has
>>the right to bodily autonomy (and thus abortion) but a man does not (since
>>she can compel him to support a child, which requires that HIS bodily
>>autonomy is violated)?
>
>I don't see how compelling a NCP to support a child violates his/her
>bodily autonomy.

That's because you decline to look, and refuse to face facts even when in
your face.

If you force a NCP to support a child, you force him (largely men) to exert
their bodies or minds against their will.  If you doubt this, just ask any
judge what he'll do if the man involved decides to quit his job!  Why, that
man will be tossed in jail for not supporting his children.  But wait!  How
can this be?  You support the right of men to control their minds and
bodies, yes?  That is, you support the right of a man to decide not to exert
(use) either of those two things.  

Or do you?  I detect hypocrisy and sexism in your position, as I had thought.

You support a sexist standard -- one which allows a woman to decide what 
to do with her body, but does not allow the same (in the reproductive freedom 
area) for men.

I think I have your position straight now.  Thanks for playing.

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900]
Newsgroups: soc.libraries.talk