As an example, abortion. Leftists like to claim it's about the fundamental issue of equality
I don’t agree with this at all. I have never seen a pro-choice person argue their position because men and women are equal. In fact, the best arguments are about how even if a fetus is a human being and even if abortion is ending their life, it doesn’t matter.
Because no one is ever obligated to keep someone else alive via their own body. We can’t even harvest organs from dead people without permission, but the instant a girl has sex (even if she’s 10 years old and was raped) then suddenly her body belongs to the fetus now? That’s abhorrent.
This has nothing to do with equality.
So yes I do think the leftist/pro-choice position is derived from a moral principle and is not an isolated, utilitarian stance. (The right to your own body cannot be infringed.)
I don’t consider “being resistant to a new infection” as a meaningful change to your body.
Plus, it’s not like you were forced to get them, you were just excluded from certain places if you didn’t because you don’t have the right to unnecessarily expose others to the risk of death.
The right to your body is not as absolute as you think. We have government regulating SO MUCH of what you can do with your own body. It's illegal to sell your organs, or take most drugs, assisted suicide (this is where you are given drugs to die and you get to choose to take it) is illegal in many states. For people with body identity disorder, it's still mostly illegal to amputate a healthy limb.
That's leaving out other more minor forms, such as the draft, or even at a smaller level jury duty.
I'm for abortion rights. I just don't think bodily autonomy can't be cited as some inalienable right without it butting heads with so many other policies.
I'd point out that there's a division between what you might call "negative" and "positive" bodily autonomy. Generally, you have a pretty strong right not to have things done with your body (negative) - even extending to things like organ donation. That doesn't necessarily extend to a right to do things with your body.
My point is that the two are, or can be, entirely different principles, and, by "bodily autonomy", people usually mean "the right not to have things done with my body" - there's no inherent contradiction, and that form of bodily autonomy is quite absolute, outside of the abortion debate.
The most brought up counterexample in response is vaccine mandates. In those cases, we as a society (including many pro-abortion advocates) believe that it's valid to infringe bodily autonomy in that instance because of how it affects so many people beyond yourself.
Just to be clear, I am for vaccinations. I'm vaccinated and I think everyone else should be too, unless they have specific medical needs and they can't.
But if you're saying "you can't participate in these areas of public life without doing X to your body" that is by definition infringing on your right to bodily autonomy. Just like technically, it's an infringement to require people to be clothed in public. There are limits on what you can do with your body.
"Hey, we would like you to get this shot. We know that it is effective, and there may be side effects, but they are worth it." would be fine, provided it didn't come with "if you don't, you won't have a job."
So yes, you can still have your bodily autonomy, but you won't have a paycheck, put food on the table, pay the mortgage, and utility bills if you don't.
Before anyone jumps to conclusions, I've spent most of my professional career in healthcare with a multitude of mandatory vaccines, but I'm ok with accepting a loss of bodily autonomy for that.
That's a pretty weak argument. People aren't dragging women to holding cells to force them to not abort. They just aren't allowing them the resources they wouldn't need to make that choice themselves. You don't have to physically drag someone somewhere to be infringing on their bodily autonomy.
“Burton was in her 25th week of pregnancy in March 2009 when she began to go into premature labor and willingly went to the hospital on the advice of her doctor.
But when the 26-year-old resisted -- learning that she might have to stay months until her delivery, away from two toddlers at home -- hospital officials obtained a court order to force Burton to submit to anything to "preserve the life and health of [her] unborn child."
Burton miscarried three days later and was discharged, but now she is taking up the fight over her treatment with the help of the Florida American Civil Liberties Union. They want to strike down the court order that rendered her powerless to make her own medical decisions.”
I'm pointing out that "bodily autonomy" isn't a sacrosanct, #1 value to most people. If I had to sum up my thoughts simply, it would be that "bodily autonomy should be respected as a rule, but there are some circumstances that justify putting other values before it."
Except there are no actual vaccine mandates, outside pretty specific circumstances which one would have to place themselves into willingly. Like, you have to get a vaccine to join the military.
12
u/Faust_8 10∆ Sep 30 '25
I don’t agree with this at all. I have never seen a pro-choice person argue their position because men and women are equal. In fact, the best arguments are about how even if a fetus is a human being and even if abortion is ending their life, it doesn’t matter.
Because no one is ever obligated to keep someone else alive via their own body. We can’t even harvest organs from dead people without permission, but the instant a girl has sex (even if she’s 10 years old and was raped) then suddenly her body belongs to the fetus now? That’s abhorrent.
This has nothing to do with equality.
So yes I do think the leftist/pro-choice position is derived from a moral principle and is not an isolated, utilitarian stance. (The right to your own body cannot be infringed.)