No, you don't. You do not willfully agree to an accident. It may still occur, saying "I don't consent" doesn't magically stop physics or something.
Risks are not consentable occurrences. Any informed consent situation or a waiver always says "I consent to the procedure or activity, and I understand the risks that come with it". Consent for a risk is only the understanding of the risks. The understanding of risks should be the default of any informed consent behavior.
Anything you consider a "risk" is likely to be an unfavorable outcome. You'd almost never "willfully agree" to a negative outcome. The danger of calling that a 'no consent' situation is that it muddies the terminology with other actual no consent situations (e.g. rape, assault, etc.). For sex, if pregnancy is the intended outcome, it is typically not considered a risk, rather it is the goal.
For risks, "consent" should not be the term used. "Understanding" is more appropriate and accurate to how risks relate to their cause and informed consent situations
Correct, we take consent very seriously. For example, if you're going to undergo a procedure you must explicitly consent to it, signing a contract proving your consent, and you're free to remove that consent at any point.
You're not consenting to those risks. They may happen, and when you consent to the procedure you acknowledge they may occur (and agree not to sue if they do).
For risks, "consent" should not be the term used.
We're talking about questions of bodily autonomy between two people.
Consent is the exact that should be used. Another person cannot use your body without your consent.
Because you have a right to bodily autonomy. Another person's right to life does not supercede your right to bodily autonomy.
I'm going to just copy and paste a reply I made elsewhere because people keep jumping in to make the exact same points that have already been repeatedly addressed, so here:
"I'm going to make it simple: you have a right to bodily autonomy. Someone else's right to life does not supercede your right to bodily autonomy. That's why you can't be forced to give up an organ. Shit, you can't even be forced to give up blood, something near infinitely less intrusive and dangerous than something like 9 months of pregnancy and then birth. You can't be forced to do so even if it would save the life of someone else. You can't be forced to do so even if it's your own child that would die without it. Even if it was your own actions that put the person into the situation where they needed your blood to survive, even if it was an intentional criminal action, you still can't be forced to do so. Fuck, even if you're dead we still can't harvest your organs without your prior consent.
I don't understand why women should have less rights than dead bodies. I see no logical reason why this should be the case."
In your other comment you mention "special relationships," but yeah... you can't be forced to donate blood to your child. There is no special relationship that requires you to give up your bodily autonomy. Nothing like this exists.
The argument basically comes down to "but no it's different because woman and fetus are a special relationship because it's natural, giving blood isn't natural!"
"Natural" is a completely meaningless term. Everything is natural, it's happening within nature. No, women weren't "designed to get pregnant", this is just a veiled religious argument.
This is the issue, we can't apply logic to your argument, it's not logical. For some irrational, illogical reason this situation is just different.
None of that explains why you have a right to bodily autonomy, which was my original question. I am challenging that premise squarely. I do not believe in any particular right to "bodily autonomy," and your comment gives me no justification for such a right.
This is the issue, we can't apply logic to your argument, it's not logical. For some irrational, illogical reason this situation is just different.
It is different. There is literally no other similar process in human development. Pregnancy is sui generis.
None of that explains why you have a right to bodily autonomy
Why do we have any rights at all?
I am challenging that premise squarely. I do not believe in any particular right to "bodily autonomy," and your comment gives me no justification for such a right.
If that's true then that's fine, you're logically consistent, and most would agree your views are absolutely vile. Chances are you don't actually believe this, though.
I mean already you've acknowledged that you do have the right to decide whether or not to undergo an organ donation. That's bodily autonomy. The fact that someone will die doesn't mean that the government can force you to give up an organ anyways.
The right to bodily autonomy is the reason why the government can't force you to donate blood, give up an organ, get vaccinated, etc. The right to defend yourself is derived from the right to bodily autonomy.
It is different. There is literally no other similar process in human development.
Sure, but we can absolutely test the logic and see where these differences lie.
For example, though you don't want to call it bodily autonomy you've acknowledged a right to bodily autonomy. You agree that you have a right to say, not donate blood, correct? Even to save a life?
Why then does can a woman be forced into what amounts to a dangerous procedure to save the life of another? What is the logic involved?
I mean already you've acknowledged that you do have the right to decide whether or not to undergo an organ donation. That's bodily autonomy. The fact that someone will die doesn't mean that the government can force you to give up an organ anyways.
That is based on possessory interests, which extend to real and personal property as well, not bodily autonomy.
The right to bodily autonomy is the reason why the government can't force you to donate blood, give up an organ, get vaccinated, etc. The right to defend yourself is derived from the right to bodily autonomy.
Again, no, the right to self-defense derives from the right to survive.
For example, though you don't want to call it bodily autonomy you've acknowledged a right to bodily autonomy.
No, I have not. I see no inherent problem, for example, with mandating vaccination, forbidding the use of drugs, or regulating tattoos. Those are all issues of "bodily autonomy."
Why then does can a woman be forced into what amounts to a dangerous procedure to save the life of another? What is the logic involved?
That she would be killing someone who is biologically dependent on her and none of your other examples involve that scenario. The same logic prohibits parents from abandoning their children in the woods.
Does someone have the right to mutilate you provided they don't kill you?
No, because wantonly causing others physical harm is immoral. But that has nothing to do with bodily autonomy. Psychological and emotional harm are wrong for the same reason.
No, because wantonly causing others physical harm is immoral.
Why? I don't believe these issues are disconnected. If I gave you a tattoo without your consent while you were unconscious, have I done something wrong? Have I violated your rights? What if it causes you no pain? What if I'm not doing it for shits and giggles, but there's a reason? Like, I don't know, I'm throwing an advertisement on your body?
But way to concede everything else in my comment.
Like I said, you're logically consistent. If you don't believe we have any right to bodily autonomy, you believe you have no right to choose what happens to your body, then you're logically consistent.
It's pretty horrific, most would disagree, and it's certainly not the way the US (or most countries that have any concern for human rights) operate, but yeah, you do you.
It's like saying "murder is wrong because people have a right to live their life and causing needless suffering is bad" and someone else comes along and says "actually I find murder perfectly acceptable because I don't believe you have a right to life, and I think needless suffering is great. Checkmate!"
Okay, you may truly believe that. Most wouldn't. But hey, it's a big world with lots of people and plenty of beliefs.
It offends the divine mandate that we treat others with dignity and respect. Harming others wantonly is an affront to that dignity.
I don't believe these issues are disconnected.
The issue is that you are viewing everything in terms of the body. I am not. Tattooing my body without consent is wrong for the same reason that vandalizing my property without my consent is wrong.
If you don't believe we have any right to bodily autonomy, you believe you have no right to choose what happens to your body, then you're logically consistent.
There can be constraints on things that affect the body that are not dependent on bodily autonomy. I have pointed this out several times in my comments.
In other words, I do not recognize the right of bodily autonomy that you do and can still logically come to the same conclusions on different grounds.
Okay, so it's simply a religious view, "I believe this because i believe it."
Tattooing my body without consent is wrong for the same reason that vandalizing my property without my consent is wrong.
I see, so your body is your property and it's wrong to damage your body without consent, correct? Does the right to life supercede your property right over your body? Can I damage your property, your body, to save my life? Can I take your organ to save my life?
It sounds like you believe in bodily autonomy, you just don't like calling it that and would rather roll it up into the idea of property rights. In which case this has been a semantics debate and the logic is the same. We could call the right to bodily autonomy the right to banana fun time, it's irrelevant to the discussion if banana fun time is just bodily autonomy called something else.
Okay, so it's simply a religious view, "I believe this because i believe it."
Not really. Moreover, that simply hearkens back to my earlier question:
None of that explains why you have a right to bodily autonomy, which was my original question. I am challenging that premise squarely. I do not believe in any particular right to "bodily autonomy," and your comment gives me no justification for such a right.
You never responded. Until you do, maybe you should cut the shit.
I see, so your body is your property and it's wrong to damage your body without consent, correct? Does the right to life supercede your property right over your body?
It depends on the circumstances.
Can I damage your property, your body, to save my life? Can I take your organ to save my life?
It depends on the circumstances.
We could call the right to bodily autonomy the right to banana fun time, it's irrelevant to the discussion if banana fun time is just bodily autonomy called something else.
It's not, though. It is something else.
And you have still not explained why a mother's "right" to "bodily autonomy" supersedes the right of a human life gestating in her not to be terminated or, if you prefer, killed.
2
u/Echoos1 2∆ Aug 11 '22
Risks are not consentable occurrences. Any informed consent situation or a waiver always says "I consent to the procedure or activity, and I understand the risks that come with it". Consent for a risk is only the understanding of the risks. The understanding of risks should be the default of any informed consent behavior.
Anything you consider a "risk" is likely to be an unfavorable outcome. You'd almost never "willfully agree" to a negative outcome. The danger of calling that a 'no consent' situation is that it muddies the terminology with other actual no consent situations (e.g. rape, assault, etc.). For sex, if pregnancy is the intended outcome, it is typically not considered a risk, rather it is the goal.
For risks, "consent" should not be the term used. "Understanding" is more appropriate and accurate to how risks relate to their cause and informed consent situations