Is personal, bodily autonomy a God given, inalienable right that shall not be abridged by Gov’t?

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,532
4,826
57
Oregon
✟791,315.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Is personal, bodily autonomy a God given, inalienable right that shall not be abridged by Gov’t?

Real world example:

Two babies are born around the same time in the same hospital. It is discovered that baby #1 needs a kidney transplant to survive. It is also discovered that baby #2, across the hall, is a perfect donor match for baby #1.

Should government be able to force the family of baby #2 to donate one of baby #2’s kidneys to baby #1, and if they refuse, should government then be able to hold the family of baby #2 responsible for the death of baby #1, and punish the family of baby #2 with either imprisonment or the death penalty, depending on state law?

Or, does the right of personal bodily autonomy of baby #2, supersede baby #1’s “right to life”?

Right now, the law says the latter. We cannot force someone to allow another the use of their organs. The law requires that persons explicit, advanced permission.

This “right of bodily autonomy” that current law recognizes, continues even after the person has died. By law we cannot use even a deceased persons organs for any reason, even if it’s to save the lives of multiple people, without the deceased persons express, advanced permission.

Is this right?
Is this fair?
Is this moral?

Should the current law be changed to favor the right to life over the right to bodily autonomy?
 

archer75

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 16, 2016
5,930
4,649
USA
✟251,919.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
We don't respect bodily autonomy in plenty of instances.

For example, if a pregnant woman is arrested, we arrest the child with her (although it has committed no crime) and then later rip it violently from her arms, despite its need to be (bodily) with her.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: parousia70
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,362
15,448
✟1,095,792.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
This “right of bodily autonomy” that current law recognizes, continues even after the person has died. By law we cannot use even a deceased persons organs for any reason, even if it’s to save the lives of multiple people, without the deceased persons express, advanced permission.

Is this right?
Is this fair?
Is this moral?
Yes, although I believe in some states a close family member can give the permission, but I wouldn't promise that's true.
Should the current law be changed to favor the right to life over the right to bodily autonomy?
no
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

Darkhorse

just horsing around
Aug 10, 2005
10,078
3,977
mid-Atlantic
Visit site
✟288,141.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The law shouldn't be changed, but an augmented clearinghouse of organ needs and availability should be accessible to the general public, so that donations may be volunteered quickly.
 
Upvote 0

GodsGrace101

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2018
6,713
2,298
Tuscany
✟231,507.00
Country
Italy
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Is personal, bodily autonomy a God given, inalienable right that shall not be abridged by Gov’t?

Real world example:

Two babies are born around the same time in the same hospital. It is discovered that baby #1 needs a kidney transplant to survive. It is also discovered that baby #2, across the hall, is a perfect donor match for baby #1.

Should government be able to force the family of baby #2 to donate one of baby #2’s kidneys to baby #1, and if they refuse, should government then be able to hold the family of baby #2 responsible for the death of baby #1, and punish the family of baby #2 with either imprisonment or the death penalty, depending on state law?

Or, does the right of personal bodily autonomy of baby #2, supersede baby #1’s “right to life”?

Right now, the law says the latter. We cannot force someone to allow another the use of their organs. The law requires that persons explicit, advanced permission.

This “right of bodily autonomy” that current law recognizes, continues even after the person has died. By law we cannot use even a deceased persons organs for any reason, even if it’s to save the lives of multiple people, without the deceased persons express, advanced permission.

Is this right?
Is this fair?
Is this moral?

Should the current law be changed to favor the right to life over the right to bodily autonomy?
Of course it's right.

Our body belongs to each one of us individually.

We give our money to the govt and our time by working to pay taxes.

Do we also want the government to control our bodies?

Heaven forbid...Before you know it, people will be dying so some could get their body parts.

Did you know that many were found dead in South America and cellulite was removed from the bodies to use it in beauty creams?

Look this up somehow...It was quite a few years ago that this was in the news.

I want my body for myself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,532
4,826
57
Oregon
✟791,315.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The precedent of the kidney example should not be changed. I have seen this misused to defend abortion, however. Which only seems to work when you ignore the bodily autonomy of the unborn child.

Interesting.
So the unborn child loses it’s mandate to the use of another persons organs without their permission once it’s been born?

Does not baby number one (who needs the kidney to live) in my example have the same bodily autonomy after it is born as it did before birth?

Why would we punish that child just because it’s been born and take away its power to require another person to provide it the use of their organs to survive?
Even without permission?

I am a proponent of equal rights and personhood of the unborn child. I’m not sure about granting the unborn child special “super rights” that are immediately stripped away once it draws its first breath (as it seems you are suggesting)… The newborn infant is certainly not any less vulnerable Or innocent then the unborn, and arguably much more vulnerable after birth.
Hmmmm. I’m going to have to ponder that.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: archer75
Upvote 0

Sketcher

Born Imperishable
Feb 23, 2004
38,974
9,398
✟377,116.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Interesting.
So the unborn child loses it’s mandate to the use of another persons organs without their permission once it’s been born?

Does not baby number one (who needs the kidney to live) in my example have the same bodily autonomy after it is born as it did before birth?

Why would we punish that child just because it’s been born and take away its power to require another person to provide it the use of their organs to survive?
Even without permission?

I am a proponent of equal rights and personhood of the unborn child. I’m not sure about granting the unborn child special “super rights” that are immediately stripped away once it draws its first breath (as it seems you are suggesting)… The newborn infant is certainly not any less vulnerable Or innocent then the unborn, and arguably much more vulnerable after birth.
Hmmmm. I’m going to have to ponder that.
My stance is that it is no better to give an unborn child a caustic bath or have his or her brain sucked out than it is to do that to anyone else. If an action would violate the bodily autonomy of a newborn baby, it would also violate the bodily autonomy of an unborn baby. This is not "super rights".
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,532
4,826
57
Oregon
✟791,315.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
My stance is that it is no better to give an unborn child a caustic bath or have his or her brain sucked out than it is to do that to anyone else. If an action would violate the bodily autonomy of a newborn baby, it would also violate the bodily autonomy of an unborn baby. This is not "super rights".

I’ve been pondering this all weekend and Indeed it’s a sticky wicket..
I’ve seen what death from kidney failure looks like. It isn’t pretty, it’s awful, and no one should have to suffer through it if a transplant would save them and a donor kidney match is readily available from the surrounding population.

I’m sure you’d agree that Just as no one should suffer an acid bath, born or unborn, no one should suffer from needless, reversible kidney failure, born or unborn.

Seems to me the consistent, fair, just and moral answer is mandatory, compulsory organ donor status for all born persons.

If I need your kidney, and you are a match, you should, by law, be required to give it to me when I demand it. And vis-versa.

And for sure all deceased persons should immediately lose their right to bodily autonomy and their organs should be made available regardless if they gave permission or not. That one is a no brainer. (No pun intended)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0