- Feb 24, 2002
- 15,532
- 4,826
- 57
- 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?
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?