Skip to main content

Analyzed some instances of bodily autonomy removal; the results revealed an interesting pattern

Someone shared with me a few articles that highlighted instances of bodily autonomy removal.

The first one was of a mandatory breastfeeding law in the United Arab Emirates. It claims it is decreed by Islam to be a right for children to breastfeed and makes it mandatory that all mothers breastfeed. Husbands can even file charges against her if she doesnt. It is absolutely disgusting and there are many obvious issues with it. UAE violates several human rights, and not surprisingly, abortion is banned there.

The second one is of an underage girl in Canada who was forced to receive a blood transfusion against her will. Minors cant consent. And this procedure was done as a benefit to her and her well being (unlike forced birth, which is done for the benefit of another at the detriment of that person.) Aside from that, after this case, the judges agreed that they would take the competency of the minor into consideration. As they should. The age of consent was put into place so that parents could legally make decisions on behalf of their children as children are still developing competency. We place the age of consent where we do for a clear cut off in order to transfer control over to that person as they enter the real world. But many minors obtain the ability to make decisions we would otherwise deem them incapable of making simply due to the law rather than a true reflection of their ability. The fact that judges are taking this into consideration from here on out makes this actually a win in the bodily autonomy court.

And the third one is about mandatory blood draws on unconscious people suspected of DUI. This one seemed rather controversial and I can see why. I dont know that I agree with the ruling. But this is probably the strongest case for removal of bodily autonomy.

After reading these articles and writing a response to each of them, I thought to myself ''I wonder if I couldnt have just written a shorter response to address all of them.'' So I zoomed out and asked myself, what did all of these laws have in common?

The first one is blatant misogyny. The second one is the literal inability to give informed consent due to being a minor. And the third one was due to suspect of criminal activity.
Misogyny. Incompetency. Criminals.

And these are evidence to support the removal of autonomy from pregnant women.Women are less than men. Women are incapable of making informed decisions. Women having sex for pleasure are criminals.

Wow.

The fact that they view women as incapable of making informed decisions is obvious with TRAP laws like mandatory waiting periods, mandatory ultrasounds, and mandatory literature. And I find it funny that they feel this extreme need to educated ''stupid'' pregnant women because they dont know what they are doing, yet push for abstinence only education so that... women actually dont know what they are doing. But what do you expect from those that can tell the obvious difference between germ cells and zygotes, but cant tell the difference between a zygote and a newborn infant. The lack of ineptness is astounding!

If they are going to make sex for purposes other than reproduction a crime, they should actually call it out as a crime. We dont let people drive drunk even if they dont cause an accident, because just by merely driving they are increasing the risk of an accident and endangering people. If abortion is the same as the car accident, then it stands to reason that we need to make sex without intent to procreate illegal as well as it increases the risk for an unwanted pregnancy and endangers people. Abortion bans treat women who wind up with unwanted pregnancies as criminals.

This is what current laws that violate bodily autonomy look like. And they want abortion to join the club. This tells us something very sinister about what they think of women and consensual sex.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Fetal Awareness

  Fetal Pain This topic is being included in our wiki because it is one of the bigger considerations for those on the fence about where they stand on the issue. The ability for a fetus to feel pain is inconclusive at this point in time. One thing, however, is clear - a pregnant person will also feel pain at the time of onset of labor and delivery. Drugs can only be used so much, and they can wear off prior to or during delivery. She will also experience pain after birth, while she heals and especially if she has a c-section. She will be unable to take narcotic pain meds if she plans on breastfeeding as it can be passed through breastmilk. And breastfeeding itself, can be painful, especially in the beginning. And that is nothing to say of the pains felt throughout pregnancy, including the emotional impact it has on a person who is unable to access abortion and is compelled to continue an unwanted pregnancy. Likewise, the pain of having to give up the child, who by the time of delive...
Post a Comment
Read more

''Why Mothers Don’t Have The Right To Refuse Babies The Use Of Their Wombs'' & a rebuttal as to why they actually do

My rebuttal is to this Federalist article: ''Why Mothers Don’t Have The Right To Refuse Babies The Use Of Their Wombs'' This prolife article argues that prenatal humans have to belong somewhere. If not the womb, then where? ''For most pro-choice advocates, the right to abortion hinges on affirming that a pregnant woman has the right to refuse her child residence in her body. But then the question may be asked, if a prenatal human being does not belong in her mother’s womb, where does she belong? The answer? Nowhere.'' You can ask that if you wish. My answer would be that it is irrelevant to the very first statement. ''It is implausible to claim a child does not belong in the place she began to exist and the only place she can survive: in the nurture and care her mother’s body naturally provides. This has been the case for virtually all of humanity since our history began. The mother’s womb is the rightful place of a child in t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Parthood view of pregnancy makes more sense than the containment view

  This will be a summary of a journal called Were you a part of your mother? that discusses two different views on the relationship between a pregnant person and a fetus. This journal entry refers to the pregnant person as the gravida and the fetus as the foster, so I will be referring to them with those terms as well. One view is the containment view and the other is the parthood view. The containment view seems to be a fairly commonly held view, one that I have seen both sides of the argument hold, so I will be focusing on the parthood view. I believe that the parthood view has a stronger logical standing. I will be summarizing it below by following the four criteria presented for what makes something a whole organism and what is a part of that whole organism. Following that will be the objections and how they can be addressed. I will not address every piece of criteria presented, but will do my best to condense down key points of this 55 minute read. Here is a mini table of co...
Post a Comment
Read more