Marionumber1 » Wed May 04, 2022 10:56 am wrote:Belligerent Savant » Tue May 03, 2022 9:52 am wrote:Also: perhaps allowing States to decide on this issue isn't a bad thing.
Do you feel the same way about COVID polices like, say, vaccine passports: that instead of a Supreme Court decision which would rightfully invalidate such laws across the country as unconstitutional, states should be able to decide individually whether or not they levy that restriction on their citizens?
The way I see it, "states' rights" is a lazy solution (hence its appeal to faux-libertarians like Ron Paul, who believed states could restrict abortion, gay marriage, etc.) that simply moves the problem. Yes, you got the federal government "out" of the issue, but you've just paved the way for the states to suppress civil liberties themselves; and by getting the feds "out" of the matter, you've potentially removed a bulwark that might have stopped the states from restricting their citizens' rights.
No, I'm against a Federal position on any bodily autonomy topic, and this same principle would apply at the State level as well. If I had to choose, however, I'd opt to keep it at the State level. My preference is that no Federal or State govt rules on this at all.
You seem to be presuming about my position here.
I echo DrStrangelove's well-articulated thinking on this, particularly the bolded bit:
The "my body, my choice" slogan is one of my favorites because it is not ideological, but an outlook, or philosophical view, that a line between individual autonomy and collective responsibility to 'the greater good', be it in regards to vaccination or abortion, is drawn at bodily autonomy.
But the disparaging and dismissive slant you picked up on is ahh, definitely present in the comments here, mine included. I'm not dismissive of the issue itself, which is bodily autonomy, only the people at the forefront of its advocacy in the specific flavor of abortion. Abortion is a liberty that I rarely think the government can ever be justified intervening in, if ever. But I assume the leaders of the pro-abortion movement would outright reject being associated under a common umbrella of bodily autonomy next to the anti-mandate crowd.
In my perfect world, those who supported bodily autonomy as a philosophical principle would have it, while those who didn't wouldn't. So I suppose I support abortion 'rights' for women who believe in bodily autonomy. But not those who don't. In this way everyone's beliefs can be respected.
I've mentioned this before in passing, though I tend to refrain from sharing too many personal details, but I have daughters, so I certainly believe, firmly, in bodily autonomy. But, in full disclosure, my first daughter was conceived before I was married -- thankfully with someone I intended on marrying -- before I felt I was "ready" to have a child. Abortion was weighed as an option, and it goes without saying we're grateful to have chosen for life. It was the first time I had to seriously deliberate on the topic (and to be clear, it was ultimately my partner's decision to make, NOT mine, and this was conveyed explicitly to her at the time. I was approaching 30 yrs of age) and it opened up thoughts I hadn't considered before, such as, "Is it 'right' for me/my partner to choose abortion simply because we're not 'ready' yet, monetarily, emotionally, to have a child?" And while not applicable in my/my partner's situation: "should there be a limit to how many abortions an individual may have? Are there proactive measures that can be taken, beyond contraceptives?" (and this is where eugenics begins to rear its ugly head, eh? It will be interesting to see how the parameters of this topic may evolve over time by talking heads in the months+ ahead).
