How much sovereignty should people have over their bodies?

I'm curious as to how y'all view this incredibly broad issue.

Abortion: Should the state have the right to protect the unborn child forcibly? IE criminalized abortion. At what point (if any) is it acceptable. 3 months in? a day before birth?

Vaccination: Should the state have the right to mandate forced vaccination? Is less extreme action acceptable (not allowing kids or young adults in schools and college campuses w/o vaccinations)

Euthanasia: Should the state have the right to prevent people from opting for physician assisted suicide?

Organ donation: Should the state mandate organ donation? Should it create incentives for those who volunteer?

DUI forced testing: Should the state be allowed to forcibly analyze blood alcohol levels?

Paternity testing: Should the state be allowed to require (typically in custody and child support situations) paternity testing as part of court proceedings?

Drug Usage: Should the state have the right to ban use of substances (tobacco, alcohol, mild drugs, hard drugs)

Food Usage: Should the state have the right to ban unhealthy foods or tax them at higher amounts to curb their behavior (soda tax)

I'm really curious if there is a consistent stance among these items and how someone approaches each one of them. Is there an underlying principal you have that helps you sort out what you think is acceptable, or do you just go with what feels right? I also want to get away from any legal discussions on what the law is now, would prefer to see where everyone thinks the line *should* be drawn.

https://local.theonion.com/abused-12...n-h-1834787176

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

I'm curious as to how y'all view this incredibly broad issue.

Abortion: Should the state have the right to protect the unborn child forcibly? IE criminalized abortion. At what point (if any) is it acceptable. 3 months in? a day before birth?

Vaccination: Should the state have the right to mandate forced vaccination? Is less extreme action acceptable (not allowing kids or young adults in schools and college campuses w/o vaccinations)

Euthanasia: Should the state have the right to prevent people from opting for physician assisted suicide?

Organ donation: Should the state mandate organ donation? Should it create incentives for those who volunteer?

DUI forced testing: Should the state be allowed to forcibly analyze blood alcohol levels?

Paternity testing: Should the state be allowed to require (typically in custody and child support situations) paternity testing as part of court proceedings?

Drug Usage: Should the state have the right to ban use of substances (tobacco, alcohol, mild drugs, hard drugs)

Food Usage: Should the state have the right to ban unhealthy foods or tax them at higher amounts to curb their behavior (soda tax)

I'm really curious if there is a consistent stance among these items and how someone approaches each one of them. Is there an underlying principal you have that helps you sort out what you think is acceptable, or do you just go with what feels right? I also want to get away from any legal discussions on what the law is now, would prefer to see where everyone thinks the line *should* be drawn.

---

I'm a little shocked you haven't included capital punishment on the list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I'm a little shocked you haven't included capital punishment on the list.

---

Oh well in all of these situations I'm assuming the person hasn't been found guilty of a crime. "Should the government have the right to lock you away" well duh of course it does but generally shouldn't be allowed unless guilty of a crime. So you can add it to the list if you want but I feel that is a different situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Oh well in all of these situations I'm assuming the person hasn't been found guilty of a crime. "Should the government have the right to lock you away" well duh of course it does but generally shouldn't be allowed unless guilty of a crime. So you can add it to the list if you want but I feel that is a different situation.

---

There is a difference between being locked away and being executed, not only in degree but also immutability. As a side bar, does it matter if the person has been found guilty of a crime? Should the state be able to force abortions on mothers who are in prison?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

There is a difference between being locked away and being executed, not only in degree but also immutability. As a side bar, does it matter if the person has been found guilty of a crime? Should the state be able to force abortions on mothers who are in prison?

---

Sure but that discussion is a bit afield from what I'm getting at. Assuming you are a normal non-criminal citizen, how much bodily autonomy should you "be allowed" to have.

As for forcing abortions while in prison, I'd go with no.

Sovereignty? Weird word choice.

If you're asking about autonomy vs gov't control, and if we have a guiding principle in sorting things out, or where we think the lines *should* be drawn....you can't really expect us to ignore current law, and the attempts to change it. :donkey:

Abortion is in a different category than the others you listed: the new bans passed in state legislatures are aimed at defining embryos as people. Treating women as "hosts" is perverse, and making us prisoners in our own bodies means we have NO autonomy, let alone full rights under the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Sovereignty? Weird word choice.

If you're asking about autonomy vs gov't control, and if we have a guiding principle in sorting things out, or where we think the lines *should* be drawn....you can't really expect us to ignore current law, and the attempts to change it. :donkey:

---

This is an international community. Wave your magic wand - assume you can order the law as you see fit.

Also Lewk, your conflation of Ban and Regulation makes this discussion even harder.

Of course "the gov't" has the "right" to make laws, including those which "control" behaviors. That kind of social engineering has been around a long time, especially when it comes to Public Health & Safety, consistent with our Constitutional guidelines.

IMO what's different now, is how religious beliefs, particularly conservative Christian beliefs, have been used in the political arena to change laws, even the composition of courts. The Republican Party has admitted that moving the judicial branch to the Right was its goal, overturning Roe v Wade a main priority.

So I want know....how much of your "guiding principle" and moral decision-making is based on conservative Christian beliefs? Why are you happy when states legislatures and governors, federal judges, and now even SCOTUS lean Right? And how does that make you a Libertarian? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

This is an international community. Wave your magic wand - assume you can order the law as you see fit.

---

Magic wands and ordering laws? You're trolling, but I'll play along anyway. :picard:

Control is the main issue. You can dress it up with words like sovereignty, or cloak it behind religion or politics to talk about individual liberties (and Freeeedom!) but it's basically about control. Not just who has it and why, but what is their rationale and ultimate goal?


I don't want the US to be a theocracy. I don't want our laws to be based on religious beliefs, Christian or otherwise. When it comes to abortion....all these Heartbeat Bills aren't rooted in science or medical facts, but religious ideology.

The Pro-Life movement is a misnomer -- it is really about forced-birth and justifying it with "Biblical" machinations that define life as beginning with conception. Using that "ideology", any birth control is immoral (see the Catholic Church and Rick Santorum, etc.)



edit: and I'm curious why the "Pro-Life" movement doesn't propose legal restrictions for men?

The Pro-Lifers in Alabama have demonstrated plenty of times that they haven't got the faintest of clues on how pregancies actually work.

Also, their argument regarding IVF gave the game away - it's all about Theocracy and giving a flying fuck about women.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

I'm curious as to how y'all view this incredibly broad issue.

Abortion: Should the state have the right to protect the unborn child forcibly? IE criminalized abortion. At what point (if any) is it acceptable. 3 months in? a day before birth?

Vaccination: Should the state have the right to mandate forced vaccination? Is less extreme action acceptable (not allowing kids or young adults in schools and college campuses w/o vaccinations)

Euthanasia: Should the state have the right to prevent people from opting for physician assisted suicide?

Organ donation: Should the state mandate organ donation? Should it create incentives for those who volunteer?

DUI forced testing: Should the state be allowed to forcibly analyze blood alcohol levels?

Paternity testing: Should the state be allowed to require (typically in custody and child support situations) paternity testing as part of court proceedings?

Drug Usage: Should the state have the right to ban use of substances (tobacco, alcohol, mild drugs, hard drugs)

Food Usage: Should the state have the right to ban unhealthy foods or tax them at higher amounts to curb their behavior (soda tax)

I'm really curious if there is a consistent stance among these items and how someone approaches each one of them. Is there an underlying principal you have that helps you sort out what you think is acceptable, or do you just go with what feels right? I also want to get away from any legal discussions on what the law is now, would prefer to see where everyone thinks the line *should* be drawn.

---

The real issue you are proposing is who should regulate your body. You or the government. Do you belong to you, or to the government? Beware, because if you say the government, one day the government may regulate to rape you, drug you, poison you, euthanize you, or abort you after birth.

Paternity testing is not a crime, it is about children rights. Children have the right to know who parents are.

No reply, Lewk? :donkey:

You're right Khen -- these new state bills show a misunderstanding of basic biology, let alone scientific/medical knowledge. They want to define embryos as people, but ectopic pregnancies, IVF, selective termination, and even embryonic storage are somehow different. And it's apparently okay to exempt embryos of rape or incest, too. :rolleyes:


edit: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...est-roe-v-wade

Expanding my comments that religious beliefs have impacted politics and law, with negative effect (it's not limited to Abortion):

Quote:

---

Vaccination: Should the state have the right to mandate forced vaccination? Is less extreme action acceptable (not allowing kids or young adults in schools and college campuses w/o vaccinations)

---

Certain vaccinations are required for international travel and military service. That makes perfect sense from a Public Health & Safety perspective, maybe even national security. The vaccinations aren't "forced" but the state can deny entry/participation. Public institutions included.

No law "forces" Homeschoolers to get childhood vaccinations, for example. But if they want to attend a public college, or apply for a job at any [state accredited and licensed] health facility, or join the military, they have to certain vaccinations. The trends in "religious exemptions" are either misinformed, anti-science, or conspiratorial in nature (yes, that includes the far left cross-over groups). Because even the Amish *voluntarily* get vaccinated. :rolleyes:

There's an argument to be made about over-reach, as epidemiology advances and more vaccines become available, while the pharmaceutical industry's for-profit model is being scrutinized. But that's about degrees of science, not total denial.