In the pro-life / pro-choice debates, one of the arguments the pro-life people often put forth is that a woman should have control of her own body, and thus the right to an abortion. The premise (control over her own body) isn’t usually argued with, merely the inference (i.e. Is the foetus really part of her body?).
I personally agree that people should have the right to control their own bodies, and I think most people do, but certain laws don’t seem to reflect that.
Let’s assume for the moment that people should have that right (feel free to debate it if you don’t think they should). Why are so many actions which affect only yourself illegal? In particular, drugs and Euthanasia. (Two fairly different topics I admit).
In the first case, the main argument against the legalisation of most drugs is that they can cause severe health problems, possibly even death. But really, why is that a reason for them to be illegal? As long as the users are fully aware of the implications, and take suitable precautions so as not to cause harm to others, shouldn’t it be their right to choose?
Similarily with Euthanasia. Shouldn’t your right to control your own body extend up to the right to to end your own life if you choose?
Actually, I don’t think it’s a given that you can do anything you want with your own body. There are places where suicide is illegal, for example.
As for the laws against illegal drugs, those stem in part from potential dangers of drug use against the populace at large. Now, one might argue about whether such dangers are real, or whether they warrant criminalization. (Indeed, this has been discussed on the SDMB many times.) However, the point is that these laws are motivated in part by the effect on society at large.
Ok, granted. But to what extent should the good of society take precedence over individual rights? I’m not saying that individual rights should always take precedence, but you have to draw the line somewhere. Why should it be at this point rather than another? I think that the right to do what you want with your own body should be a fundamental one (although I must admit I cannot at this time come up with a good reason forthis - I may take it as a moral axiom, which makes it difficult to argue for or against).
There are several other issues where individual rights are sometimes at odds with societal welfare. The “mandatory” vaccination thread in GD comes to mind.
The “individual”: All individuals in the category being discussed.
So, even though it sounds good to say you are protecting the rights of society by limiting individual rights, it is a fiction. People say that society takes precedence over the individual as if it is a conflict between the many and the few.
Of course, when “individual” rights get taken away they are really being taken away from society as a whole.
What Beagle said.
I’ve got another one: Why is it illegal for a woman to sell her body for sex on the street, but perfectly legal for that woman (or man) to have sex on camera for the purpose of making a porn film? Someone educate me.
Beagle, that isn’t entirely true. Taking away an individual’s right to commit murder without consequence is protecting society’s right to be secure in the knowledge that murder has consequences. Taking away one right from individuals has granted individuals a greater and more important right.
Anyway, kitarak, who said the law is consistent? It is a collection of rules that made sense at the time. Or, to state it somewhat more cynically, it is a collection of rules that were made by whatever special interest group was in power at the time. Don’t try to reconcile the legality of tobacco or alcohol with the illegality of marijuana. You can’t.
Therefore, whenever someone argues that that a woman should have control of her own body, it is an appeal to a libertarian sensibility that may or may not be shared by others.
I should mention that the legal rational of Roe v. Wade is similar to the “woman should have control of her body” but has not been applied consistently. The Court said people have a Constitutional right to privacy, which can only be trumped by a strong government purpose. Don’t look for consistency here either. The Court said that the government cannot make its showing when they try to ban the use and sale of contraceptives, but can make the showing when they try to outlaw homosexual activities. The showing can be made in the third trimester, but cannot be made in the first.
IMHO, the “constitutional” privacy right is intellectually bankrupt. That’s not to se we, as a people, shouldn’t try to pass a constitutional amendment that states “No law shall be made or enforced by either the United States or the individual States that interferes with an adult’s right to self-determination, unless such right interferes with or has a demonstrable chance of interfering with another person’s right to self-determination.” Of course, since the chances of that happening are next to nil, being intellectually bankrupt sometimes is better than the alternative.
I agree. But, I did get you to switch the ordinary terminology around.
My gripe is that people sometimes talk about the “rights of society” versus the “rights of the individual” as if it is a foregone conclusion that society should win because society is everyone and the individual is just one person. Which, I think, is pretty obviously false.
That is a very good idea. That is pretty much my interpretation of the 9th amendment, but few in power agree with me.
The law is very inconsistent because the belief of our law-makers and judges that Constitutional freedoms should be upheld is frequently overpowered by their desire to force people to live according to their own (i.e. the law-makers and judges) moral codes. The easiest way to do this is to interpret the Constitution in such a way that denies any given right. The vagueness of the Constitution gives people the ability to stifle many freedoms that the Constitution should be protecting.
If you can’t control your own body, then how do you expect to be able to control anything else?
I am pro-life, which means that I believe that the child is IN the mother’s body, not a part of it.
Other than that, I believe that anyone should be allowed to do anything to themselves that they please. As long as they aren’t interferring in anyone else’s life, they can do as they wish.
Just a clarification: euthanasia as opposed to suicide usually involves another person carrying out the killing, so as it implicates another person, it is not one person doing what they want with their body per se.
Lord Ashtar: Yes, I know. This wasn’t intended to be a pro-choice argument, I merely used that particular part of the pro-life/choice debate as a starting point.
Gigi: Sure, but if it’s with the patients consent then it is effectively a case of the right to control your own body.
Pencil pusher: Err, umm… Ok. You got me there. Yeah, laws don’t make sense. But they should.
Ah, let us explore the terms a little more. Let us start with assisted suicide. Assisted suicide is when a doctor provides the means, perhaps a prescription for a lethal dose of some drug, by which the person commits suicide. The person requesting assistance then performs the act themselves. Voluntary euthanasia is when the doctor kills the patient when they clearly and competently request it. Non-voluntary euthanasia is an act of mercy where someone else decides for a patient who is unable to decide for themselves. Involuntary euthanasia is when a doctor kills a patient that clearly and competently states that they do not wish to be killed. Now, all of these are illegal. Involuntary euthanasia is simple murder and should not be legalized. Non-voluntary euthanasia is a difficult issue, as it is not the patient’s direct decision. However, assisted suicide is clearly an individual right, and so is voluntary euthanasia. Now, you bring up the issue of another person’s involvement. Doctor’s help patients at their request, yes? Why should it be the patient’s right to request help? After all, another person is involved. Yet, it is still an individual right because the doctor is carrying out the wishes of the patient. The doctor is a method of putting that right to use. In the case of voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide, the doctor could be viewed as the “gun” the patient chose to use in their suicide.
I just find it strange how the term “a woman’s right to choose” has surfaced. “I believe in a woman’s right to choose.”, “The religious right is trying to take away a woman’s right to choose.”, etc. I understand that it is made in the context of the abortion debate, but it seems as overbroad a term as “Pro Choice” and “Pro Life”.
I wonder if whoever came up with that little phrase copyrighted it.