• OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Ok great, then people can commit suicide at home but that doesn’t compel anyone to act to assist them. Looks like my stance is fully consistent with bodily autonomy and your objection is meaningless.

    • Lightor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      My objection, my objection to what? I think you’re maybe taking the who “roleplay your username” a bit far. You don’t even know what you’re arguing at this point. You brought up a person wanting to get injected with bleach randomly like some gotcha when everyone here is in favor of autonomy. I agree people should be able to do it at home. Others shouldn’t be compelled to help but they should be allowed to help if they want to. What exactly did I object against?

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Your objection to my position, which is that you claim it’s contrary to bodily autonomy.

        Of course I’m against taking bodily autonomy as an absolute principle, because no rights are absolute. However, the way you’ve defined it, “absolute bodily autonomy” still allows you to be barred from doing something if a doctor decides you’re not informed enough, or if it would mean compelling someone to assist you. That isn’t what absolute means to me, but I’m willing to accept your definition. But by that definition, opposition to assisted suicide is comparable with “absolute bodily autonomy.” So your claim that I don’t support bodily autonomy is baseless.

        I don’t see what the confusion is. If absolute bodily autonomy can’t compel people to act, then assisted suicide, which by definition involves another person’s assistance, isn’t covered by bodily autonomy.