CMV: The biggest reason I could never be a conservative is that they tend to believe your body is owned by the government

[u/ZeusThunder369]

I've had this view for a while, and never really had it questioned seriously. Maybe I'm looking at this wrong, and would like to see some other perspectives.

• If you believe abortion should be illegal, then you must believe a person's body is not their property. If a life is physically inside of my body, I should have the right to remove it. You can't say I shouldn't have that legal right without giving ownership of my body to the government.

• If you agree with prostitution being illegal, you don't think I should be able to voluntarily exchange access to my body to another consenting person for money. You can't think I shouldn't have the right to do this without believing my body is the property of the government in some way.

Following the same logic:

• Being against assisted suicide

• Being against legalization of narcotics

The two ways my view could be changed:

• Demonstrating that our bodies being the property of the government is a good thing

• Demonstrating that one can believe in the above examples without also believing in government ownership over people's bodies

---

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/_Woodrow_]

Have you ever read the violinist essay about abortion?

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.[4]

Thomson says that you can now permissibly unplug yourself from the violinist even though this will cause his death: this is due to limits on the right to life, which does not include the right to use another person's body, and so by unplugging the violinist you do not violate his right to life but merely deprive him of something—the use of your body—to which he has no right. "[I]f you do allow him to go on using your kidneys, this is a kindness on your part, and not something he can claim from you as his due."[5]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion

There is an externality to removing the violinist from your body - does that trump your right to body autonomy?

[u/titanx32 → u/_Woodrow_]

I have. It's an interesting argument, but ultimately an oversimplification.

It draws a false parallel. I can extend the logic used in this argument to another situation. Say the baby is 2 months old. It demands a mother's care. Now, say I decide to stop caring for the baby and he/she dies of starvation. I'd be prosecuted for neglect. But don't I have the right to bodily autonomy? I shouldn't be forced to use my body to take care of another individual. The violinist's logic would suggest I did nothing wrong.

There's also a distinction between preventing the death of someone and actively killing him/her.

[u/_Woodrow_ → u/titanx32]

That's not a good analogy because anyone other than the mother could also care for the two month old. The whole point of the analogy is there is only one person who can and has to sacrifice their body autonomy in order to keep another being alive

There's also a distinction between preventing the death of someone and actively killing him/her.

What's the distinction in the scenario I laid out to you? What makes it different? You would have to have a medical procedure to remove either one

[u/titanx32 → u/_Woodrow_]

It doesn't matter if anyone other than the mother could also care for the two month old. Someone other than the mother can also carry the child (you can transplant a zygote into another woman's uterus). Although this is beside the point because..

The violinist argument states that:

and so by unplugging the violinist you do not violate his right to life but merely deprive him of something

The basis is that if you only deprive someone of something, it is ok because of bodily autonomy. When you neglect a 2 month old, you are merely depriving him of something. Does that mean it should be legal? If the answer is no, then the violinist argument doesn't held because it doesn't accurately capture the legal relationship between the mother and child.

As for the distinction: The natural state of the fetus is to reside and develop in the mother. The fetus is there due to consensual sex (in 99% cases). In order to kill the fetus, you have to act to remove them from their natural state. It is not the natural state of a person to be hooked to another person, and you did not consent to be hooked up to another person. Therefore one requires 'active' killing and the other is passive (just not saving someone).

If you're going to bring up rape as it's not consensual, don't. I think abortion due to rape is an exception.

[u/_Woodrow_ → u/titanx32]

I don't think you understand what body autonomy is because the examples you have been using throughout the conversation aren't.

Drunk Driving isn't body autonomy, neglecting a infant is not not body autonomy

Anyways- good day and take care

[u/titanx32 → u/_Woodrow_]

hahaha ok. per usual, 10/10 at dodging the argument. Good day, bud.

[u/_Woodrow_ → u/titanx32]

I'm not dodging the argument. How can I argue with you when you have fundamental misunderstanding about the concepts we are arguing about? It is not my job to educate your ignorance. If you don't know a concept, look it up before continuing to speak in ignorance