|
|
Post by kls on Jul 16, 2018 13:28:42 GMT
When it is bodily autonomy, it is that person. This is epitomised in the modern western societies' law on 'consent', both sexual and bodily autonomy in the sense of consenting to surgery, anaesthesia etc. That is the context, which doesn't necessarily have an 'overall' objection, just in the terms of personal sovereignty and bodily autonomy. It is recognised by the UN as a human right in this regard. How would any thing we could bring up not be about bodily autonomy, though? "Someone to say" what you can or can't do, in any context, and including where they're saying just how you can move about, including where they're saying they can imprison you for certain things, etc., is about bodily autonomy, no? Why do I have to accept my body autonomy being interfered with or be expected to care more about someone else's body autonomy who's interfering with mine than I do about my own? Why would someone violating another person take priority over the person being violated?
|
|