Sad Smiling

for example, some clearly disturbing violations of initial consent:

if you consented to vaginal sex but your partner wants to do anal

if you consented to vanilla sex but your partner attempts to hurt or choke you during the act

if you consented to sex with one person but you're expected to take part in a threesome

if you consented to non-penetrative sex but your partner attempts to penetrate you

if you consented to protected sex but your partner takes off the condom midway through

Having established that you see a fetus as equal to a born person, having all the legal rights thereof, the next step is to establish whose rights are of issue in medical situations. You indicate that a fetus has the right to use a pregnant person’s body unless the pregnant person will die as a result, and that the pregnant person has the legal responsibility to allow it.

Under what conditions does any born person have the right to use the organs of another born person against their will? When is it legal (let alone moral) to sew a sick person to an unwilling person in order to save the first person’s life? When is it ok to harvest blood or tissue from an unwilling person to help someone else?

I guess what I’m getting at is a thing you already know. People don’t have the right to use another person’s body. It’s not a right that exists. Conferring that right upon a fetus is to temporarily give that fetus a right that no other person has, essentially to place that fetus in a class above all other people, until the time that the pregnancy ends.

People also don’t have the legal obligation to submit their body to anything to serve the medical needs of another person. It’s not an obligation that exists. Requiring that of a pregnant person is to give that person a legal burden that no other person has, essentially to place that person in a class below all other people, until the time that the pregnancy ends.

People don’t get special rights, or endure suspensions of their rights, because of medical conditions. We all know that. You know that. Sometimes people who need blood or organs die. And that’s awful and we are allowed to have feelings about that. But a person cannot be forced to sacrifice their bodily autonomy, even if they have a logical or ethical reason to do so, or if they said they would, or if they began the process and changed their mind.

You are welcome to form whatever opinions you’d like about whether a person should or shouldn’t exercise their rights. Those opinions also don’t make bodily autonomy negotiable. Like undercritical opinions on other things we value in civilized society but can be condemned as “immoral” (birth control and organ transplants come to mind), they are impotent. Having a half-baked opinion on something doesn’t give you power over anyone. For that we can all be grateful.

Force blood donation to save some of the 60k citizens who bleed to death every year (since their lives > anyone's right to keep their own blood)

Confiscate all viable organs from dead citizens and force live citizens to donate tissue and organs that they can live without to save the 7.3k citizens who die waiting for transplants every year (since their lives > anyone's right to preserve their bodies for personal or religious reasons or to keep their own organs and tissues)

Criminalize the separation of conjoined twins (since one or both are likely to die and their lives > their parents' right to choose their treatment or adult twins' right to manage their own healthcare)

Criminalize IVF treatments (since 99% of embryos die or are thrown out later, and their lives > their parents' right to manage their own healthcare or reproduce)

Save embryos currently in storage by implanting them wholesale into people with uteruses (since their lives > anyone's right to choose when/how to use their uterus)

Commit pregnant people to hospitals to prevent them from doing anything that might end a pregnancy (since their lives > the parents' rights to live freely and manage their own healthcare)

Forensically investigate every miscarriage (since there's probably something a parent or doctor did, or failed to do, leading to death, and their lives > the parents' rights to live freely and manage their own healthcare)

Prosecute people who pass fatal genetic conditions to their children (since the parents directly caused the death, and their lives > the parents' rights to reproduce)

Identify and sterilize people who are likely to have high-risk pregnancies, prenatal suicidal depression, drug and alcohol problems, etc (since those conditions are likely to cause fetal death and their lives > anyone's right to refuse surgical procedures or reproduce)

Abolish self-defense concessions for victims who kill attackers while protecting their bodies from non-lethal events (since the criminal's life > their right to not be beaten, raped, etc)

Force continuation of life support and life-saving measures, even when a DNR or living will is in place (since the chances of a "miracle" recovery is never zero and their lives > their right to manage their own healthcare)

There's a reason those all feel gross. It's because they are. They're hard situations made infinitely worse by taking away the most basic human right. The only thing standing in the way of that dystopian nonsense is the fact that the government can't force us to sacrifice our bodies. And that's the entire point. If it's not ok to take it from some people, it's not ok to take it.

We can just call it what it is. It's misogyny and bigotry. The only reason people crowd around abortion clinics, yelling and waving bibles and making life worse for people seeking termination - but don't behave the same way at IVF clinics, where untold numbers of embryos are made on purpose and then destroyed - is because a person who goes for IVF is perfectly normal (read: probably white, probably rich, probably married, probably Christian, probably subservient, probably doesn't even like sex, just wants to fulfill their true purpose as a uterus woman), while a person who needs a termination is not (read: probably an ethnic minority, probably on welfare, probably already a single parent, probably generally immoral, probably causes trouble, probably promiscuous, just doesn't get nearly enough punishment for living so badly). One IVF cycle could result in 10 or 12 embryos to be frozen and then thrown out later, but because that process isn't associated with "dirty women," there's no crowd of screaming protesters or guilt-trip materials or getting three doctors to sign off. Nobody cares that the person just created and destroyed more embryos in one go than anyone would ever terminate in a lifetime. Not because of the embryos - they're exactly the same - but because of the way the patients are viewed.

Having established that you see a fetus as equal to a born person, having all the legal rights thereof, the next step is to establish whose rights are of issue in medical situations. You indicate that a fetus has the right to use a pregnant person’s body unless the pregnant person will die as a result, and that the pregnant person has the legal responsibility to allow it.

Under what conditions does any born person have the right to use the organs of another born person against their will? When is it legal (let alone moral) to sew a sick person to an unwilling person in order to save the first person’s life? When is it ok to harvest blood or tissue from an unwilling person to help someone else?

I guess what I’m getting at is a thing you already know. People don’t have the right to use another person’s body. It’s not a right that exists. Conferring that right upon a fetus is to temporarily give that fetus a right that no other person has, essentially to place that fetus in a class above all other people, until the time that the pregnancy ends.

People also don’t have the legal obligation to submit their body to anything to serve the medical needs of another person. It’s not an obligation that exists. Requiring that of a pregnant person is to give that person a legal burden that no other person has, essentially to place that person in a class below all other people, until the time that the pregnancy ends.

People don’t get special rights, or endure suspensions of their rights, because of medical conditions. We all know that. You know that. Sometimes people who need blood or organs die. And that’s awful and we are allowed to have feelings about that. But a person cannot be forced to sacrifice their bodily autonomy, even if they have a logical or ethical reason to do so, or if they said they would, or if they began the process and changed their mind.

You are welcome to form whatever opinions you'd like about whether a person should or shouldn't exercise their rights. Those opinions also don't make bodily autonomy negotiable. Like undercritical opinions on other things we value in civilized society but can be condemned as "immoral" (birth control and organ transplants come to mind), they are impotent. Having a half-baked opinion on something doesn't give you power over anyone. For that we can all be grateful.

Having established that you see a fetus as equal to a born person, having all the legal rights thereof, the next step is to establish whose rights are of issue in medical situations. You indicate that a fetus has the right to use a pregnant person's body unless the pregnant person will die as a result, and that the pregnant person has the legal responsibility to allow it.

Under what conditions does any born person have the right to use the organs of another born person against their will? When is it legal (let alone moral) to sew a sick person to an unwilling person in order to save the first person's life? When is it ok to harvest blood or tissue from an unwilling person to help someone else?

I guess what I'm getting at is a thing you already know. People don't have the right to use another person's body. It's not a right that exists. Conferring that right upon a fetus is to temporarily give that fetus a right that no other person has, essentially to place that fetus in a class above all other people, until the time that the pregnancy ends.

People also don't have the legal obligation to submit their body to anything to serve the medical needs of another person. It's not an obligation that exists. Requiring that of a pregnant person is to give that person a legal burden that no other person has, essentially to place that person in a class below all other people, until the time that the pregnancy ends.

People don't get special rights, or endure suspensions of their rights, because of medical conditions. We all know that. You know that. Sometimes people who need blood or organs die. And that's awful and we are allowed to have feelings about that. But a person cannot be forced to sacrifice their bodily autonomy, even if they have a logical or ethical reason to do so, or if they said they would, or if they began the process and changed their mind.