Sea Change, Rich and Strange

Remember….

See, we have this concept called “bodily autonomy.” It’s this….cultural notion that a person’s control over their own body is above all important and must not be infringed upon. 

Like, we can’t even take LIFE SAVING organs from CORPSES unless the person whose corpse it is gave consent before their death. Even corpses get bodily autonomy. 

To tell people that they MUST sacrifice their bodily autonomy for 9 months against their will in an incredibly expensive, invasive, difficult process to save what YOU view as another human life (a debatable claim in the early stages of pregnancy when the VAST majority of abortions are performed) is desperately unethical. You can’t even ask people to sacrifice bodily autonomy to give up organs they aren’t using anymore after they have died. 

And here’s another point: When you say that “rape is the exception” you betray something FUNDAMENTALLY BROKEN about your own argument.

Because a fetus produced from sexual assault is biologically NO DIFFERENT than a fetus produced from consensual sex. No difference at all.

If one is alive, so is the other. If one is a person, so is the other. If one has a soul, then so does the other. If one is a little blessing that happened for a reason and must be protected, then so is the other. 

When you say that “Rape is the exception” what you betray is this: It isn’t about a life. This isn’t about the little soul sitting inside some person’s womb, because if it was you wouldn’t care about HOW it got there, only that it is a little life that needs protecting.

When you say “rape is the exception” what you say is this: You are treating pregnancy as a punishment. You are PUNISHING people who have had CONSENSUAL SEX but don’t want to go through a pregnancy. People who DARED to have consensual sex without the goal of procreation in mind, and this is their “consequence.” 

Abortion is actively getting rid of a life.

You aren’t responsible for murder by opting out of the first two- you were not responsible for the accident or disease that would require the need of organs/blood from another person.

Which is…shakey. And debatable. And also doesnt address the central point of bodily autonomy.

Isn’t this question at least as important as the question you’re asking?

Yes.

This is why valuing bodily autonomy is important. It allows us to view complex situations and make judgement calls in a logically consistent way. What is more important: preserving life above all else, or respecting bodily autonomy? When those come into conflict, which do we choose?

Therefore, in your scenario (“If I woke up in a hospital with a series of tubes connecting me to the person in the next bed…”) both options (staying 10 months or killing the other person) would be an infringement of bodily autonomy. Or do I miss something here?

Like, we have to acknowledge that there is a difference between “your body can’t support your life, but you don’t get to violate others to stay alive” and “your just living your life and someone shoots you.”

If I take a knife and stab someone to death, I violate their bodily autonomy, don’t I? Actually, in case of abortion than not the mother would be the one violating the bodily autonomy of the fetus, but the doctor who conducts the abortion.

I don’t really understand what you want to say in your second paragraph. Could you rephrase it?

Even granting a fetus bodily autonomy doesn’t change this argument, because grown ass people don’t get to hijack my internal organs to stay alive. We don’t steal men’s livers in dark alleyways just because someone will die without them. 

Yes, it sucks that maintaining bodily autonomy of the pregnant person means the death of the fetus. But that’s the reality of the situation until medicine progresses to sci-fi levels of pre-natal incubators. But that sad fact doesn’t mean that we strip pregnant people of the right to bodily autonomy. 

This whole situation is not comparable to someone stealing a liver in a dark alleyway because someone will die without it – because again this only shows one side of the bodily autonomy issue. It is more like you getting an organ transplant and then the person that the organ was taken from says “It was stolen from me, I want it back! You violate my bodily integrity by keeping my organ.” This person can live without their organ, even though it is quite unpleasant. You however need the organ to stay alive for 9 months, then you can give it back. (I have to admit that this is a really strange scenario, but I think it illustrates the dilemma.)

Should the other person shut up, even though their bodily integrity has been and is violated? Should you be forced to have your body cut open to take the organ out, even though this would violate your bodily integrity?

You dont get to invade another person’s body against their will for any reason.

You dont get to turn people who can get pregnant into incubators against their will.

“Everyday at dawn, a postboy delivered the mail to the entire town. One of his most exciting, yet scariest stops, was the mysterious house buried within the forest, where sunlight had to fight to reach the ground. He had never seen anyone enter or leave the building, but the picture was always the same: warm light coming from the windows, a chimney working cheerfully, and an expectant owl ready to snatch whatever he had to turn over.“ 

- Gelsey Bell screeching

- synth

- giving 0 fucks about rhyming

- giving 0 fucks about having a consistent genre of music

- performing in shows he wrote

- CELLO

- Brittain Ashford

- Brittain Ashford singing ballads

- giving instruments to the audience

- playing instruments on stage