(October 4, 2014 at 3:19 pm)Chas Wrote:(October 4, 2014 at 3:17 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Again...the bodily autonomy position is completely independent of the person hood argument. You define person hood to be whatever you like, it will still be irrelevant to the argument from bodily autonomy.
That seems a rather, um, ill-conceived position.
I am not saying my definition of person is correct, I am saying there already is a legal presumption of the meaning of person.
How does "bodily autonomy" make murder legal?
Our most basic right is a right to life. All other rights are contingent upon that one.
Chas, let's say you wake up tomorrow and find yourself hooked up to some lady. You are involuntarily taking her nutrients to fuel yourself. She can either endure hours possibly even days of excruciating pain and low risk of death to unhook you, in which case you have a good chance of living but not guaranteed. Her body will never be the same, and she will be legally responsible for you unless and until she gives you up for "adoption".
I say she has a right to shoot you in the head in self defense.
I don't think she should and I don't like the idea, but I think it should be her choice.
