🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@stux If you ever met a short woman you already understand this :)

@realcaseyrollins

How can a person have desires for what they want dont with their body without a brain. Desire and suffering requires a brain. We can infer once it has a brain that if we coukd communicate with it that it woukdnt want to die. Without a brain it has no wants.

Same reason its fine to torture a piece of brocoli, not fine to torture a dog.

@juddlegum

We talking about Mauricio Garcia here right. The mexican minority and shooter?

He clearly is pro nazi yea... not sure i heard a mexican refered to as white supremacist before though, seems nazi is a more accurate term since he isnt white?

@realcaseyrollins yup exactly. Except therenis no brain or neurons in the first 2 months, therefore bodily autonomy hasnt kicked in yet. You need a brain to have autonomy.

@realcaseyrollins No stopping serial killers would not be a bodily autonomy issues.

Bodily ahutonomy means you have absolute right to put whatever you want in your body, modify your body, and have complete autonomy for what goes, in or out of your body, this would also include the right to decide if and when you die when possible.

Bodily autoonomy also dictates that you can not violate someone elses bodily autonomy.

So under this definition, no a serial killer isnt being denied bodily autonomy, the other way around, they are denying others of their bodily autonomy and thus should have consequences.

Bodily autonomy doesnt mean you can do anything you want.

hype not ah legal right, but it should be. It certainly is objectively ah moral right IMO.

@realcaseyrollins

Yea, so? They dont have any self, it is morally equivalent to broccoli at that point.

Plus you cant completely disregard the autonomy otf the woman, sot there must be some compromise.

@realcaseyrollins It is more complicated than that... I think one needs to let the woman have the right to abort, but only if she does so in a way that makes every attempt at minimizing the moral offenses against the fetus... limiting it to ah point in time before the fetus has brain cells seems like ah fair compromise.

@Phileosopher @realcaseyrollins

I dont think the question even makes sense to ask... Or at least it is a meaningless question... What you are realling asking is "What do you think the definition of "rights" should be".

But let me attempt to answer. Rights are, effectively, the things we agree are morally proper to live by as ethical rules. So really we are asking is... is it possible to pick ah moral code that is objective and universal and not arbitrary or ah social construct...and I'd say yes, ethics are an objective logical thing that exists regardless of if those ethics are codified (granted) or not.

@realcaseyrollins

I am one who feels bodily autonomy is sacred. My argument is usually that both the fetus and parent have bodily autonomy that is in conflict when it comes to abortion. Therefore any law surrounding it must do its best to respect the bodily autonomy of both.

inb4: People usually counter with talk about being forced to donate a liver to someone. But the difference is a fetus only needs you metaphorical liver because you put the fetus in that position in the first place.

I am not against abortion, but I do think it needs to be relatively restrictive in when and how it is permitted (first trimester only)

Good ol' Tom looking out for us.

Fahir question... any of the kinkies out there know how this works?