Is Bodily Sovereignty a Hypocritical Concept?

[Calladan]

As a Liberal who supports choice, the idea that the Netherlands could allow parents to kill their children for any reason to be disgusting. You being in loco parentis does not give you the right to kill your child, they are not your property.

It makes me sick to my stomach that people could defend this. A fetus inside of a woman is different than a child who is out, bodily sovereignty only applies to your body.

So where do you draw the line? A two day old baby is CLEARLY incapable of consenting to medical treatment of ANY type at all. All a two day old baby can do it cry, poop and eat and then poop some more.

Now - by your argument "bodily sovereignty applies to your body" - parents are not permitted to do ANYTHING to that child without its consent. Including required, life-saving treatment.

So - do you let them do that? Yes or no? Well - obviously the answer is yes, because otherwise the baby dies. So if you have violated your own argument to allow life saving treatment, the rest is all a matter of degree and a matter of personal choice, personal ethics and personal belief, isn't it?

There is no black and white, there is no hard and fast rule. Either you respect the right of the child and do not violate its consent (which means letting it die because you can not grant permission for doctors to perform ANY type of medical procedure on it, even if its heart stops or it stops breathing) or you accept that - as a parent - you have the right to speak for the child and make the decisions you feel are in the best interest for that child, even if those include (gods forbid) contemplating euthanasia.

[Knarkrike]

So where do you draw the line? A two day old baby is CLEARLY incapable of consenting to medical treatment of ANY type at all. All a two day old baby can do it cry, poop and eat and then poop some more.

Now - by your argument "bodily sovereignty applies to your body" - parents are not permitted to do ANYTHING to that child without its consent. Including required, life-saving treatment.

So - do you let them do that? Yes or no? Well - obviously the answer is yes, because otherwise the baby dies. So if you have violated your own argument to allow life saving treatment, the rest is all a matter of degree and a matter of personal choice, personal ethics and personal belief, isn't it?

There is no black and white, there is no hard and fast rule. Either you respect the right of the child and do not violate its consent (which means letting it die because you can not grant permission for doctors to perform ANY type of medical procedure on it, even if its heart stops or it stops breathing) or you accept that - as a parent - you have the right to speak for the child and make the decisions you feel are in the best interest for that child, even if those include (gods forbid) contemplating euthanasia.

These people need to read the damn protocol to understand that it doesn't mean parents are killing their kids willy-nilly without any restriction.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

So where do you draw the line? A two day old baby is CLEARLY incapable of consenting to medical treatment of ANY type at all. All a two day old baby can do it cry, poop and eat and then poop some more.

Now - by your argument "bodily sovereignty applies to your body" - parents are not permitted to do ANYTHING to that child without its consent. Including required, life-saving treatment.

So - do you let them do that? Yes or no? Well - obviously the answer is yes, because otherwise the baby dies. So if you have violated your own argument to allow life saving treatment, the rest is all a matter of degree and a matter of personal choice, personal ethics and personal belief, isn't it?

There is no black and white, there is no hard and fast rule. Either you respect the right of the child and do not violate its consent (which means letting it die because you can not grant permission for doctors to perform ANY type of medical procedure on it, even if its heart stops or it stops breathing) or you accept that - as a parent - you have the right to speak for the child and make the decisions you feel are in the best interest for that child, even if those include (gods forbid) contemplating euthanasia.

These people need to read the damn protocol to understand that it doesn't mean parents are killing their kids willy-nilly without any restriction.

^ According to this, since this euthanasia practice would only be applied under very severe circumstances, I believe the right for the child to stop suffering usurps their right to bodily sovereignty here.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I strongly hate the idea of putting down children for being sick because it violates bodily sovereignty, hardly hypocritical.

[Auristania]

And how would their "sovereignty" align with the "scale" you describe?

I have an idea of what you mean, but could you explain in more depth?

Instead of a child age 17 years 364 days, suddenly going PING and magically turning into an adult, let the 17 year old have 90% of Citizen Rights, the 16 year old have 80% etc.

[Thermodolia]

Personally, I think the concept of bodily sovereignty can really only be applied to adults since children don't have the mental wherewithal or maturity to decide what is and isn't in their best interest. Even with euthanizing a child, as distasteful as the idea may be, I think the decision should be left up to the child's parents and doctors in the same way that parents can choose to pull their kid off of life support after a horrendous accident.

That said, there should probably be an age at which parents can't simply euthanize their kid. Like, you can't euthanize your kid if they're above the age of 5, 10, or whatever without consulting them and a doctor at the same time.

Note: I think it'd be a good idea to provide a link to this new Dutch law. I vaguely remember it coming up in previous threads.

If I remember correctly it's a proposed law and hasn't been voted on yet. But I agree entirely with your statement

[Godular]

Personally, I think the concept of bodily sovereignty can really only be applied to adults since children don't have the mental wherewithal or maturity to decide what is and isn't in their best interest. Even with euthanizing a child, as distasteful as the idea may be, I think the decision should be left up to the child's parents and doctors in the same way that parents can choose to pull their kid off of life support after a horrendous accident.

That said, there should probably be an age at which parents can't simply euthanize their kid. Like, you can't euthanize your kid if they're above the age of 5, 10, or whatever without consulting them and a doctor at the same time.

Note: I think it'd be a good idea to provide a link to this new Dutch law. I vaguely remember it coming up in previous threads.

If I remember correctly it's a proposed law and hasn't been voted on yet. But I agree entirely with your statement

It has been in effect for a great many years. The protocol was only established recently to give a sort of standardized methodology to determine whether euthanizing an infant would be justifiable, including mandatory second opinions and other fail-safe measures.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

As a Liberal who supports choice, the idea that the Netherlands could allow parents to kill their children for any reason to be disgusting. You being in loco parentis does not give you the right to kill your child, they are not your property.

It makes me sick to my stomach that people could defend this. A fetus inside of a woman is different than a child who is out, bodily sovereignty only applies to your body.

Something something intense pain something something they are dieing anyway something something better to die in peace then in horrible pain.

[Genivaria]

Who do you propose should control a person's body, if not that person themselves?

The law.

So you believe everyone is the property of the state now?
I didn't peg you for a communist.

[Genivaria]

In the Netherlands, it is now legal to euthanize children who have been born because of diseases. The argument for this is that it is good for them. As they aren't really able to give consent, should that be considered consistent with bodily sovereignty? Further, as far as I understand it, if somebody is not able to give consent to a sexual act, it is inherently rape, so, if somebody is not able to give their consent to being "euthanized," (killed) is it truly consistent with bodily sovereignty? Is it not "his body, his choice," on being euthanized?

I personally think that the idea of bodily sovereignty is poppycock, as trusting humans with their welfare can often lead to disaster. What say you NSG?

And yet you wanted to the law (that's written by humans) to have full control of people's bodies.
Or are you an alien?

[Wallenburg]

No. /thread

[Genivaria]

I strongly hate the idea of putting down children for being sick because it violates bodily sovereignty, hardly hypocritical.

Yeah if I'm ever in such a state of pain and agony that I can't even get a coherent statement out please fucking kill me.

[Eol Sha]

I strongly hate the idea of putting down children for being sick because it violates bodily sovereignty, hardly hypocritical.

You might have a point if we weren't talking about babies with terminal diseases.

[Jumalariik]

Euthanasia of infants with severe health concerns is a very complicated issue. For infants who have no chance of living and for whom extended life would just be agony, I would generally view euthanasia as a human error option. In cases of infants simply being expected to have severely reduced qualities of life, while I understand the thought people may have that they personally may not wish to live such a life, it is not their life, and the thought that those with debilitating disabilities would be better off dead than given a chance to live is horrifying. I'll admit that this is something I had woefully ableist opinions on until very recently, looking at it in terms of utilitarian suffering versus pleasure without realizing how such views completely dehumanize people with disabilities.

We agree on this!

[Jumalariik]

In the Netherlands, it is now legal to euthanize children who have been born because of diseases. The argument for this is that it is good for them. As they aren't really able to give consent, should that be considered consistent with bodily sovereignty? Further, as far as I understand it, if somebody is not able to give consent to a sexual act, it is inherently rape, so, if somebody is not able to give their consent to being "euthanized," (killed) is it truly consistent with bodily sovereignty? Is it not "his body, his choice," on being euthanized?

I personally think that the idea of bodily sovereignty is poppycock, as trusting humans with their welfare can often lead to disaster. What say you NSG?

And yet you wanted to the law (that's written by humans) to have full control of people's bodies.
Or are you an alien?

Could we not say that there are both objective truths and subjective statements? Could we also not say that objective truths can usually be found? If so, could we not base law on such truths? Perhaps one could be the universal right to life that would override bodily sovereignty.

[Genivaria]

And yet you wanted to the law (that's written by humans) to have full control of people's bodies.
Or are you an alien?

Could we not say that there are both objective truths and subjective statements? Could we also not say that objective truths can usually be found? If so, could we not base law on such truths? Perhaps one could be the universal right to life that would override bodily sovereignty.

I think you're speaking babble to avoid the statement.

[Godular]

Euthanasia of infants with severe health concerns is a very complicated issue. For infants who have no chance of living and for whom extended life would just be agony, I would generally view euthanasia as a human error option. In cases of infants simply being expected to have severely reduced qualities of life, while I understand the thought people may have that they personally may not wish to live such a life, it is not their life, and the thought that those with debilitating disabilities would be better off dead than given a chance to live is horrifying. I'll admit that this is something I had woefully ableist opinions on until very recently, looking at it in terms of utilitarian suffering versus pleasure without realizing how such views completely dehumanize people with disabilities.

We agree on this!

The protocol already addresses both of y'all's concerns.

[Godular]

And yet you wanted to the law (that's written by humans) to have full control of people's bodies.
Or are you an alien?

Could we not say that there are both objective truths and subjective statements?

Objective truth does not exist. There are facts untainted by personal opinion, but the instant one places an interpretation on those facts, it is no longer objective.

Could we also not say that objective truths can usually be found?

No.

If so, could we not base law on such truths?

No.

Perhaps one could be the universal right to life that would override bodily sovereignty.

No.

[Jumalariik]

Could we not say that there are both objective truths and subjective statements?

Objective truth does not exist. There are facts untainted by personal opinion, but the instant one places an interpretation on those facts, it is no longer objective.

Could we also not say that objective truths can usually be found?

No.

If so, could we not base law on such truths?

No.

Perhaps one could be the universal right to life that would override bodily sovereignty.

No.

1. Yes there is objective truth. 2 times 2 is 4. Further, the lack of objective truth would itself be an objective truth, so no matter what, some form of objective truth exists. You can call it facts without the taint of personal opinion, but that is kind of what objectivity means. Objectivity means something that does not rely on personal opinion. The idea that there is one possible result to 4+4 is sort of obvious and questioning it is kind of silly.

2. K. If we make a law that bans murder, and the penalty is 30 years in prison, it would be an objective truth to say "there is a thirty year prison sentence for killing a person.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Could we not say that there are both objective truths and subjective statements?

Objective truth does not exist.

Yes it does.

[Genivaria]

Objective truth does not exist. There are facts untainted by personal opinion, but the instant one places an interpretation on those facts, it is no longer objective.



No.



No.



No.

1. Yes there is objective truth. 2 times 2 is 4. Further, the lack of objective truth would itself be an objective truth, so no matter what, some form of objective truth exists. You can call it facts without the taint of personal opinion, but that is kind of what objectivity means. Objectivity means something that does not rely on personal opinion. The idea that there is one possible result to 4+4 is sort of obvious and questioning it is kind of silly.

2. K. If we make a law that bans murder, and the penalty is 30 years in prison, it would be an objective truth to say "there is a thirty year prison sentence for killing a person.

Please post something relevant.

[Jumalariik]

Objective truth does not exist.

Yes it does.

If it doesn't then anything I say is equally true to something that somebody else says.

[Jumalariik]

1. Yes there is objective truth. 2 times 2 is 4. Further, the lack of objective truth would itself be an objective truth, so no matter what, some form of objective truth exists. You can call it facts without the taint of personal opinion, but that is kind of what objectivity means. Objectivity means something that does not rely on personal opinion. The idea that there is one possible result to 4+4 is sort of obvious and questioning it is kind of silly.

2. K. If we make a law that bans murder, and the penalty is 30 years in prison, it would be an objective truth to say "there is a thirty year prison sentence for killing a person.

Please post something relevant.

What do you mean?

[Southerly Gentleman]

These people need to read the damn protocol to understand that it doesn't mean parents are killing their kids willy-nilly without any restriction.

^ According to this, since this euthanasia practice would only be applied under very severe circumstances, I believe the right for the child to stop suffering usurps their right to bodily sovereignty here.

Is there really a right to stop suffering?

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Yes it does.

If it doesn't then anything I say is equally true to something that somebody else says.