Quote (TiStuff @ Jul 9 2023 07:51pm)
what point do you think i was making?
I often find myself wondering.
Quote (bogie160 @ Jul 9 2023 08:05pm)
It raises an essential question. Parental obligations are clearly violations of bodily autonomy, insofar as the parents are obligated to care for the child, at an colossal personal expense of time and health. In the father's case, doubly so as he cannot "abort" that obligation before the child is born. It would seem to follow that a parent should be able to release that obligation, with some minimal notice period, if the right to bodily autonomy is truly sacrosanct.
Aside, it's interesting that bodily autonomy tends to be a concern insofar as it applies to bonds which compete with the state. In this case we're talking about obligations of kinship. To a segment of society, at least, that's an onerous chain to be broken in order for the individual to be truly free. At the same time, society all too often recognizes that humans are not designed to function in isolation, and government must then by substitution provide goods previously supplied elsewhere (in this case, by family). It's neo-Platonic in a way. The question is whether an impersonal government can better address an individuals organic needs better than bonds which are written into our DNA. I have the sense that we're making a big mistake.
While I'm sure there's a conversation to have about parental obligation post-birth, including that of a father, I think the argument of bodily autonomy is specific in its focus on the body. Pregnancy is a very unique thing to consider from the place of 'rights', imo, as it is the one instance (at least, that I can think of), where two beings are superimposed with respect to physical space. As such, their rights become superimposed, and every single one of us 'violates' the rights of one party based off of our opinion on abortion.