Bodily Autonomy or Denial of Biology?

Do you really want bodily autonomy to be sacrosanct?

As of yet, we don’t have public consensus on what bodily autonomy means. In fact, our laws are so inconsistent and nonsensical, it is difficult to determine where our rights to govern our bodies begin and end. While we hear a lot about bodily autonomy, it is far from sacrosanct. At best guess, our laws appear to reflect how we feel emotionally as a country based on what corporate and government propaganda we are receiving. The current trend seems to suggest we feel our bodily autonomy includes the right to escape our own biology.

We hear a lot about “rights” and that bodily autonomy is a right. I don’t see a lot of consistency or understanding of what right’s really are and how we apply them. Let’s begin our exploration of the battle between bodily autonomy and biology with “rights”.

RIGHTS:

Human Rights:

We have “Human Rights”. “Human Rights” are inherent and inalienable. That means is that they are a natural part of being a human being and cannot be granted or removed. No organization, group, ruler, etc. grant or give us human rights including governments or the United Nations. No one has the ability to give you human rights or remove them. Being inherent, human rights do not require anyone else to fulfill them or the labor rights. They are negative rights (cannot be removed) not positive rights (entitlement to be given). Every single human has human rights. I can argue they are either endowed by a Creator or biologically driven. In either case, we have a natural inclination to protect them. Our human rights are the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to pursue happiness.

Right to Life:

The right to life is a negative right meaning no one can deprive us of our life or commit violence against us. It is not a positive right meaning others must sustain us. The only time we have the right to commit violence against another is if it is in self-defense of our own life. Biologically, we see the automated response of flight, fight, or freeze to defend our right to life. This is the basis for all our other rights. Without the right to life, every other right cannot be pursued. I would argue elective abortion is an infringement upon the right to life with over 40 million deaths per year globally. Other instances of infringement upon the right to life would be casualties of war amongst civilians, the death penalty, and the killing of non-violent immigrants illegally crossing the border. Is it any wonder these are all issues debated frequently in our culture?

Right to Liberty:

The right to liberty is a negative right meaning no one can own us or impede our freedom. This is not a positive right meaning others must provide us with a path to freedom from natural consequences or outcomes of our own choices. Our right to liberty is already gravely impacted by government dictated laws. We do not have the freedom to drive a car without a driver’s license. The driver’s license is not what gives us the physical ability to drive. It is not a positive need. A driver’s license is a way for the government to track who has passed a driver’s test and to levy consequences for driving errors. Due to social security numbers or immigration requirements, we do not have the freedom to live without being tracked by the government. Biologically, humans will seek ways to live free of authority or restrictions. From protests to refusal to comply and attempts to flee capture to conscientious objection, we see humans seeking freedom. However, this right is not sacrosanct as we currently allow our governments to govern.

Right to Pursue Happiness:

The right to pursue happiness is a negative right meaning no one can impede our attempts to do what gives us purpose, passion, or joy. It is not a positive right meaning others must supply us with the circumstances to pursue happiness. Humans thrive under the ability to pursue that which gives them meaning and passion. Humans shrivel and fall into depression without the ability to use their natural gifts, creativity, and ambition. The right to pursue happiness is significantly infringed upon human right in modern times. Regarding meaningful work/employment, traveling, charitable giving, and creative pursuits; we allow the government to regulate our pursuits of purpose, passion, and joy considerably. Again, we do not need regulations to have the physical ability to pursue such things. They are restrictions against such pursuits.

Civil Rights:

Civil rights are rights granted by a governing body. It is no coincidence that the invention of civil rights often means infringements upon human rights. The Bill of Rights is a wonderful collection of civil rights that were given to prevent government from overreach. Unfortunately, our ability to prevent infringement against our human rights (which would all cover civil rights) was so poor we had to create further stipulations to keep government from trampling upon us. With the length of time our government allowed for vulnerable and minority populations to be infringed upon and our overall acceptance of government intrusion upon freedom, it is understandable movements have been created around securing human and civil rights for such populations.

Laws:

Laws are requirements or restrictions dictated by a governing body. They may attempt to provide further protections for human rights/civil rights or to restrict human rights/civil rights in some way.

So how does bodily autonomy fit with regards to rights?

BODILY AUTONOMY:

Bodily autonomy is broadly defined as the right to self-governance and self-determination. It is broken down into 3 types of bodily autonomy; Sovereign Zone, uni-personal, and right-to-refuse. So what are these bodily autonomy concepts and what would they look like if they were truly sacrosanct?

Sovereign Zone:

Sovereign zone regards the ability to determine what I do to my own body. It governs what actions we take that impact the inside our bodies and our external shell. This argument is used to justify any number of alterations people make to their body. Everything from tattoos and dying one’s hair to transgender surgery and abortion are examples of ways humans assert autonomy over what happens to their body. Sovereign Zone draws from the right to freedom, the pursuit of happiness, and when the life of a mother is at risk the right to life. However, the desire to alter one’s own body leads to many ethical and moral conflicts. It is easiest to break down alterations we make to our bodies into two categories: medically necessity and elective.

(For the purposes of this document, elective means not medically necessary. At times medically necessary treatments much be scheduled and are deemed elective in the medical community. For example, a medically necessary C-section in the case of pre-eclampsia may not be emergent and may therefore be stated as, “She elected to have her C-section done Thursday rather than Friday”.)

Medically necessary alterations are any procedures or treatments that are necessary to support, sustain, or prolong physical life when a diagnosis is made indicating a threat to life. I would be comfortable, as would most people I think, including wellness services to promote the best quality of life as a part of medically necessary alterations if it weren’t for the push to include attempts to “liberate” from healthy biology as healthcare and a “right”. This is where I begin to see the breakdown between bodily autonomy and healthy biology.

The beginning of attempts to include “liberation” from healthy biology as healthcare were popularized by Margaret Sanger in the United States. Not based on any illness or disease, those who saw the negative impacts of a society that focuses on material wealth, power, and fame began to see pregnancy, a healthy biological state for women, as an impediment to progress. Rather than embracing the natural and powerful abilities of the female reproductive system, women began to demand freedom from their own biology. Sanger sold the concept of contraception as a way to prevent “undesirables” from breeding and for women to seek power in a male dominated culture by becoming more like men.

The ability to have intimate relationships without pregnancy gave women options to manage the length and frequency of reproduction and freedom from dependence upon men or government who did not and still do not value women. While it is not a denial of biology to try and prevent stimuli from causing a biological process, it also isn’t a right to have access to something someone else produces. Does government have the power to regulate birth control? I would say the Constitution prohibits government from doing so. Yes, I am aware various Supreme Court decisions have given federal government far more control than it has a right to, including regulation of birth control. Getting a taste of control and the freedom to pursue happiness, women took it a step further.

Abortion is not denial of healthy biology. It is destruction of healthy female biology and the biology of her offspring. Does bodily autonomy give a woman the right to deconstruct her healthy biology? Does the right to determine what happens to one’s body include the right to determine what one’s body is supposed to do? Pregnancy is not an attack from an outside invader. It is not something forced upon women. Rape is forced upon women and is absolutely a violation of the Sovereign Zone, right-to-refuse, and uni-personal bodily autonomy (more on the last two later). No, a woman’s body doesn’t prevent pregnancy just because a rape occurs (as some woefully poorly informed politician claimed). A woman’s body responds to stimuli and reacts. Pregnancy though happens only with the cooperation of a woman’s body and biology. A man is required to access sperm necessary for fertilization, but men have no control over pregnancy. That is strictly a woman’s reproductive territory. Once an egg has been fertilized, a new life has been formed and a woman’s body either works with that life to bring about implantation or flushes the zygote (essentially a very early miscarriage).

What happens if we determine Sovereign Zone bodily autonomy includes the right to stop anything from happening in or to the body? For starters, forget any mandated vaccines or medications of any kind. We will no longer be able to restrict medications or procedures during pregnancy at all. Anyone who desires Thalidomide or Accutane during pregnancy can have it despite the health impacts to offspring that we know occur. No restrictions on drug use either. Next, transition surgery becomes a right at any point for anyone. No diagnosis needed. Anyone can pursue as much or as little transitioning as they want. This is only the beginning. Anyone who wishes not to gain weight regardless of eating habits has a right to any type of medical procedure to reduce weight. Currently, there are significant prerequisites to obtaining gastric bypass surgery because the increased risks of suicide post-surgery are so high compared to other surgeries (something abortion has in common). Tummy tucks, boob lifts, ass hikes, cheek implants, liposuction, lip augmentation, and any other cosmetic surgery you can think of becomes a right. Want features representing another culture? It is your right! Want to be disabled? It is your right.

The most tragic thing about the “liberation” from healthy biology is that it won’t solve any of the issues it is recommended for. Rather than cure mental health issues, it feeds the belief one’s worth relies upon the ability to control everything and dictate appearance and functioning of the body. It breeds an obsessiveness and fixation on the “other” rather than an appreciation and gratitude for the uniqueness of self. Women are not any more supported due to abortion. To the contrary, pregnancy (again, a natural and healthy biological state for women) has been weaponized and propagandized by such fear porn women are terrified of their own bodies. Women who want to be pregnant struggle to find the support, healthcare, and acceptance into mainstream society they require because the “solution” to pregnancy is to undo female biology and our offspring. Women have been told their freedom lies in being at war with their body (medicate or deconstruct it) and their offspring (burdens, parasites, and dream killers).

Uni-Personal:

Do uni-personal or right-to-refusal fare any better as sacrosanct rights of bodily autonomy? No, they are actually fare worse. Uni-personal bodily autonomy is the ability to determine what one does with one’s body (how you move/use your body). This is already a restricted right. We cannot legally drive a vehicle without using a seatbelt. We cannot legally walk down the middle of the road. We cannot drive drunk legally. Men cannot legally enter a woman’s restroom, locker room, or spa room. Consider what would happen if uni-personal bodily autonomy was sacrosanct. Any restriction placed on actions for the sake of risk to others would be removed. No more safe spaces (which are already under attack). No more driving laws. No separation between children and adults in public spaces. Right-of-refusal is no better.

Right-to-refusal:

The right-to-refusal is bodily autonomy that allows you to refuse medical treatment, unwanted/coerced/forced bodily intrusion, and demands for assistance. The most recent vaccine mandates imposed upon any organization offering government sponsored and dictated healthcare are one example of the lack of ability to refuse medical treatment. Mask mandates were the same. We do have laws against coercion and assault. However, those laws are set aside when you fail to comply with mandates that already remove your right to refuse. While we currently have conscience protections that allow us to refuse to engage in activities that go against our moral code or religious beliefs, the right-to-refusal (if sacrosanct) goes even farther. It would allow any parent to refuse medical treatment for there child for any reason as they are the consenting party. It would allow any medical professional to refuse to participant in any procedures for any reason at any time. It would allow any parent to abandon their child at any point for any reason without any restrictions.

While I would assert the rights of offspring to receive basic care overrides any right-of-refusal, abortion already declares the right-to-refusal as more important than the right to life or the right of offspring to receive basic care. Why do we have a distinction between offspring that are born and unborn regarding a right-to-refusal? Yes, a parent can give up a child after birth, but there are legal consequences to doing so if discovered and protocol to follow. (I am not advocating for the criminalization of women seeking abortion here and I realize that may be an inconsistency in my logic.) Do we believe parents are responsible for their offspring? When does that responsibility begin? Abortion places the onus of responsibility for offspring on women. Any poor outcomes in life that are painted as the result of children (rather than the fault of a society that fails to support women, children, fathers, and families) are therefore the failures of women for not choosing abortion. This doesn’t breed a desire to increase support for women’s biology. It makes a scapegoat of women’s biology and children.

While it is true, as we explored earlier, a man is not responsible for pregnancy in that only a woman’s body can work with a zygote to cause implantation, I would like to think men are responsible from conception for the children to whom they are biologically fathers. Abortion removes the father’s responsibilities as he no longer has rights to his offspring during pregnancy. Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not advocating women require approval from the biological father for an abortion. That would not do any good to the already growing imbalance between men and women. What I am suggesting is that abortion removes the responsibilities of men along with their rights to parent. Yet again, women are thrown under the bus.

CONCLUSION:

I am not advocating for any particular position here regarding laws or access to services. What I am suggesting is that our current trajectory is not going to bring about the outcomes we claim to desire: equality, diversity, and inclusion. If the past 50 years have taught us nothing, it is that we cannot escape the realities of our biology and attempts to do so lessen the acknowledgement of our interdependence and support that ought to flow from that. We are racing after an individuality that deconstructs any attachment we have to reality and increases resentment and victimhood. If we cannot have everything we want without consequences, we will destroy ourselves trying. There is a clear line of truth we can follow that will lead us back to sanity, strength, and congruence with human rights. It begins with embracing our biology and pivoting to attacking bad policy and greed that seeks to point the finger at our bodies.