• OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        That’s because it’s unreasonable and made in bad faith.

        I don’t support any right as an absolute principle. Rights have to be balanced against each other with consideration of the material effects. What you’re doing is applying a principle designed to cover one type of situation to a situation that is only superficially similar. A reductive tactic to avoid engaging with the complexity of the issue.

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Not beating the bad faith allegations lmao

            If it’s such a simple issue, why couldn’t you answer my question 🤔 could it be that you don’t support bodily autonomy as an absolute principle either 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

        • Lightor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Lol and yours isn’t in bad faith. Comparing an informed decision to end their life against someone wanting to inject bleach because they think it will help them when it would kill them. One is misinformed, the other is not.

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            It’s not a comparison at all. People on here really don’t seem to understand how hypotheticals work.

            What I’m doing with that is merely establishing that the right to bodily autonomy is, like all rights, not absolute. There are cases where it has to be balanced against other rights or material considerations. At no point did I claim that it was analogous to assisted suicide. There is nothing remotely bad faith about establishing that point.

            • Lightor@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              You brought up a random hypothetical that’s not meant to be analogous but you used it in your argument… You asked if it was body autonomy to want to inject bleech, ignoring the nuance of being informed or not. It was a bad faith example, and you continued to ignore nuance to force an answer you wanted.

              Your hypothetical is about someone making an uninformed decision that could kill them. This story is about a person making an informed one. Yes, if someone wants to do something that could harm them, without turn realizing, we should educate them. But if the person is informed and wants to take their life, that’s their right. And if a person wants to inject bleach, knowing full well what it will do, then that’s their right, it’s their life. Trying to parent every adult in the world is silly and insulting.

              • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                So you don’t support bodily autonomy as an absolute principle. Or else you don’t understand what the word “absolute” means.

                • Lightor@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  I mean you can tell me what I support and what I don’t understand all you want. I %100 agree with full body autonomy. I have a hunch you just see too black and white to understand the nuance I tried to highlight.

                  • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    I’m the one trying to highlight nuance, you’re the one trying to insist everything’s black and white.