Bodily Autonomy

Now that the initial emotional outbursts regarding Dobbs vs. Jackson have simmered down a bit, I'd like to suggest a new approach to questions like this that is both far-reaching and consistent with the objective upon which this nation was founded: i.e. Liberty. While politicians and their tribes are constantly trying to either repeal or invent "rights" to give them power or advantage over others, here's a concept that - in one fell swoop - would maximize liberty and decrease the power of the state.

It's called bodily autonomy. It means that you, by virtue of being alive, own yourself. In turn, that means you control your own body, and the main function of the state, under the Constitution, is to protect your right to own and control your own body.

For those who value liberty, bodily autonomy is a cornerstone of liberty. It means that your body, your life and your property are yours by right, and are not subject to the whims of others, as long as you respect the same rights of others. Now, of course, actions have consequences, so poor choices can lead to poor results, but nonetheless consider just a few of the freedoms that bodily autonomy would give us:

• Abortion - Have one or don't.
• Vaccinations - Get one or don't.
• Military Service - Join if you wish, but no draft, because that's - well - slavery.
• Organ Sales - They're yours, and what you do with them is your choice.
• The War On Drugs - What you put in your body is your choice.
• Contraception - Ditto.
• Sex Work - Sell what you will, it belongs to you.
• Sexual Orientation: It's your choice and no one else's business.
• Jury Duty - Similar to the draft, it's involuntary conscription. That's bad.

Now, of course, there are certain authoritarian types who won't like this idea. One group is the authoritarian socialists, who believe that you belong either to the state or to society. The other group is the religious authoritarians, who believe you belong to some imaginary sky god. They're the ones running the system now. Are we having fun yet?

My point here is that any time you decide some centralized authority should decide for everyone, you're inviting bureaucracy and inefficiency and injustice and perhaps most of all power-seeking types. You know the people I'm talking about. They crave control over others. You probably work with a few of them. Do you really want your nosey neighbor, or the office manager with the undercover agent fantasies who times your bathroom breaks, or your mother-in-law controlling you? In the former Soviet Union they were call "Apparatchiks" - the bureaucrats who lived the Peter Principle to the fullest. Here's they're called "civil servants". Every time you want something nationalized, you're empowering these people. It's a poor choice.

Finally, because I know that some religious type is going to claim that abortion hurts the "unborn child" (biology has never been their strong point), riddle me this: if you can't claim a fetus on your income tax because the government doesn't consider it a person, and you can't ride in the carpool lane alone when you're pregnant because the government doesn't consider the fetus a person .... then how in the *expletive deleted* is it only a "person" when you're forcing a woman to carry it to term??

Bodily autonomy .... it's an idea whose time has come.