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 -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

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 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Lightor@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yes, the "No you are." I'm in favor of %100 body autonomy, what nuance am I missing?

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

100% absolute body autonomy would mean consent doesn't have to be informed. That's the meaning of the word "absolute."

[–] Lightor@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I agree, it doesn't have to be. But if you want assistance, that assistance can inform you before assisting. You can inject bleach at home, but a doctor doesn't have to do it for you. Your autonomy does not obligate others to act and it doesn't prevent them from giving you information.

So yeah, I'm %100 for it still. How exactly do I not understand?

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Ok great, then people can commit suicide at home but that doesn't compel anyone to act to assist them. Looks like my stance is fully consistent with bodily autonomy and your objection is meaningless.

[–] Lightor@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

My objection, my objection to what? I think you're maybe taking the who "roleplay your username" a bit far. You don't even know what you're arguing at this point. You brought up a person wanting to get injected with bleach randomly like some gotcha when everyone here is in favor of autonomy. I agree people should be able to do it at home. Others shouldn't be compelled to help but they should be allowed to help if they want to. What exactly did I object against?

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Your objection to my position, which is that you claim it's contrary to bodily autonomy.

Of course I'm against taking bodily autonomy as an absolute principle, because no rights are absolute. However, the way you've defined it, "absolute bodily autonomy" still allows you to be barred from doing something if a doctor decides you're not informed enough, or if it would mean compelling someone to assist you. That isn't what absolute means to me, but I'm willing to accept your definition. But by that definition, opposition to assisted suicide is comparable with "absolute bodily autonomy." So your claim that I don't support bodily autonomy is baseless.

I don't see what the confusion is. If absolute bodily autonomy can't compel people to act, then assisted suicide, which by definition involves another person's assistance, isn't covered by bodily autonomy.