true - this idea is illustrated by, strangely enough, slavery and contract power. citizens of the united states have the power to contract and to own property. slaves, on the other hand, were not allowed to enter into contract and were not allowed to own property; they were the property of those who could (i.e. citizens). the power to contract is the ability to bind oneself to another - and by extension, this means that a citizen, effectively, owns himself: his body, his self, his entire being. thus, his body is his property.
oddly enough, charlie brought up slavery in his response to my comment that christian religious arguments against abortion aren't supported by the actual text of the bible. there are instances in which fetuses are clearly placed in a separate category. in my first post on this subject, i mentioned that the bible treats harm or killing of a fetus as a property crime rather than a murder -- specifically, a property crime against the woman's husband, not the woman herself, who is also considered his property.
charlie said that the bible also supports the concept of slavery, but he does not agree with it. yet, my friend, b., the law school student, states that by law, a slave cannot own property because he or she is the property of another. those who can own property are defined as 'citizens.' it would be interesting to know more about what is considered 'property' and how it pertains to a person's control over his or her body. you cannot, for instance, sell an organ. however, you can donate one. i'm not completely versed in the laws regulating donations, but i am sure there are a host of other restrictions. you cannot donate blood if you are a man who has had sex with another man, or a woman who has had sex with such a man. prostitutes, IV drugs users and their sexual partners are also forbidden to donate blood. you can be committed involuntarily to a psychiatric care facility if you attempt suicide. someone who helps another person commit suicide can be charged with a crime.
there are a morass of regulations that determine who receives life-saving organ donations. these rules and a big dose of chance determine who lives and who dies on the waiting list. people nearby the scene of a donor's untimely death are given much weightier consideration than those who are farther away. other factors such as age, health, and medical history also play a role. it is in the management of those known factors in making decisions as to who will receive those scarce organs, that the law has a say in matters of life and death.
the question now is -- does a woman's legally protected property rights over her own body cover her right to abortion? the supreme court has already ruled that the right to abortion is covered under the right to privacy. i think the argument acknowledges there is no specific mention of the right to privacy in the constitution. the majority opinion argued that this right was inherent in the language of the consitution and a body of legal precedents limiting the state's power over citizens.
the law does not recognize 'personhood' from the moment of conception onward. to do so would invite a host of other questions that have no legal precedent whatsoever. how would birth control pills be regulated under such a legal climate? a series of multiple-pill doses following unprotected sex, rape, or a contraception failure can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus. if that fertilized egg is considered a person with full rights under the law, the 'morning-after' treatment is then an act of murder, subject to the same penalties applied to someone who smothers a ten-month-old infant.
does this fertilized egg's rights extend then to a legally defensible claim on the woman's body for the duration of the pregnancy? are parents required to donate a kidney to their dying child if they are suitable donors? they are not required to donate for anyone else. are they even required to donate blood? how far is the state allowed to invade the bodily privacy of a woman to prevent the murder of an embryo? how much control over her relationship with her doctor is the state permitted to have? a high percentage of pregnancies end in miscarriage. is every one of those subject to a full murder investigation such as in the case of a 6 month old infant who is shaken to death?
i think the idea of autonomy over your body is also somewhat illustrated in 4th amendment search and seizure cases. as a general rule, the police cannot forcibly excise evidence from someone's body, like making someone throw up or through surgery. i forget the other factors, but that came into mind. the police cannot search your house without a warrant, etc. it's like your body is somewhere the state cannot go, just like your property. yadda yadda. anyhow, this is a general illustration of the idea that one's body is private and the state can't go there.
could they prevent you from having surgery to remove something from your body? so far, i have noted that you cannot sell an organ, and i doubt you could have surgery that would undeniably kill you -- like having your brain removed for instance.
No comments:
Post a Comment