My body, my choice is the rallying cry feminists employ to defend bodily autonomy and the individual's right of self determination over their bodies for sexual, marriage, and reproductive choices as rights. The slogan has been used most often to support a woman's right to abortion in the face external domination or duress, most notably government legislature or religious objections.
Bodily autonomy is connected to bodily integrity, which, according to Wikipedia (slightly edited):
is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy, self-ownership, and self-determination of human being over their own bodies. In the field of human rights, the violation of the bodily integrity of another is regarded as either an unethical and/or possibly criminal infringement. Freedom of choice describes an individual's opportunities and autonomy to perform an action selected from at least two available options, unconstrained by external parties.
For decades, human rights lawyers and activists have been passionately utilizing bodily integrity to defend a woman's right to murder her own unborn children. I wonder if these same lawyers and activists will use similar tactics to defend people who are opposed to their governments' injecting them with potentially risky substances under the pretext of protecting everyone from the birdemic?
What about the issue of immunity certificates, which will grant the immunized certain benefits but leave those who choose to pass on immunization out in the cold?
Let's have a look . . . (bold, underlining added)
The International Air Transport Association (IATA) is planning the pass as a digital certification which will allow for the revitalization of international travel by proving that those who it authorizes are safe from the virus.
Other forms of proving protection from the virus are also in the works. The World Economic Forum, the Commons Project, and a number of public and private partners are currently collaborating to create the CommonPass, an app which proves the user’s COVID-19 status, allowing them to travel abroad.
The app has been criticized by human rights activists, who say that it could be unfair, since not everyone has a smartphone.
Well, it appears the only thing human rights activists and lawyers are worried about is equity and accessibility. So much for bodily integrity.
But we still have choices, right? Sure! You could choose to forget going abroad and stay within the borders of your country. Problem solved.
Air travel is one thing, but immunity certificates are also being suggested for other activities including attending concerts, visiting museums, eating at restaurants. They could potentially be required for activities of a more essential nature like grocery shopping, accessing public health services, and being employed.
Despite these proposed restrictions, everyone can rest assured that immunization will remain purely voluntary. After all, we all possess fundamental, inalienable rights that simply cannot be violated; and we have pieces of paper somewhere in our capital cities attesting to this . . . or whatever.
Bodily autonomy is connected to bodily integrity, which, according to Wikipedia (slightly edited):
is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy, self-ownership, and self-determination of human being over their own bodies. In the field of human rights, the violation of the bodily integrity of another is regarded as either an unethical and/or possibly criminal infringement. Freedom of choice describes an individual's opportunities and autonomy to perform an action selected from at least two available options, unconstrained by external parties.
For decades, human rights lawyers and activists have been passionately utilizing bodily integrity to defend a woman's right to murder her own unborn children. I wonder if these same lawyers and activists will use similar tactics to defend people who are opposed to their governments' injecting them with potentially risky substances under the pretext of protecting everyone from the birdemic?
What about the issue of immunity certificates, which will grant the immunized certain benefits but leave those who choose to pass on immunization out in the cold?
Let's have a look . . . (bold, underlining added)
The International Air Transport Association (IATA) is planning the pass as a digital certification which will allow for the revitalization of international travel by proving that those who it authorizes are safe from the virus.
Other forms of proving protection from the virus are also in the works. The World Economic Forum, the Commons Project, and a number of public and private partners are currently collaborating to create the CommonPass, an app which proves the user’s COVID-19 status, allowing them to travel abroad.
The app has been criticized by human rights activists, who say that it could be unfair, since not everyone has a smartphone.
Well, it appears the only thing human rights activists and lawyers are worried about is equity and accessibility. So much for bodily integrity.
But we still have choices, right? Sure! You could choose to forget going abroad and stay within the borders of your country. Problem solved.
Air travel is one thing, but immunity certificates are also being suggested for other activities including attending concerts, visiting museums, eating at restaurants. They could potentially be required for activities of a more essential nature like grocery shopping, accessing public health services, and being employed.
Despite these proposed restrictions, everyone can rest assured that immunization will remain purely voluntary. After all, we all possess fundamental, inalienable rights that simply cannot be violated; and we have pieces of paper somewhere in our capital cities attesting to this . . . or whatever.
RSS Feed
