SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Endus]

You dont have bodily autonomy as a corpse. You are quasi property. If your next of kin decides to donate your organs they can no matter how you felt about it in life or if you're a donor or not. They can donate you to science. They can even creamate you if you wanted buried.

But the doctors can't just take your organs. And if you don't have a next of kin, if you're a John Doe, and you didn't pre-emptively give permission, they can't take anything either, even though (if you're "property") you "belong" to the State at that point.

Next of kin only get such rights because they are considered to be speaking for you. It's a form of power of attorney, just less formalized.

[Elegiac]

You missed the part about being quasi property which changes things dramatically. Nice way to make yourself look stupid.

ITT: Power of attorney makes you quasi-property, apparently.

The basis for not being able to make executive decisions over a corpse without being empowered to do so as an advocate is still bodily autonomy, sweetheart, not property rights.

[Edge-]

Remember how DHS warned of violence this weekend? I haven't seen much, but there is this - https://www.motherjones.com/politics...otesters-iowa/

Which is not abortion-rights protesters engaging in violence. It's some guy in a truck apparently driving passed a line of stopped cars, running a red, and then driving through a crowd of people. Police are investigating.

[Elegiac]

But the doctors can't just take your organs. And if you don't have a next of kin, if you're a John Doe, and you didn't pre-emptively give permission, they can't take anything either, even though (if you're "property") you "belong" to the State at that point.

Next of kin only get such rights because they are considered to be speaking for you. It's a form of power of attorney, just less formalized.

It's also missing the point that the comparison to postmortem bodily integrity is one of pointing out the absurdity in making right to life based arguments against abortion. Because, again, the direct analogue is forced organ or blood donation.

But I'm sure we'll get some cockamamie response to the effect of "being a slut gives the state consent to violate your rights" or some horseshit in that vein.

[Moadar]

But the doctors can't just take your organs. And if you don't have a next of kin, if you're a John Doe, and you didn't pre-emptively give permission, they can't take anything either, even though (if you're "property") you "belong" to the State at that point.

Next of kin only get such rights because they are considered to be speaking for you. It's a form of power of attorney, just less formalized.

They can't but they can decide several other things such as having you embalmed and cremated. They can pass you off to mortuary schools to have the embalming done.

Quasi property grants that the corpse has some qualities of property without being so. You don't belong to anyone only your method of disposal.

[Endus]

They can't but they can decide several other things such as having you embalmed and cremated. They can pass you off to mortuary schools to have the embalming done.

Because there's standardized end-of-life procedures.

If you didn't have a stated preference, they'll ensure you get the default. That's not the same thing at all.

[Moadar]

ITT: Power of attorney makes you quasi-property, apparently.

The basis for not being able to make executive decisions over a corpse without being empowered to do so as an advocate is still bodily autonomy, sweetheart, not property rights.

Bodily autonomy has zero to do with it.

[Edge-]

They can't but they can decide several other things such as having you embalmed and cremated. They can pass you off to mortuary schools to have the embalming done.

Quasi property grants that the corpse has some qualities of property without being so. You don't belong to anyone only your method of disposal.

Unless you have a will or have made other arrangements, for example. I'm an organ donor now, and if I die my organs are getting donated. I don't have a will beyond that, so my next of kin (parents or brother or whatever) can't say shit if they disagree with my decision to choose to donate my organs upon death. And if I get around to making arrangements for the rest of my body to be donated to science - a medical school or a body farm or something - they similarly can't do shit about it. I've made those arrangements, and me being dead doesn't nullify them. Because I still have bodily autonomy even as a corpse.

They get to make decisions that I haven't made and now can't make because I'm a corpse. But they do not get carte blanche to do whatever they want when I die.

[Elegiac]

Bodily autonomy has zero to do with it.

Because you say so. Okay.

Are you gonna address the other comparisons, chiefly forced organ or blood donation?

[Endus]

Bodily autonomy has zero to do with it.

It has everything to do with it.

It's literally the "quasi" you keep having to add to "property", because your corpse is not State property, at any point. Caring for its final rest is part of the procedures if you don't have a next of kin or a will or your own requests on file to work from. That isn't because the State owns you in any way, it's because you're entitled to that, even after death.

If you were property, they could harvest you. They can't. Because you're not. Because even after death, your desires about the use of your body must be respected.

[Moadar]

Unless you have a will or have made other arrangements, for example. I'm an organ donor now, and if I die my organs are getting donated. I don't have a will beyond that, so my next of kin (parents or brother or whatever) can't say shit if they disagree with my decision to choose to donate my organs upon death. And if I get around to making arrangements for the rest of my body to be donated to science - a medical school or a body farm or something - they similarly can't do shit about it. I've made those arrangements, and me being dead doesn't nullify them. Because I still have bodily autonomy even as a corpse.

They get to make decisions that I haven't made and now can't make because I'm a corpse. But they do not get carte blanche to do whatever they want when I die.

1. You don't have bodily autonomy now.

2. They can fight your decision.

"Over in the United States, the criteria for donating a body to science is basically the same and require you to sign a few forms signalling consent prior to death and, again, it’s a good idea to inform your family of your wishes in regards to body disposal because, as in the UK, the ultimate decision of what happens to your body rests with your kin. As the Forensic Anthropology Center of the University of Tennessee puts it:

Regardless of what you have arranged, signed or instructed, your family or next-of-kin has the final say. We will not fight your family for your body. We urge you to convince your family that the donation is what you want at your death."

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index....20your%20death.

[Elegiac]

1. You don't have bodily autonomy now.

2. They can fight your decision.

"Over in the United States, the criteria for donating a body to science is basically the same and require you to sign a few forms signalling consent prior to death and, again, it’s a good idea to inform your family of your wishes in regards to body disposal because, as in the UK, the ultimate decision of what happens to your body rests with your kin. As the Forensic Anthropology Center of the University of Tennessee puts it:

Regardless of what you have arranged, signed or instructed, your family or next-of-kin has the final say. We will not fight your family for your body. We urge you to convince your family that the donation is what you want at your death."

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index....20your%20death.

Why on earth do you think this disputes the notion of postmortem bodily autonomy being a thing?

All your quote says is that there's a high bar for demonstrating consent for non-default uses of a corpse. And you're still avoiding addressing the point - that being the right to life does not supersede the right to bodily autonomy in any circumstance.

[Edge-]

1. You don't have bodily autonomy now.

But I do.

2. They can fight your decision.

If I'm still alive, sure.

"Over in the United States, the criteria for donating a body to science is basically the same and require you to sign a few forms signalling consent prior to death and, again, it’s a good idea to inform your family of your wishes in regards to body disposal because, as in the UK, the ultimate decision of what happens to your body rests with your kin.

We're talking about the United States of America, not the United Kingdom.

As the Forensic Anthropology Center of the University of Tennessee puts it:

Regardless of what you have arranged, signed or instructed, your family or next-of-kin has the final say. We will not fight your family for your body. We urge you to convince your family that the donation is what you want at your death."

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index....20your%20death.

https://www.donoralliance.org/newsro...to-be-a-donor/

As an adult (18 years or older), your decision to be a donor is a first-person authorized advanced directive. Just like a will, this decision is legally binding and cannot be overridden by your family; which is why it’s so important to discuss donation with your loved ones.

[Moadar]

But I do.



If I'm still alive, sure.



We're talking about the United States of America, not the United Kingdom.



https://www.donoralliance.org/newsro...to-be-a-donor/

1. If you did you could freely commit suicide without arrest. People who "cut" wouldn't be forced into treatment.

2. What I posted covers the United states. You mentioned donating to science not just organ donation.

[Elegiac]

1. If you did you could freely commit suicide without arrest.

This is as inane as claiming that there isn't (or should not be) a right to protest because police brutality is a thing.

A flawed system that improperly guarantees a right does not mean that right doesn't exist.

[Edge-]

1. If you did you could freely commit suicide without arrest. People who "cut" wouldn't be forced into treatment.

...what? Freely commit suicide with arrest? You're dead dude, you can't arrest a corpse. People who self-harm should be encouraged to get mental health (or physical health) treatment, but as I previously stated I fully support end-of-life care including medically assisted suicide.

2. What I posted covers the United states. You mentioned donating to science not just organ donation.

And I shared conflicting information. I'll stick with mine, since it jives with everything I've learned and experienced when dealing with the estates of deceased family members over my lifetime.

[Moadar]

This is as inane as claiming that there isn't (or should not be) a right to protest because police brutality is a thing.

A flawed system that improperly guarantees a right does not mean that right doesn't exist.

That's just your opinion until the law aligns. Until then reality of the situation isn't in your favor.

[Elegiac]

That's just your opinion until the law aligns. Until then reality of the situation isn't in your favor.

Well luckily for me the law does largely align with the notion of bodily autonomy since, again, you cannot be forced to donate body parts or functions for the purpose of saving someone's life.

[Moadar]

...what? Freely commit suicide with arrest? You're dead dude, you can't arrest a corpse. People who self-harm should be encouraged to get mental health (or physical health) treatment, but as I previously stated I fully support end-of-life care including medically assisted suicide.



And I shared conflicting information. I'll stick with mine, since it jives with everything I've learned and experienced when dealing with the estates of deceased family members over my lifetime.

Go announce you plan to commit suicide and see how much bodily autonomy you have.

No you are assuming organ donation and donating to science are the same thing. That's two separate conversations.

- - - Updated - - -

Well luckily for me the law does largely align with the notion of bodily autonomy since, again, you cannot be forced to donate body parts or functions for the purpose of saving someone's life.

If that was all it covered you would be right but the fact roe was over turned means you are probably wrong about things in some states.

[Endus]

1. If you did you could freely commit suicide without arrest. People who "cut" wouldn't be forced into treatment.

Neither of those are about bodily autonomy.

You're really just demonstrating you don't understand the topic.

Edit: I'll also note that attempting suicide isn't even illegal in most countries. Certainly isn't in the USA.