Does the US Constitution allow states to write laws allowing someone else to use your body?

[multivita-man]

I posted this in another thread and haven't received a response yet, and am wondering if I'll actually get one, so I wanted to pose the question here:

In general, do you think that the Constitution permits states to write laws that essentially require one person to allow another individual unfettered use of their body? Forget the fetus for a moment, let's imagine that your neighbor across the street is in need of a kidney and doctors a few years into the future check their advanced medical database and determine you'd be a good match. Can the state require you to become a kidney donor, to help your neighbor?

Discuss.

 

[dncc]

I posted this in another thread and haven't received a response yet, and am wondering if I'll actually get one, so I wanted to pose the question here:

In general, do you think that the Constitution permits states to write laws that essentially require one person to allow another individual unfettered use of their body? Forget the fetus for a moment, let's imagine that your neighbor across the street is in need of a kidney and doctors a few years into the future check their advanced medical database and determine you'd be a good match. Can the state require you to become a kidney donor, to help your neighbor?

Discuss.

Its hard to imagine a reading of the constitution that would allow that....

Then again....its hard to imagine a reading of the Constitution that would allow Obamacare to stand (forcing people to buy insurance) and a reading that says you have no right to privacy when it comes to healthcare decisions about your body.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Its hard to imagine a reading of the constitution that would allow that....

Then again....its hard to imagine a reading of the Constitution that would allow Obamacare to stand (forcing people to buy insurance) and a reading that says you have no right to privacy when it comes to healthcare decisions about your body.

Most first world countries have UHC and nearly every UHC country requires everyone to have insurance. There's nothing in our constitution that would prevent that. Most of the things our government does is not mentioned in the constitution.

What it's really about is people like you being greedy takers who don't want to pay in their share. When you show up to a hospital with a gunshot wound and no insurance, do you want us to just let you die? You know that won't happen, society will save you and have to swallow the costs because of your greed.

Everyone with a human body needs healthcare, it's not optional, so stop pretending it is.

 

[bluesmoke]

Its hard to imagine a reading of the constitution that would allow that....

Then again....its hard to imagine a reading of the Constitution that would allow Obamacare to stand (forcing people to buy insurance) and a reading that says you have no right to privacy when it comes to healthcare decisions about your body.

If we had national healthcare like advanced societies have, then people would have health insurance without being forced to buy it.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I posted this in another thread and haven't received a response yet, and am wondering if I'll actually get one, so I wanted to pose the question here:

In general, do you think that the Constitution permits states to write laws that essentially require one person to allow another individual unfettered use of their body? Forget the fetus for a moment, let's imagine that your neighbor across the street is in need of a kidney and doctors a few years into the future check their advanced medical database and determine you'd be a good match. Can the state require you to become a kidney donor, to help your neighbor?

Discuss.

Well, technically the Constitution once did contain sections allowing States with Slavery certain rights to do so (see Article IV Section 2 paragraph 3); to count Slaves as three-fifths of a person for Taxation and Representation (see Article I, Section 2 Paragraph 3).

However, while the 13th Amendment generally abolished slavery it still allowed "involuntary servitude, ...as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." That permitted prison labor (chain gangs), and still allows prisons to compel inmates to work.

Penal labor in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, even today the answer is "yes, under certain specific circumstances."

Of course, despite the OP's "forget the fetus for a moment" attempt to pretend this poll isn't really about abortion rights, it is leading to the argument that pregnancy is a form of bondage.

It is disingenuous to argue that the natural process whereby ALL human beings come into existence (including the mothers and fathers of every "inseminated ova") somehow equates to "allowing someone else to use your body." As if it is in fact "slavery" rather than an amazing biological mechanism which led to human existence itself, which is a false equivalence.

So to answer the actual underlying point; no, getting pregnant and carrying a child to term is not "allowing someone else to use your body." That is like stating everyone who can read this response exists as the result of "enslaving their mother's body."

 

[CaughtInThe]

Well, technically the Constitution once did contain sections allowing States with Slavery certain rights to do so

thanks for that example. and i'm being serious.

 

[dncc]

Most first world countries have UHC and nearly every UHC country requires everyone to have insurance. There's nothing in our constitution that would prevent that. Most of the things our government does is not mentioned in the constitution.

That is true.

What it's really about is people like you being greedy takers who don't want to pay in their share.

That is false

When you show up to a hospital with a gunshot wound and no insurance, do you want us to just let you die?

Don't be stupid.

You know that won't happen, society will save you and have to swallow the costs because of your greed.

I would hope we all would want society to save gunshot victims and as a great society...not have losers on a message board complain about it.

Everyone with a human body needs healthcare, it's not optional, so stop pretending it is.

You seem to be doing a lot of pretending.

First and foremost...you pretend like you know where I stand.

I am 100% for government healthcare--aka Obamacare. Its insane that we have this system where you buy your car insurance on your own, you buy your renters insurance on you own, you buy your homeowners insurance on your own...you get your healthcare insurance through your employer???? Its nuts.

Your asinine assumption that I'm against the ACA means you don't understand the question in the OP. The question is about the constitution. While it's true that most things the government does are not in the constitution...the ACA is among the only (if not THE ONLY) things he government does that force you to buy insurance or pay a penalty if you don't.

 

[dncc]

If we had national healthcare like advanced societies have, then people would have health insurance without being forced to buy it.

True.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

That is true.

That is false

Don't be stupid.

I would hope we all would want society to save gunshot victims and as a great society...not have losers on a message board complain about it.

You seem to be doing a lot of pretending.

First and foremost...you pretend like you know where I stand.

I am 100% for government healthcare--aka Obamacare. Its insane that we have this system where you buy your car insurance on your own, you buy your renters insurance on you own, you buy your homeowners insurance on your own...you get your healthcare insurance through your employer???? Its nuts.

Your asinine assumption that I'm against the ACA means you don't understand the question in the OP. The question is about the constitution. While it's true that most things the government does are not in the constitution...the ACA is among the only (if not THE ONLY) things he government does that force you to buy insurance or pay a penalty if you don't.

You literally whined about Obamacare and stated you can't imagine how it's constitutional, so don't try to be coy and pretend you didn't.

You can whine all you want about it, but it doesn't change the fact that EVERYONE needs healthcare, so everyone needs to pay for health insurance. No, we shouldn't let uninsured people get a free ride after they hurt themselves. Get over it.

 

[American]

I posted this in another thread and haven't received a response yet, and am wondering if I'll actually get one, so I wanted to pose the question here:

In general, do you think that the Constitution permits states to write laws that essentially require one person to allow another individual unfettered use of their body? Forget the fetus for a moment, let's imagine that your neighbor across the street is in need of a kidney and doctors a few years into the future check their advanced medical database and determine you'd be a good match. Can the state require you to become a kidney donor, to help your neighbor?

Discuss.

Ever heard of the Selective Service? You know, where men can get conscripted into the military, and get killed? Of course women are exempt from the Draft, but they piss and moan about abortion rights, which btw aren't eliminated by the revocation of Roe. But let's continue to live the ****ing lie that men always have it better than women; however you define them.

 

[multivita-man]

Ever heard of the Selective Service? You know, where men can get conscripted into the military, and get killed? Of course women are exempt from the Draft, but they piss and moan about abortion rights, which btw aren't eliminated by the revocation of Roe. But let's continue to live the ****ing lie that men always have it better than women; however you define them.

Meh, I think selective service should be inclusive to women. Wouldn't have a problem with an expansion of it.

 

[American]

Meh, I think selective service should be inclusive to women. Wouldn't have a problem with an expansion of it.

All that matters is that it isn't, and that a long known inequality between men and women. It's never been remedied, and the consequential difference is life and death. I don't see women protesting at the US Capitol to change that law.

 

[aociswundumho]

If we had national healthcare like advanced societies have, then people would have health insurance without being forced to buy it.

True.

It's not true. If it's being paid for by taxation, then people are being forced to pay for it

 

[Rexedgar]

All that matters is that it isn't, and that a long known inequality between men and women. It's never been remedied, and the consequential difference is life and death. I don't see women protesting at the US Capitol to change that law.

Draft Resistance 1965-1972 - Mapping American Social Movements Project

depts.washington.edu

You may be too young.

draft riots 1863 - Google Search

www.google.com

I’m a little young for this one.

You get drafted, I did.

 

[American]

If we had national healthcare like advanced societies have, then people would have health insurance without being forced to buy it.

When people say shit like this, it means they are completely ignorant of the subject matter. So who pays for it, the Tooth Fairy?

 

[Noodlegawd]

I posted this in another thread and haven't received a response yet, and am wondering if I'll actually get one, so I wanted to pose the question here:

In general, do you think that the Constitution permits states to write laws that essentially require one person to allow another individual unfettered use of their body? Forget the fetus for a moment, let's imagine that your neighbor across the street is in need of a kidney and doctors a few years into the future check their advanced medical database and determine you'd be a good match. Can the state require you to become a kidney donor, to help your neighbor?

Discuss.

Did you have something to do with the fact that your neighbor needs a kidney? Perhaps you knowingly fed him some 2 year old pork?

We already have at least one law that allows the government to use your body - to enslave you in fact.

 

[aociswundumho]

Did you have something to do with the fact that your neighbor needs a kidney? Perhaps you knowingly fed him some 2 year old pork?

We already have at least one law that allows the government to use your body - to enslave you in fact.

That's right, and it's overwhelmingly supported by people who are too old to be drafted.

I'd say that an income tax law also allows the government to use your body. If someone works 40 hours per week at 20 per hour, and the government confiscates $200 of their paycheck every week, then they are essentially a slave to the state for 10 hours per week.

 

[Noodlegawd]

I'd say that an income tax law also allows the government to use your body. If someone works 40 hours per week at 20 per hour, and the government confiscates $200 of their paycheck every week, then they are essentially a slave to the state for 10 hours per week.

Pish posh. Everybody know that people who only make $20/hour don't pay any taxes, and that rich people don't really work.

 

[Taylor]

Sure. My body is forced to perform extra labor to support others via the tax code.

 

[Spunkylama]

If we get rid of body autonomy we could just use the supply of infants for all the rich people's organ needs.

 

[vegas giants]

Sure. My body is forced to perform extra labor to support others via the tax code.

No it's not. In fact you are not required to work at all

 

[SkyChief]

. . . . I'd say that an income tax law also allows the government to use your body. If someone works 40 hours per week at 20 per hour, and the government confiscates $200 of their paycheck every week, then they are essentially a slave to the state for 10 hours per week.

Excellent point.

Amendment XVI grants government the "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

This constitutional Amendment means that we must surrender a portion of our earnings, which means that (at least for some period of time) we are slaves to the government.

Q: What's the difference between the government demanding 25% of your earnings, and a robber who sticks a gun in your ribs and demands 25% of what you have in your wallet?

A: The government didn't break the law.

 

[vegas giants]

Excellent point.

Amendment XVI grants government the "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

This constitutional Amendment means that we must surrender a portion of our earnings, which means that (at least for some period of time) we are slaves to the government.

Q: What's the difference between the government demanding 27% of your earnings, and a robber who sticks a gun in your ribs and demands 27% of what you have in your wallet?

A: The government didn't break the law.

Then don't work


It's called freedom

 

[multivita-man]

All that matters is that it isn't, and that a long known inequality between men and women. It's never been remedied, and the consequential difference is life and death. I don't see women protesting at the US Capitol to change that law.

That's actually a good example and counter-argument. However, the nature of the debate is different. In this case, Congress has the explicit power to raise armies. It's a question of how they do it. The military's, and indeed society's, long time understanding is that men are better physically equipped for combat than women, although that may be changing, if for no other reason than the fact that women have been advocating more inclusion and gender-neutral consideration for combat roles.

In any case, the example is certainly a good parallel discussion about what gender equality is and isn't, and what we think it should be. But it doesn't fundamentally change the question about the degree to which government can intrude upon a woman's bodily autonomy, and whether she can be forced to share her body with someone else under any circumstances the state decides.

 

[American]

That's actually a good example and counter-argument. However, the nature of the debate is different. In this case, Congress has the explicit power to raise armies. It's a question of how they do it. The military's, and indeed society's, long time understanding is that men are better physically equipped for combat than women, although that may be changing, if for no other reason than the fact that women have been advocating more inclusion and gender-neutral consideration for combat roles.

In any case, the example is certainly a good parallel discussion about what gender equality is and isn't, and what we think it should be. But it doesn't fundamentally change the question about the degree to which government can intrude upon a woman's bodily autonomy, and whether she can be forced to share her body with someone else under any circumstances the state decides.

It doesn't stop women from joining and bitching if they don't get all the choice jobs, while men lay in muddy foxholes. And speaking of equality, how it only matters when it's a trans-women joining the girls' swim team?