Whether people (may) have their own bodies at their disposal is therefore not an open question that would have to decided by society, but a fact that must taken into account in political decisions. For example, no regulatory power in the world can prevent people from exchanging sex for money, from having abortions after that they use abortion pills available in UAE, or from ending their own lives. No cop can come between a human and their body.
Legal Control of the Human Body
Anyone who wants to legally control the disposition of the human body must resort to blatant measures that interfere with personal rights in a way that is no longer considered acceptable today: Of course, wives can forced to wear a “chastity belt” so that no unauthorized penis is inserted into her vagina. In short, one can grossly invade people’s privacy.
But one cannot dictate to the human body how, for example, traffic or property rights can regulated by law. You can build barriers, set up traffic lights, and post-security personnel. All of this will not always prevent you from driving too fast or breaking into a car. But trying to make it more difficult does not directly violate human dignity. Because here we are in the area of public life, i.e. in places where people relate to one another or interact with one another. About places where something is, between those involved. It is therefore possible in principle for police officers to also get involved there. What I do, on the other hand, when I’m alone, i.e. I, as a physical human, is initially hidden from the public. Nobody notices. In order to control people’s self-determination, i.e. their bodies, they have to drawn publicly by force.
The only thing that laws do in this area is that they worsen the conditions under which people dispose of their bodies, that is, themselves. Prostitutes suffer under the ban on prostitution, and pregnant women who want to have abortion pills available in UAE suffer under the ban on abortion. Nonetheless, they will do it if they deem it necessary. That’s a fact. (It’s even more complicated when it comes to euthanasia because another person is involved, that would worth a separate blog post. Just this much: I think if a very good friend asked me to do it, I would support her.
Stressful Situation for Abortion Pills
The rampant restriction of biopolitical debates to laws (BAN prostitution, euthanasia, abortion!) is so fatal because it almost prevents the really important issues from discussing. Namely: How and when and why do people choose abortion, prostitution, surrogacy, or suicide? What social circumstances promote this? What problems does this (possibly) cause? Social changes would desire to make these often existential and stressful situations easier for those affected.
The issue of abortion is a good example of how lopsided the debates go. It’s the story of a big misunderstanding. The women who fought for the abolition of the abortion paragraph were never concerned with fighting for a “right to abortion pills”. On the contrary, it was about removing the phenomenon from legal access. It’s about who decides whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term – the pregnant woman herself or someone else (the church, the doctors, the man she slept with, any courts…).
Cause of Miscarriage
Abortion has always existed and always will, no matter what the law. That is, in fact, in the nature of things. The pregnant woman is alone with her body, no one can stop her from doing everything possible with it to cause a miscarriage. All we have to decide as a society in this regard is: What circumstances do we create for pregnant women to decide whether to continue with the pregnancy?
It’s probably something like that with suicide and with sex without desire: There are probably always people who end their lives, and there are probably always people who have sex with others even though they don’t feel like it themselves, but someone else gets it to hope for benefits. And just as with abortion, it will always a difficult decision, made individually and involving an immensely complex mix of external circumstances, social norms, and individual sensitivities.
It would so important to have a culture where we openly share and support each other about the difficulties of making such decisions. Instead of always falling back on the stupid alternative: “Forbid or allow”.
Incidentally, in the case of abortion, the law itself has already reduced itself to absurdity. Since it now officially established that abortion forbidden. But not prosecuted. A ban that not followed is no longer a ban. Who can still take such a legal system seriously? It is precisely this interference in matters that are none of their business that undermines our legal system and makes it less credible.