> No one, not even the government, should have more authority over your body than you.
The government already has rights over your bodily autonomy in many ways; just the right to incarcerate someone is controlling their body pretty dramatically. They regulate where your body can go, and to an extent what you can put into your body.
Yes I know. Doesn't it seem backwards though, to you, to make the argument that since the government has bodily authority over you in matters of imprisonment, that the government should also have authority over all aspects of your body? I'm over here trying to find a minimum amount of government authority over our bodies while others are basically saying, "let 'er rip!"
> Doesn't it seem backwards though, to you, to make the argument that since the government has bodily authority [...] the government should also have authority over all aspects of your body?
Yes it does seem backwards. However, nobody here is making that argument.
> I'm over here trying to find a minimum amount of government authority over our bodies
Perhaps I'm just splitting hairs at this point, but "No one, not even the government, should have more authority over your body than you." is just such a broad brush that it's trivially refuted for certain scenarios. Maybe you're talking about medical authority?
In any case the rule of law is very concerned with what happens when rights collide. It is possible -- perhaps common -- for individual's rights to be in conflict.
Maybe. It has much less rhetorical flourish though ;) I still think it's a valid ideal and even if realistically unobtainable in the absolute, it still incredibly worthwhile north star.
The government already has rights over your bodily autonomy in many ways; just the right to incarcerate someone is controlling their body pretty dramatically. They regulate where your body can go, and to an extent what you can put into your body.