“My Body My Choice”: Bodily Autonomy, but is this applied equally?

Written by John (the other John).

Feminist movements globally have created really cool phrases/principles in regards to them having abortions and $€x (whether on-demand OR to not have it at all), which are “my body my choice” and “bodily autonomy” and “reproductive rights”. On the surface, who could disagree with these concepts, even in the context of a relationship or marriage, in which each individual act requires consent (even between husband and wife); any violation of this consent requirement can result in imprisonment to the violator. But although many have accepted the above principles as gospel, are these applied equally to males? Let us go way back in time in this analysis.

Historically, from the creation of human beings in about 100,000 B.C. thru approximately the 1970s (for Westerners), it was males who were drafted (i.e., forced) to go to war when the powers-that-be decided that warfare was needed. When these males were involuntarily sent to battle, they did not have an opt-out option to decline military service because it interfered with the principles of “my body my choice” and “bodily autonomy” and “reproductive rights”? This is despite war interfering with a dude’s human rights to these (whether it is to “reproduce”, or to just sit at home and do whatever he chooses).

But as to more current events in which there is mostly volunteer military service in Western nations, despite the agreement to engage in military service, (much like “reproduction” in marriage) what if each individual act of warfare (or each individual battle within a war) required its own separate informed consent by the soldier out of respect for his “bodily autonomy” and “reproductive rights”? (After all, the idea that the initial consent being interpreted as consent prospectively is so toxic, and this constant warring interferes with a dude’s right to “reproduce” [i.e., to have $€x]). So if this becomes the legal standard, what would occur if soldiers could invoke these human rights and thus decline to engage in a specific war/battle because they declined consent as it interferes with his “bodily autonomy”; how would a nation adequately defend itself?

Or how about police service; despite voluntarily joining the force, what if a police force and society had to respect the officer’s “bodily autonomy” by allowing him/her to choose when/if to report to the scene of a crime, as it is “my body my choice”. The victims’/society’s right to safety is secondary to the officers’ individual right to “bodily autonomy” and “reproductive rights” to fulfill his/her urges at any moment in time (even while on duty and getting paid) despite a severe emergency occurring; or perhaps he does not want to jeopardize his “bodily autonomy” by responding to a dangerous crime scene. Why should another person’s life interfere with his “reproductive rights” (i.e., to have $€x); after all, isn’t this the exact implied argument that justified tens of millions of abortions?

As we know, the principles of “my body my choice” and “bodily autonomy” and “reproductive rights” are not applied equally to men. Any straight-man who makes this argument would sound like a real fool (and a total perv), yet it is enforced under threat of violence for females. I am not anti-abortion, I just want to demonstrate what equality mandates; “my body my choice” and “bodily autonomy” and “reproductive rights”. But more importantly, what may sound good on an individual level (the micro) may be unsound policy at the society level (the macro). After all, if there was no abortion on-demand, then perhaps we would not be importing millions of third worlders due to us producing our own offspring.