Author Archives: Esther Foulsham

The first freedom: Autonomy of the Body

The First Freedom: Autonomy of the Body

If you cannot respect another person’s right to do with their body as they please, liberalism has no place for you.

Most people who consider themselves liberals will consider a (usually unspoken) list of rights they hold sacred.  Freedom of speech is usually the first to come to mind.  But what about the others?  The right to a fair trial?  The right to privacy?  The right to own property?

While often rarely cited, we passionately believe bodily autonomy is the right that is foundational to all others, thus we, as liberals, have a duty to defend it.  Although we must defend a wide plethora of human rights, including a core commitment to freedom of expression, we must, however, be clear: free speech should never be used as a justification to undermine other fundamental liberal values.  This includes, above all else, our right to bodily autonomy and the freedom to define our own identities.  But rights don’t exist in isolation; they are always tested in the tension between individual freedom and state control.

To understand the liberal commitment to bodily autonomy, we can contrast it with a more conservative principle: paternalism.  Paternalists claim that the State should determine what people can and cannot do with their bodies.  This is most glaring in the United States, where attacks on abortion rights are justified under the guise of ‘protecting the rights of the unborn’, and gender-affirming care for minors is (being increasingly restricted) in state legislatures across the country, reflecting an increasing desire of the State to exert control and insist that kids and their parents do not know best.

In the UK, paternalism takes subtler forms—often cloaked in the rhetoric of so-called “gender critical” activism, found across all political parties, including our own.  It also manifests in outdated legal structures: for example, many are unaware that under current UK law, even with the decriminalisation of abortion, a pregnant woman must still obtain the approval of two doctors in order to access a safe and sanitary abortion.   This is control wearing a convenient freedom-shaped disguise.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 4 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Matt (Bristol)
    cim - I could see a situation where in a multi-winner STV election, if NOTA or RON (reopen nominations) would remain in contention but with a special threshold ...
  • David S
    The logical result of a NOTA vote would be the election of a place-holder candidate who fills the seat and prevents anyone else from getting in, but who also re...
  • Andrew Tampion
    There is no evidence that the Argentinian Government intends to invade the Falklands, although that could change. If our Government increases defence spending...
  • cim
    There seems to be two separate things here and it's not entirely clear to me which is being proposed. 1) At least some parents would find it really useful if...
  • cim
    I think in the context of local/national elections it's pretty superfluous: if political parties don't take falling turnouts as a danger sign in their own right...