Thread by @ShiroSpirit

A thread on bodily autonomy and consent - the handshake:

A) John and Bob see each other in a bar, mutually offer their hands to the other in the traditional social sense and shake hands.

B) John sees Bob, grabs his arm, pulls his hand forward, and John grabs Bob's hand.

1/

Now imagine, John has relaxed his hand, he's no longer gripping and is pulling his arm away.

Bob should also release. He has been given an active sign of the withdraw of consent.

If Bob maintains his grip and does not release, he is violating John's bodily autonomy.

2/

But wait...I didn't tell you if we were in scenario A or B, right?

Because it doesn't matter. The consent at the start of the situation is irrelevant to how consent works at the time it is withdrawn.

John grabbed Bob's hand without consent in B, but Bob can then consent.

3/

In fact, he can then hold on too long and "overstay his welcome." Or in A, they both consented to start, but either of them can decide, at any point, "ok, this is over," and one consent is now gone.

Whoever holds on is "doing to" and whoever relaxes is "being done to."

4/

This is vitally important to distinguish. If Bob is still holding on, and John has relaxed, Bob is violating, John is being violated. That is our situation. It's vital to recognize the parties at the time consent is withdrawn.

Another important point:

5/

WHY consent was withdrawn is irrelevant. This is a crucial component of bodily autonomy. "I don't want to shake hands anymore" is the only justification needed.

Read that again.

WHY consent was withdrawn is irrelevant.

Yet another important point:

6/

The withdraw of consent occurs within John. Bob may not know it until John communicates it ("Bob, stop," or yanking his hand away), but the withdraw of consent is NOT a two-way concept. In the most technical sense, Bob is violating John the INSTANT John decides so.

Lastly:

7/

Bob's "consent" back is not needed. This is an absurd concept by its very definition. If John is violently yanking his hand away, and shouting "Bob, let go!!", is Bob's refusal to do so an indication that this is still a consensual handshake? Of course not.

8/

Envision the point where, merely inside John's brain, he has decided he no longer wants to be shaking hands. Based on what you've read, it should be clear, at that instant, we have a nonconsensual violation of John's bodily autonomy by Bob.

9/

HOW it gets resolved is a separate, though obviously related, issue. But it MUST be resolved.

And the only resolution is that Bob lets go of John's hand.

Read that again.

Bob MUST let go of John's hand.

Otherwise, the violation is still in place.

10/

In this situation, we know that there are many options, and plain reason denotes they work up from the bottom in terms of (pick a word) severity, violence, etc).

Ultimately, we WOULD permit John to kill Bob, if Bob was simply refusing to release his grip.

11/

We reasonably require John to attempt other methods, bc we understand that Bob is a sentient thing with a brain and ears and eyes. Bob can/should understand the cues of pulling one's hand away, pushing at one's shoulder, shouting "let go!"

12/

However, no version of this situation ends in saying "well, I guess if you tried some things and Bob wouldn't let go, you'll just have to let him continue holding your hand."

That is, we do NOT place a limit on John's bodily autonomy in favor of Bob's.

Read that again.

13/

We do NOT place a limit on John's bodily autonomy in favor of Bob's.

Remember, John was being violated, Bob was doing the violating. Regardless of how consent existed at the beginning, the WITHDRAW OF CONSENT is the governing ethics now.

14/

SO:

Regardless of how the consent factored into getting pregnant, the WITHDRAW of consent by the pregnant person, for WHATEVER reason, is the ethical guiding principle. The violation MUST end, and by WHATEVER means necessary.

Abortion is the ONLY means.

#prochoice

/end

please unroll @threadreaderapp