Beyond 'My Body, My Choice': The Limits of Self-Ownership

One of the most harmful consequences of hegemonic feminism and other ideologies that seek 'liberation' from all hierarchical structures is the belief that bodily autonomy is somehow an end in itself. This, in turn, fosters the belief that the unrestricted right to do whatever we please with our bodies precedes any consideration of whether that which we wish to do is harmful to ourselves or others.

The idea of self-ownership has led to the well-known slogan 'my body, my choice' and arguments justifying practices such as gender affirming surgeries, abortion, euthanasia, surrogacy, and even prostitution. This notion, however, is fundamentally flawed.

In line with the teleological perspective on human existence— namely that our life points to something else outside itself, instead of being the result of mere chance— is essential to recognize that human well-being should be the ultimate goal of all actions. Our decisions—whether working, eating, or caring for others—are ultimately driven by the need to preserve and enhance both our well-being and that of those under our care.

Ownership implies having the right to use, enjoy, and dispose of something. We can own material or immaterial goods, but there are certain things over which ownership is not possible—and one of them is the human body. That is because the body is an intrinsic part of the person rather than a mere object for sale or disposal.

A cultural shift now encourages us to believe we can do anything, without acknowledging moral order or considering whether our actions undermine rationality and coherence. It is within this sociological context that the promotion of absolute autonomy continues to grow.

If it is true that we have absolute autonomy over our bodies, why are there restrictions on selling our organs or donating them? Why is there no "surgery on demand" that allows individuals to amputate healthy limbs simply out of personal desire? Why is slavery illegal, even when someone voluntarily chooses to submit to it?

This reductionist view of human nature overlooks the fact that rights are inalienable, non-renounceable, seeking to protect something much greater than mere personal preference—our wellbeing; in other words, they cannot be relinquished by mere will.

Evidence of this lies in the existence of multiple international treaties, such as the American Convention on Human Rights (Pact of San José) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which recognize dignity and integrity as fundamental rights and seek to codify such respect in law.

It is crucial to reclaim critical thinking and reframe the debate from a perspective that upholds human dignity. This is not about restricting rights, but about recognizing their natural and rational boundaries.

True freedom is not the right to self-destruction or exploitation, but the pursuit of a life guided by dignity and reason. The belief that we can do anything with our bodies, without considering the consequences, is a dangerous fallacy that must be challenged.