@jacobat @mutter01 @ashton
"Sole responsibility" sounds sexy in an abstract discussion but the reality doesn't follow.
Imagine you're rock climbing (for your health) and you fall off the rock. You're not dead but you're so banged up you might wish for it.
If rock-climbing doesn't work for you, pick any automobile accident with injury.
"Sole responsibility" would demand that you find your own way to the hospital, regardless of you injuries. This requires that persons who respect your sole responsibility ignore you as you drag your shattered body--like Hugh Glass (The Revenant)-- back to civilization.
Oh, btw, insurance? Is your insurance premium paid for solely by you without subsidy from *any* other source (like a pool of insurance customers)? *Highly* unlikely. "Solely" means solely, right? Fully, too, right?
As it is, we have Good Samaritan Laws to protect the folks who quite reasonably and quite reliably fail to respect your "sole responsibility". Lucky you, I say.
Who would refuse or deny any other human, or any other creature, for that matter, that kind of good fortune?
Context, my friend. This thing we label "deciding for others" never makes sense without context, context all these state legislatures ignore, some to a truly horrific degree.
Abortion bans are misogyny--the disdain of women--literally written into stone.
The only time a woman is solely responsible for her pregnancy is when she has been completely ostracized by the society she lives in. Is that what we're doing?
People gotta talk more, my friend. We're assuming waaaaaaaay too much.