Abstract
The article aims to summarize historical as well as today's legal regulations, both domestic and foreign, which restrict a person from arbitrarily disposing of their body, ie it points to examples of when anyone needs something with their body, or on the contrary, it must not. The text is not exhaustive, ie there are certainly other similar topics.
The focus of the presented article is the right of abortion and the obligation of sterilization. The article looks at these topics from different angles and assesses whether a particular order or ban concerning a person can and should succeed in a democratic world and the rule of law.
The historical context of the presented article is to point out the transience of possible current legitimization of interferences in natural rights, or in the personal integrity of man. The text is intended to underline the importance of man and the importance of his right to decide for himself.
On the other hand, the text does not aim to create absolute inviolable value from the natural rights of each individual. Therefore, this article relativizes itself and acknowledges that there are circumstances in which an interference with the personal freedoms of everyone can be justified.
The text then places the principle of proportionality at the epicenter of this reasoning. The aim of this article is to define situations where we can decide on the personal integrity of a person on the basis of positive law, ie when the legislator can legitimately prohibit or command what is to happen to a person, and when such actions of the legislator are inadmissible, even if necessary. occurs.