Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Should People Have A Right To Their Own Body?

pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 5:00:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I am asking this because of prohibition. I imagine there are many issues that surround a person having a right to their body and government interfering.
Some would say that people make stupid and irresponsible decisions and that is why government should protect them.

I am curious of this communities response to the question, should people have more of a right to their own bodies than their government?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 8:30:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 5:00:46 PM, pozessed wrote:
I am asking this because of prohibition. I imagine there are many issues that surround a person having a right to their body and government interfering.
Some would say that people make stupid and irresponsible decisions and that is why government should protect them.

I am curious of this communities response to the question, should people have more of a right to their own bodies than their government?

The question becomes, is prevention of harm worth the restriction of harm. The right to your body extends to rights of all actions (you are allowed to make your muscles do whatever you want) until you violate the rights of others. If this is taken to the 100% extreme, that means that I have every right to go to a woman, tell them I am going to beat their face in, and wind up the biggest swing I can. It would not be a violation of their rights until the moment I make contact with their face. That means, that if a police officer is in the area, they can only watch until the moment I make contact. They cannot preemptively stop me.

From this, it is reasonable to conclude that we, in our current social contract, do not have absolute right to our own bodies. At which point, we just have to find, were is the line of "our rights" vs "our safety."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 8:38:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 8:30:22 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/14/2015 5:00:46 PM, pozessed wrote:
I am asking this because of prohibition. I imagine there are many issues that surround a person having a right to their body and government interfering.
Some would say that people make stupid and irresponsible decisions and that is why government should protect them.

I am curious of this communities response to the question, should people have more of a right to their own bodies than their government?

The question becomes, is prevention of harm worth the restriction of harm. The right to your body extends to rights of all actions (you are allowed to make your muscles do whatever you want) until you violate the rights of others. If this is taken to the 100% extreme, that means that I have every right to go to a woman, tell them I am going to beat their face in, and wind up the biggest swing I can. It would not be a violation of their rights until the moment I make contact with their face. That means, that if a police officer is in the area, they can only watch until the moment I make contact. They cannot preemptively stop me.

From this, it is reasonable to conclude that we, in our current social contract, do not have absolute right to our own bodies. At which point, we just have to find, were is the line of "our rights" vs "our safety."

In many places in the world, threats of violence are a crime and force the receiver to live in a state of fear, violating their rights to live freely without intimidation. Anti terro laws may also disaggree with you.
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 8:39:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 8:38:20 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:30:22 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/14/2015 5:00:46 PM, pozessed wrote:
I am asking this because of prohibition. I imagine there are many issues that surround a person having a right to their body and government interfering.
Some would say that people make stupid and irresponsible decisions and that is why government should protect them.

I am curious of this communities response to the question, should people have more of a right to their own bodies than their government?

The question becomes, is prevention of harm worth the restriction of harm. The right to your body extends to rights of all actions (you are allowed to make your muscles do whatever you want) until you violate the rights of others. If this is taken to the 100% extreme, that means that I have every right to go to a woman, tell them I am going to beat their face in, and wind up the biggest swing I can. It would not be a violation of their rights until the moment I make contact with their face. That means, that if a police officer is in the area, they can only watch until the moment I make contact. They cannot preemptively stop me.

From this, it is reasonable to conclude that we, in our current social contract, do not have absolute right to our own bodies. At which point, we just have to find, were is the line of "our rights" vs "our safety."

In many places in the world, threats of violence are a crime and force the receiver to live in a state of fear, violating their rights to live freely without intimidation. Anti terro laws may also disaggree with you.

is-ought fallacy. We are talking about "should"s not what "is".
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 9:03:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 8:39:22 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:38:20 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:30:22 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/14/2015 5:00:46 PM, pozessed wrote:
I am asking this because of prohibition. I imagine there are many issues that surround a person having a right to their body and government interfering.
Some would say that people make stupid and irresponsible decisions and that is why government should protect them.

I am curious of this communities response to the question, should people have more of a right to their own bodies than their government?

The question becomes, is prevention of harm worth the restriction of harm. The right to your body extends to rights of all actions (you are allowed to make your muscles do whatever you want) until you violate the rights of others. If this is taken to the 100% extreme, that means that I have every right to go to a woman, tell them I am going to beat their face in, and wind up the biggest swing I can. It would not be a violation of their rights until the moment I make contact with their face. That means, that if a police officer is in the area, they can only watch until the moment I make contact. They cannot preemptively stop me.

From this, it is reasonable to conclude that we, in our current social contract, do not have absolute right to our own bodies. At which point, we just have to find, were is the line of "our rights" vs "our safety."

In many places in the world, threats of violence are a crime and force the receiver to live in a state of fear, violating their rights to live freely without intimidation. Anti terro laws may also disaggree with you.

is-ought fallacy. We are talking about "should"s not what "is".

tomata...tomato.... it was just a poor analogy as there is no pre-emptive action by the police officer as threatening violence was already a violation of the recipients rights. Harm has been done before you hit her
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 9:08:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 9:03:38 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:39:22 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:38:20 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:30:22 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/14/2015 5:00:46 PM, pozessed wrote:
I am asking this because of prohibition. I imagine there are many issues that surround a person having a right to their body and government interfering.
Some would say that people make stupid and irresponsible decisions and that is why government should protect them.

I am curious of this communities response to the question, should people have more of a right to their own bodies than their government?

The question becomes, is prevention of harm worth the restriction of harm. The right to your body extends to rights of all actions (you are allowed to make your muscles do whatever you want) until you violate the rights of others. If this is taken to the 100% extreme, that means that I have every right to go to a woman, tell them I am going to beat their face in, and wind up the biggest swing I can. It would not be a violation of their rights until the moment I make contact with their face. That means, that if a police officer is in the area, they can only watch until the moment I make contact. They cannot preemptively stop me.

From this, it is reasonable to conclude that we, in our current social contract, do not have absolute right to our own bodies. At which point, we just have to find, were is the line of "our rights" vs "our safety."

In many places in the world, threats of violence are a crime and force the receiver to live in a state of fear, violating their rights to live freely without intimidation. Anti terro laws may also disaggree with you.

is-ought fallacy. We are talking about "should"s not what "is".

tomata...tomato.... it was just a poor analogy as there is no pre-emptive action by the police officer as threatening violence was already a violation of the recipients rights. Harm has been done before you hit her

Not really. Threat of harm =/= harm. After all, no threat is 100% certain. Someone on the internet saying "I'm going to kill you" is not viewed the same as someone in your face saying the same thing, despite both being a threat of harm. The reason being that one is more likely to actually cause a harm.

Another example is if I feel threatened by something you said, that does not necessarily mean that you violated my rights. In our current society, it have to be weighed, the likelihood of harm as determined by a reasonable person. I can't just say "I'm a woman and I feel threatened by every man" so every man should be punished for being a "harm."

What you're basically trying to do is incorporate our current intrusions beyond absolute rights to your own body, and say that they are actually part of the right. It doesn't work that way.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 9:12:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 9:08:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/14/2015 9:03:38 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:39:22 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:38:20 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:30:22 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/14/2015 5:00:46 PM, pozessed wrote:
I am asking this because of prohibition. I imagine there are many issues that surround a person having a right to their body and government interfering.
Some would say that people make stupid and irresponsible decisions and that is why government should protect them.

I am curious of this communities response to the question, should people have more of a right to their own bodies than their government?

The question becomes, is prevention of harm worth the restriction of harm. The right to your body extends to rights of all actions (you are allowed to make your muscles do whatever you want) until you violate the rights of others. If this is taken to the 100% extreme, that means that I have every right to go to a woman, tell them I am going to beat their face in, and wind up the biggest swing I can. It would not be a violation of their rights until the moment I make contact with their face. That means, that if a police officer is in the area, they can only watch until the moment I make contact. They cannot preemptively stop me.

From this, it is reasonable to conclude that we, in our current social contract, do not have absolute right to our own bodies. At which point, we just have to find, were is the line of "our rights" vs "our safety."

In many places in the world, threats of violence are a crime and force the receiver to live in a state of fear, violating their rights to live freely without intimidation. Anti terro laws may also disaggree with you.

is-ought fallacy. We are talking about "should"s not what "is".

tomata...tomato.... it was just a poor analogy as there is no pre-emptive action by the police officer as threatening violence was already a violation of the recipients rights. Harm has been done before you hit her

Not really. Threat of harm =/= harm. After all, no threat is 100% certain. Someone on the internet saying "I'm going to kill you" is not viewed the same as someone in your face saying the same thing, despite both being a threat of harm. The reason being that one is more likely to actually cause a harm.

Another example is if I feel threatened by something you said, that does not necessarily mean that you violated my rights. In our current society, it have to be weighed, the likelihood of harm as determined by a reasonable person. I can't just say "I'm a woman and I feel threatened by every man" so every man should be punished for being a "harm."

What you're basically trying to do is incorporate our current intrusions beyond absolute rights to your own body, and say that they are actually part of the right. It doesn't work that way.

Are you threatening me?
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 9:25:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 9:12:08 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/14/2015 9:08:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/14/2015 9:03:38 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:39:22 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:38:20 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:30:22 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/14/2015 5:00:46 PM, pozessed wrote:
I am asking this because of prohibition. I imagine there are many issues that surround a person having a right to their body and government interfering.
Some would say that people make stupid and irresponsible decisions and that is why government should protect them.

I am curious of this communities response to the question, should people have more of a right to their own bodies than their government?

The question becomes, is prevention of harm worth the restriction of harm. The right to your body extends to rights of all actions (you are allowed to make your muscles do whatever you want) until you violate the rights of others. If this is taken to the 100% extreme, that means that I have every right to go to a woman, tell them I am going to beat their face in, and wind up the biggest swing I can. It would not be a violation of their rights until the moment I make contact with their face. That means, that if a police officer is in the area, they can only watch until the moment I make contact. They cannot preemptively stop me.

From this, it is reasonable to conclude that we, in our current social contract, do not have absolute right to our own bodies. At which point, we just have to find, were is the line of "our rights" vs "our safety."

In many places in the world, threats of violence are a crime and force the receiver to live in a state of fear, violating their rights to live freely without intimidation. Anti terro laws may also disaggree with you.

is-ought fallacy. We are talking about "should"s not what "is".

tomata...tomato.... it was just a poor analogy as there is no pre-emptive action by the police officer as threatening violence was already a violation of the recipients rights. Harm has been done before you hit her

Not really. Threat of harm =/= harm. After all, no threat is 100% certain. Someone on the internet saying "I'm going to kill you" is not viewed the same as someone in your face saying the same thing, despite both being a threat of harm. The reason being that one is more likely to actually cause a harm.

Another example is if I feel threatened by something you said, that does not necessarily mean that you violated my rights. In our current society, it have to be weighed, the likelihood of harm as determined by a reasonable person. I can't just say "I'm a woman and I feel threatened by every man" so every man should be punished for being a "harm."

What you're basically trying to do is incorporate our current intrusions beyond absolute rights to your own body, and say that they are actually part of the right. It doesn't work that way.

Are you threatening me?

Not sure where you got that from, but no.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 9:36:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 9:25:07 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/14/2015 9:12:08 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/14/2015 9:08:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/14/2015 9:03:38 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:39:22 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:38:20 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:30:22 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/14/2015 5:00:46 PM, pozessed wrote:
I am asking this because of prohibition. I imagine there are many issues that surround a person having a right to their body and government interfering.
Some would say that people make stupid and irresponsible decisions and that is why government should protect them.

I am curious of this communities response to the question, should people have more of a right to their own bodies than their government?

The question becomes, is prevention of harm worth the restriction of harm. The right to your body extends to rights of all actions (you are allowed to make your muscles do whatever you want) until you violate the rights of others. If this is taken to the 100% extreme, that means that I have every right to go to a woman, tell them I am going to beat their face in, and wind up the biggest swing I can. It would not be a violation of their rights until the moment I make contact with their face. That means, that if a police officer is in the area, they can only watch until the moment I make contact. They cannot preemptively stop me.

From this, it is reasonable to conclude that we, in our current social contract, do not have absolute right to our own bodies. At which point, we just have to find, were is the line of "our rights" vs "our safety."

In many places in the world, threats of violence are a crime and force the receiver to live in a state of fear, violating their rights to live freely without intimidation. Anti terro laws may also disaggree with you.

is-ought fallacy. We are talking about "should"s not what "is".

tomata...tomato.... it was just a poor analogy as there is no pre-emptive action by the police officer as threatening violence was already a violation of the recipients rights. Harm has been done before you hit her

Not really. Threat of harm =/= harm. After all, no threat is 100% certain. Someone on the internet saying "I'm going to kill you" is not viewed the same as someone in your face saying the same thing, despite both being a threat of harm. The reason being that one is more likely to actually cause a harm.

Another example is if I feel threatened by something you said, that does not necessarily mean that you violated my rights. In our current society, it have to be weighed, the likelihood of harm as determined by a reasonable person. I can't just say "I'm a woman and I feel threatened by every man" so every man should be punished for being a "harm."

What you're basically trying to do is incorporate our current intrusions beyond absolute rights to your own body, and say that they are actually part of the right. It doesn't work that way.

Are you threatening me?

Not sure where you got that from, but no.

Apologies, i must have taken the "I'm going to kill you" out of context.

The government should establish really awesome illicit drug kiosks that sell high quality narcotics at reasonable prices where purchasers will need to provide full identification prior to purchase so that way the government is able to see who is buying what. This way all the revenue is retained by the government to cover the cost of health care and education rather than them spending bajillions on law enforcement and criminal syndicates pocketing all the earnings tax free. What could possibly go wrong:?
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 9:44:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 9:36:59 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/14/2015 9:25:07 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/14/2015 9:12:08 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/14/2015 9:08:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/14/2015 9:03:38 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:39:22 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:38:20 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:30:22 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/14/2015 5:00:46 PM, pozessed wrote:
I am asking this because of prohibition. I imagine there are many issues that surround a person having a right to their body and government interfering.
Some would say that people make stupid and irresponsible decisions and that is why government should protect them.

I am curious of this communities response to the question, should people have more of a right to their own bodies than their government?

The question becomes, is prevention of harm worth the restriction of harm. The right to your body extends to rights of all actions (you are allowed to make your muscles do whatever you want) until you violate the rights of others. If this is taken to the 100% extreme, that means that I have every right to go to a woman, tell them I am going to beat their face in, and wind up the biggest swing I can. It would not be a violation of their rights until the moment I make contact with their face. That means, that if a police officer is in the area, they can only watch until the moment I make contact. They cannot preemptively stop me.

From this, it is reasonable to conclude that we, in our current social contract, do not have absolute right to our own bodies. At which point, we just have to find, were is the line of "our rights" vs "our safety."

In many places in the world, threats of violence are a crime and force the receiver to live in a state of fear, violating their rights to live freely without intimidation. Anti terro laws may also disaggree with you.

is-ought fallacy. We are talking about "should"s not what "is".

tomata...tomato.... it was just a poor analogy as there is no pre-emptive action by the police officer as threatening violence was already a violation of the recipients rights. Harm has been done before you hit her

Not really. Threat of harm =/= harm. After all, no threat is 100% certain. Someone on the internet saying "I'm going to kill you" is not viewed the same as someone in your face saying the same thing, despite both being a threat of harm. The reason being that one is more likely to actually cause a harm.

Another example is if I feel threatened by something you said, that does not necessarily mean that you violated my rights. In our current society, it have to be weighed, the likelihood of harm as determined by a reasonable person. I can't just say "I'm a woman and I feel threatened by every man" so every man should be punished for being a "harm."

What you're basically trying to do is incorporate our current intrusions beyond absolute rights to your own body, and say that they are actually part of the right. It doesn't work that way.

Are you threatening me?

Not sure where you got that from, but no.

Apologies, i must have taken the "I'm going to kill you" out of context.

Sounds like you did. I was not saying "I'm going to kill you" but used the example of someone on the internet vs someone in your face to the level of threat it imposes.


The government should establish really awesome illicit drug kiosks that sell high quality narcotics at reasonable prices where purchasers will need to provide full identification prior to purchase so that way the government is able to see who is buying what. This way all the revenue is retained by the government to cover the cost of health care and education rather than them spending bajillions on law enforcement and criminal syndicates pocketing all the earnings tax free. What could possibly go wrong:?

Not part of this thread's topic.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 10:12:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 9:44:09 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/14/2015 9:36:59 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/14/2015 9:25:07 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/14/2015 9:12:08 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/14/2015 9:08:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/14/2015 9:03:38 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:39:22 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:38:20 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:30:22 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/14/2015 5:00:46 PM, pozessed wrote:
I am asking this because of prohibition. I imagine there are many issues that surround a person having a right to their body and government interfering.
Some would say that people make stupid and irresponsible decisions and that is why government should protect them.

I am curious of this communities response to the question, should people have more of a right to their own bodies than their government?

The question becomes, is prevention of harm worth the restriction of harm. The right to your body extends to rights of all actions (you are allowed to make your muscles do whatever you want) until you violate the rights of others. If this is taken to the 100% extreme, that means that I have every right to go to a woman, tell them I am going to beat their face in, and wind up the biggest swing I can. It would not be a violation of their rights until the moment I make contact with their face. That means, that if a police officer is in the area, they can only watch until the moment I make contact. They cannot preemptively stop me.

From this, it is reasonable to conclude that we, in our current social contract, do not have absolute right to our own bodies. At which point, we just have to find, were is the line of "our rights" vs "our safety."

In many places in the world, threats of violence are a crime and force the receiver to live in a state of fear, violating their rights to live freely without intimidation. Anti terro laws may also disaggree with you.

is-ought fallacy. We are talking about "should"s not what "is".

tomata...tomato.... it was just a poor analogy as there is no pre-emptive action by the police officer as threatening violence was already a violation of the recipients rights. Harm has been done before you hit her

Not really. Threat of harm =/= harm. After all, no threat is 100% certain. Someone on the internet saying "I'm going to kill you" is not viewed the same as someone in your face saying the same thing, despite both being a threat of harm. The reason being that one is more likely to actually cause a harm.

Another example is if I feel threatened by something you said, that does not necessarily mean that you violated my rights. In our current society, it have to be weighed, the likelihood of harm as determined by a reasonable person. I can't just say "I'm a woman and I feel threatened by every man" so every man should be punished for being a "harm."

What you're basically trying to do is incorporate our current intrusions beyond absolute rights to your own body, and say that they are actually part of the right. It doesn't work that way.

Are you threatening me?

Not sure where you got that from, but no.

Apologies, i must have taken the "I'm going to kill you" out of context.

Sounds like you did. I was not saying "I'm going to kill you" but used the example of someone on the internet vs someone in your face to the level of threat it imposes.


The government should establish really awesome illicit drug kiosks that sell high quality narcotics at reasonable prices where purchasers will need to provide full identification prior to purchase so that way the government is able to see who is buying what. This way all the revenue is retained by the government to cover the cost of health care and education rather than them spending bajillions on law enforcement and criminal syndicates pocketing all the earnings tax free. What could possibly go wrong:?

Not part of this thread's topic.

This is a great example of prevention of harm, without the restriction of harm. So rather than the government restricting our ability to make poor choices, they instead reduce the downside risk of those stupid choices by taking the paint thinners off the street. Everyone's a winner - except for the drug cartels - but we aren't terribly sympathetic to their plight. Am just looking for the line between our rights and our safety.
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 2:18:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 8:30:22 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/14/2015 5:00:46 PM, pozessed wrote:
I am asking this because of prohibition. I imagine there are many issues that surround a person having a right to their body and government interfering.
Some would say that people make stupid and irresponsible decisions and that is why government should protect them.

I am curious of this communities response to the question, should people have more of a right to their own bodies than their government?

The question becomes, is prevention of harm worth the restriction of harm. The right to your body extends to rights of all actions (you are allowed to make your muscles do whatever you want) until you violate the rights of others. If this is taken to the 100% extreme, that means that I have every right to go to a woman, tell them I am going to beat their face in, and wind up the biggest swing I can. It would not be a violation of their rights until the moment I make contact with their face. That means, that if a police officer is in the area, they can only watch until the moment I make contact. They cannot preemptively stop me.

From this, it is reasonable to conclude that we, in our current social contract, do not have absolute right to our own bodies. At which point, we just have to find, were is the line of "our rights" vs "our safety."

I agree. I think it should be "our rights" vs "ones safety" though in terms of prohibition. Colorado and Washington may have 12% or more of their residents involved in marijuana. If those numbers reflect that of illegal users, which are our only legitimate numbers to go by to my understanding, we have 12% of our current population fearing arrest for a petty liberty.

http://www.denverpost.com...
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2015 10:48:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 5:00:46 PM, pozessed wrote:
I am asking this because of prohibition. I imagine there are many issues that surround a person having a right to their body and government interfering.
Some would say that people make stupid and irresponsible decisions and that is why government should protect them.

I am curious of this communities response to the question, should people have more of a right to their own bodies than their government?

A very decisive question. Republican's and conservatives clearly are willing to walk the line that the state is able to control people's bodies. There was a recent incident. I forget which state. A minor, 17 year old, and her mother was choosing not to obtain chemo for Hodgkin disease. The state ruled that since it was not a religious objection the 17 year old was required to get treatment.

Granted the mother and child are being very stupid, but for some reason nobody likes to allow people to make their own body and health decisions, including end of life decisions and now medical decisions.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2015 11:11:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/16/2015 10:48:15 AM, slo1 wrote:

A very decisive question. Republican's and conservatives clearly are willing to walk the line that the state is able to control people's bodies. There was a recent incident. I forget which state. A minor, 17 year old, and her mother was choosing not to obtain chemo for Hodgkin disease. The state ruled that since it was not a religious objection the 17 year old was required to get treatment.

Granted the mother and child are being very stupid, but for some reason nobody likes to allow people to make their own body and health decisions, including end of life decisions and now medical decisions.

Cause government healthcare is all about choice and nothing about personal mandates....But it's okay cause these programs are supported by "loyal" supporters.

Loyalty is the bane of Democracy.
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2015 12:19:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/16/2015 11:11:25 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/16/2015 10:48:15 AM, slo1 wrote:

A very decisive question. Republican's and conservatives clearly are willing to walk the line that the state is able to control people's bodies. There was a recent incident. I forget which state. A minor, 17 year old, and her mother was choosing not to obtain chemo for Hodgkin disease. The state ruled that since it was not a religious objection the 17 year old was required to get treatment.

Granted the mother and child are being very stupid, but for some reason nobody likes to allow people to make their own body and health decisions, including end of life decisions and now medical decisions.

Cause government healthcare is all about choice and nothing about personal mandates....But it's okay cause these programs are supported by "loyal" supporters.

Loyalty is the bane of Democracy.

wtf you talking about. There is no choice to be a burden on society and expect society will pay for your sorry arse because you are unwilling to buy insurance and cant afford medical care when it is eventually needed.

That is completely different scenario than choosing your own medical treatments and having a choice to deny a treatment.

Let's put it this way. In a free society where you can be absolved from your debts, it is reasonable to have certain fiduciary responsibilities as a result of the protection you receive from bankruptcy laws. Every state in the union agrees with that sentiment.

Surely you can understand the irony of preaching the importance of choosing your own doctor yet not agreeing with a right of choosing your own treatment.

Let's at least have some consistancy