Should We Be Allowed To Intentionally Harm Ourselves?

[mdtaylor]

I'm gonna go way out on a limb here with...

No, with exceptions.

No, with exceptions.

Yes.

The exceptions cannot be defined except with respect to lawfulness. And, I owe no one an explanation as to my answers.

[Crzyme]

Every soul born is an unique individual.

What some of you will call a "birth-defect" is perfect nature

to the one born.

If ever there were one born whom would consider itself "defective", well then,

that one should be laid waste; for the ONLY defect apparent to "God" is

the belief or intention that a gift such as life could ever be diminished

or squandered upon any form of life that was anything less than perfect..

And the only "sin":

believing that there could exist within ANY form

of life, from the smallest and (seemingly) most insignificant state of

existence unto the the most expansive and furthest reaching arms of any

celestial universe might contain within itself ANY sign or symptom of being

ANYTHING other than PERFECT...Even from the very moment of its creation, unto

the final assimilation of its last mote of physical life.

...To be continued ...sorry bout that i gotta go...bad!

This is almost off subject I want to tell you about my husbands 2nd cousin

He is 22 years old and has cerebral palsy due to being born too early and having head trauma during his birth because he was just so tiny.

he is bound to a chair, has limited control of only one hand nothing else just the one hand

with that one hand he drives his chair with a joystick controller, same thing with his computer and the joystick controller there it is an arduous task but he loves to have a fantasy life on-line where he is not seen as he is in real life.

There isn't anything lacking in his intelligence, he is very smart

He is a happy young man for the most part

he has Friends who come and get him, they go to concerts, bars, movies and to the beach for spring break a few times

I enjoy spending time with him, he is funny and has a great comedic timing that catches many off guard and flies right over the heads of others.

He wants no pity wasted on him

But he also hurts at the things he can not fathom doing, he wants to be able to control the movements of his head, this frustrates him more than no being able to walk.

he wants to control his speech, because he has so much to say and he has to push the words out of his body with such effort, much of what he has to say can be lost via not being understood, or people jumping in to fill the gaps, finishing what they think he was trying to say.

He wants to be a husband and father, but says he could not do a sufficient job of either so he will never pursue that road

so while this might be pure nature to him it is not natural, he is not unaware of what life could have been had he made it full term, had the Doctor not rushed in from a party and used the forceps just a wee bit too tightly

he was monetarily compensated for the "mistake"

he has the finest chair, bed and lifts

and like all defects his was not made by God, allowed by God

nor was he "given to special parents that could handle such a child" good lord that is a great one to hear.

In all of life mistakes are made, a genetic code mistake

an altered chromosomal mistake

a chemically induced mistake

an act at birth mistake

a drunken doctor mistake

They are not God engineered, they are not tests of faith, they are not sins enacted upon the child for the sins of the parents they are just mistakes, not perfect, they just are what they are and unchangeable

Brandon knows his is unchangeable, he doesn't pine away at what he lost, but his is very aware of what he can not do (even though I disagree with him on the wife and child thing and at 22 he doesn't know these things yet) and how his life was shorted, he is not bitter or angry about the situation but he is frustrated.

his biggest anger seems to come when people say he is special, blessed or when Christians tell him he will be "whole" in heaven if he believes in Jesus. He is whole, he is blesses via his own spirit, personality and intellect, and he is special because he is kind, and caring not because he has a brain disorder.

okay blew off some steam here

back to work...

[jkp]

Do what you wish to yourself but if you are pregnant, you are no longer doing it to just yourself...A fetus does not count? I presume you haven't been around too many crack babies and children...

I have and my response is still the same. My view may not be the popular one but that is why I put that qualifier in there *IMHO.* Yes, things done during pregnancy can have a negative effect on the future born child. Such is life. The second we give rights to the fetus to be free of drugs and alcohol (using the most common example that is known to cause sometimes severe problems) we begin edging closer to giving the fetus more rights than the woman. And that, again IMHO, is not acceptable.

[Pegasuss]

I have and my response is still the same. My view may not be the popular one but that is why I put that qualifier in there *IMHO.* Yes, things done during pregnancy can have a negative effect on the future born child. Such is life. The second we give rights to the fetus to be free of drugs and alcohol (using the most common example that is known to cause sometimes severe problems) we begin edging closer to giving the fetus more rights than the woman. And that, again IMHO, is not acceptable.

It's a slow erosion, you inch in laws to protect the fetus and at some point by default the fetus is a legal person,

step 1 to ending abortion.

[Qryos]

Of course. But the drug use was the problem, not the pregnancy. Demonize the drug use all you want, but just remember that when you start dictating who should and should not get pregnant you are dictating who should and should not be alive. That is a heavy responsibility, and not one to be taken lightly.

~ If every possible pregnancy were realized... Every month from about 13 on a female can be impregnated.

All those opportunities for a life to be created are being lost. Not because of me.

I'm not dictating who should or should not be alive.

I'm saying responsibility is necessary. I don't mind if one harms one's self, harming another is not right.

Just because a woman is capable of getting pregnant doesn't mean she should,

especially if her uncontrollable behavior will cause harm to another.

~ & yes jkp, I understand what you're saying.

But say a 2month old infant is in the same room as parents smoking crack, not fed, not clean, would you say 'step in!'

or is it up to the parents, their right to treat their child as they want? As it was in the womb.

Once the child is born does it become a potential societal asset that must be protected for it's future contributions?

Or can a child be used & abused any way their parents decide & if it lives, such is life.

... No one wants or likes abortions Pegs. But outlawing them, that's an insanity. Better birthcontrol & education. Very!

I personally have no problem with early abortion. I understand some do. I don't intend offense.

[Qryos]

~ Angie, I'm so glad your husbands cousin is so strong! & so sorry about his frustration.

I can only imagine & that's even near I'm sure.

He sounds like a wonderfully marvelous young man & I so hope he finds a fine young woman.

{That sense of humour, that can get 'em!"}

[AT8FATES]

This is almost off subject I want to tell you about my husbands 2nd cousin

He is 22 years old and has cerebral palsy due to being born too early and having head trauma during his birth because he was just so tiny.

he is bound to a chair, has limited control of only one hand nothing else just the one hand

with that one hand he drives his chair with a joystick controller, same thing with his computer and the joystick controller there it is an arduous task but he loves to have a fantasy life on-line where he is not seen as he is in real life.

There isn't anything lacking in his intelligence, he is very smart

He is a happy young man for the most part

he has Friends who come and get him, they go to concerts, bars, movies and to the beach for spring break a few times

I enjoy spending time with him, he is funny and has a great comedic timing that catches many off guard and flies right over the heads of others.

He wants no pity wasted on him

But he also hurts at the things he can not fathom doing, he wants to be able to control the movements of his head, this frustrates him more than no being able to walk.

he wants to control his speech, because he has so much to say and he has to push the words out of his body with such effort, much of what he has to say can be lost via not being understood, or people jumping in to fill the gaps, finishing what they think he was trying to say.

He wants to be a husband and father, but says he could not do a sufficient job of either so he will never pursue that road

so while this might be pure nature to him it is not natural, he is not unaware of what life could have been had he made it full term, had the Doctor not rushed in from a party and used the forceps just a wee bit too tightly

he was monetarily compensated for the "mistake"

he has the finest chair, bed and lifts

and like all defects his was not made by God, allowed by God

nor was he "given to special parents that could handle such a child" good lord that is a great one to hear.

In all of life mistakes are made, a genetic code mistake

an altered chromosomal mistake

a chemically induced mistake

an act at birth mistake

a drunken doctor mistake

They are not God engineered, they are not tests of faith, they are not sins enacted upon the child for the sins of the parents they are just mistakes, not perfect, they just are what they are and unchangeable

Brandon knows his is unchangeable, he doesn't pine away at what he lost, but his is very aware of what he can not do (even though I disagree with him on the wife and child thing and at 22 he doesn't know these things yet) and how his life was shorted, he is not bitter or angry about the situation but he is frustrated.

his biggest anger seems to come when people say he is special, blessed or when Christians tell him he will be "whole" in heaven if he believes in Jesus. He is whole, he is blesses via his own spirit, personality and intellect, and he is special because he is kind, and caring not because he has a brain disorder.

okay blew off some steam here

back to work...

crzyme, it sounds like ive offended you and that you disagree with my statement.

I understand where it is that youre coming from (if I understand where youre coming from, that is).

Being aware that most people would be able to find fault in my statement, and knowing ("full well") that I would not be able to anticipate every situation, I still did my best to minimize the number of circumstances that one might present for objection.

The story of your husbands second cousin is one example that i feel should have been covered with the statement immediately above, since it brought nothing but sincere respect and admiration for him from me, but it did not change my original opinion.

It seems that your husbands 2nd cousin and I have many things in common; one of which is that

"...much of what he has to say can be lost via not being understood".

I will try to rectify this (and hopefully do it without offending you even more), in another post and under another topic title, if you should be so kind as to follow me, It would be my pleasure to help you understand my point of view.

Thank you,

and if it be an appropriate situation, I would love to have your cousins second husband join us!

Peace, crzyme.

AT8FATES

edited:

SORRY, I meant "your husbands second cousin", of course!

Edited September 14, 2007 by AT8FATES

[mererdog]

~ If every possible pregnancy were realized... Every month from about 13 on a female can be impregnated.

All those opportunities for a life to be created are being lost. Not because of me.

True enough. But when your words change someone else's actions, your words earn you partial responsibility for those actions. If your words talk someone out of getting pregnant, you earn responsibility for that. If your words talk someone into pushing for forced sterilization programs for habitual offenders, you earn responsibility for that. Loose lips sink ships, after all.

And even if we accept as a given that it is patently obvious that not every opportunity for pregnancy should be taken, does that mean that you or I is qualified to know which opportunities for pregnancy should be taken? Would knowledge that any specific set of tragedies will befall a person give you all the knowledge needed to weigh the potential worth of that person's life? If I show you where someone's life will start, can you show me where it will end?

I'm not dictating who should or should not be alive.

If you talk someone out of getting pregnant, that is exactly what you are doing. You simply never see the person you decided should not live, so the consequences of your actions are hidden from view, thus exactly what you are responsible for is kept unknown.

I don't mind if one harms one's self,

Liar. You mind. You might not think it's your place to do something about it, but you mind. Am I wrong?

[Crzyme]

crzyme, it sounds like ive offended you and that you disagree with my statement.

I understand where it is that youre coming from (if I understand where youre coming from, that is).

Being aware that most people would be able to find fault in my statement, and knowing ("full well") that I would not be able to anticipate every situation, I still did my best to minimize the number of circumstances that one might present for objection.

The story of your husbands second cousin is one example that i feel should have been covered with the statement immediately above, since it brought nothing but sincere respect and admiration for him from me, but it did not change my original opinion.

It seems that your husbands 2nd cousin and I have many things in common; one of which is that

"...much of what he has to say can be lost via not being understood".

I will try to rectify this (and hopefully do it without offending you even more), in another post and under another topic title, if you should be so kind as to follow me, It would be my pleasure to help you understand my point of view.

Thank you,

and if it be an appropriate situation, I would love to have your cousins second husband join us!

Peace, crzyme.

AT8FATES

edited:

SORRY, I meant "your husbands second cousin", of course!

got to love the finger slips

I answered this on the other topic title

I did ask Brandon if he would like to come here and he said he might come have a look so I sent him a link

we can only wait to see if he does come

I know you would enjoy talking to him he is a smart, funny basically happy guy

even if he is also a NASCAR loving, country music fan and a red neck (this is for him in case he shows up, Hey Brandon) .

[jkp]

~ & yes jkp, I understand what you're saying.

But say a 2month old infant is in the same room as parents smoking crack, not fed, not clean, would you say 'step in!'

or is it up to the parents, their right to treat their child as they want? As it was in the womb.

Once the child is born does it become a potential societal asset that must be protected for it's future contributions?

Or can a child be used & abused any way their parents decide & if it lives, such is life.

My original statement was that as long as no one else was physically harmed, people should be allowed to do what they want. In the above situation, someone else is being physically harmed (the child), therefore no, the parents shouldn't be allowed to do what they want.

[SilverRose]

just a note re: the second segment-- it's not 'her body'

[Reverend Zeus]

If you believe in self-ownership i.e. that you "own" or control yourself and are thus responsible for your actions, then the same must be true of each other person. You have no right to force them to do anything and they have no right to force you to do something. Also, neither they nor you have the right to stop someone from doing something so long as what they are doing doesn't harm another.

In the case of whether someone should be "allowed" to harm themselves (which you clarified as the government being the allower), the question is flawed in that government has no right to allow or disallow you anything... you were created with certain inalienable rights. If you own yourself and are responsible for your own actions, the government has no claim to your life, property or the result of your toil. And unless a person commits violence, fraud or theft, the government should have no other involvement in their lives.

The point being that people are free to do what they will so long as what they do doesn't harm anyone else. The caveat of this freedom is that they must be responsible for what they do and accept the consequences of their actions. If someone wishes to harm themselves, they have that right but not the right to harm others.

A lot of people talk about a woman's "right to choose". I believe a woman's right to choose is the same as a man's right to choose. The choice, however, is not whether killing a fetus is or is not murder but rather whether or not to keep it in your pants or not keep it in your pants.

If you choose not to, you must accept the consequences... be it a venereal disease or a baby you may not want. The right thing to do in that case is have the child and give it up for adoption. That is the price one must pay if they choose to have sex. Millions of people make that choice every day but few are prepared to accept the responsibility of their actions.

Now you might say "What about rape?" and I would say that the violence of one person does not give another person the right to commit violence on a yet another person. Yes, a rapist should be punished and not just prison but also paying restitution to support any children their violence creates. Yes, the victim did not ask to have a child nor is it fair that they should give birth but it is the responsible thing to do. To have the child and give it up for adoption. The child may be a product of his/her father's sins but that makes the child no less innocent of it's father's crimes.

That's my two cents and you are free to disagree.

[Whirling Dervish]

Welcome to the forum Reverend Zeus.

[boteomm]

If you believe in self-ownership i.e. that you "own" or control yourself and are thus responsible for your actions, then the same must be true of each other person. You have no right to force them to do anything and they have no right to force you to do something. Also, neither they nor you have the right to stop someone from doing something so long as what they are doing doesn't harm another.

In the case of whether someone should be "allowed" to harm themselves (which you clarified as the government being the allower), the question is flawed in that government has no right to allow or disallow you anything... you were created with certain inalienable rights. If you own yourself and are responsible for your own actions, the government has no claim to your life, property or the result of your toil. And unless a person commits violence, fraud or theft, the government should have no other involvement in their lives.

The point being that people are free to do what they will so long as what they do doesn't harm anyone else. The caveat of this freedom is that they must be responsible for what they do and accept the consequences of their actions. If someone wishes to harm themselves, they have that right but not the right to harm others.

A lot of people talk about a woman's "right to choose". I believe a woman's right to choose is the same as a man's right to choose. The choice, however, is not whether killing a fetus is or is not murder but rather whether or not to keep it in your pants or not keep it in your pants.

If you choose not to, you must accept the consequences... be it a venereal disease or a baby you may not want. The right thing to do in that case is have the child and give it up for adoption. That is the price one must pay if they choose to have sex. Millions of people make that choice every day but few are prepared to accept the responsibility of their actions.

Now you might say "What about rape?" and I would say that the violence of one person does not give another person the right to commit violence on a yet another person. Yes, a rapist should be punished and not just prison but also paying restitution to support any children their violence creates. Yes, the victim did not ask to have a child nor is it fair that they should give birth but it is the responsible thing to do. To have the child and give it up for adoption. The child may be a product of his/her father's sins but that makes the child no less innocent of it's father's crimes.

That's my two cents and you are free to disagree.

why would I disagree?

well said.

although I am on the fence on the rape part. If only for the sheer torture it might be for the woman involved.

but in cases of 2 consenting people having sex, pregnancy is one definate consequence, I dare say the main one? To not be prepared for that possibility is irresponsible.

[Qryos]

~ I know... abortion is always going to be a volatile subject.

This topic isn't about that though actually... {& Welcome Zeus! }

[Qryos]

True enough. But when your words change someone else's actions, your words earn you partial responsibility for those actions. If your words talk someone out of getting pregnant, you earn responsibility for that.

~ Meredog, you're granting me much more power than I have! & if I did have that power, what's wrong with that?

Are humans at risk of extinction due too few births?

... You are carrying this a bit far. It's simply a discussion.

[mererdog]

~ Meredog, you're granting me much more power than I have!

Please note that I liberally coated my posting with the word "if". I made few assumptions about your actions, and tried to be very generalized. Pardoning the fractured metaphor, it only takes a very small amount of power to be the straw that breaks the camel's back.In a place like this, you do not know where the people who hear your words are coming from. One confident voice can decide the course of a lifetime, with the speaker never having any idea of the effect they had. If you don't believe that your words have power, never apologize for anything you say. Pardoning another fractured metaphor, if you do believe your words have power, watch for when you place a single straw on the camel, not just for when you drop anvils on it.

& if I did have that power, what's wrong with that?

Nothing at all. It just means that you have to be careful about how you apply that power.

Are humans at risk of extinction due too few births?

No. If my town is not in danger of flooding, does that make me qualified to decide which clouds should develope rain?

You are carrying this a bit far. It's simply a discussion.

Yes. it is simply a discussion. But the words you used have been used by others to shore up support for forced sterilization programs. Simple conversation is a starting point, not an ending point. The stuff we say today will shape the stuff people do tomorrow. Had the political winds in this country shifted just a bit differently in the middle part of the Twentieth Century, my wife would never have been born. And political winds are created by words. Nothing more, and nothing less. This is not a little thing. Edited September 15, 2007 by mererdog

[Qryos]

~ Oh... OK.

Somehow I came across as a confident voice. {That's maybe the mis-understanding? & surprising to me!}

I have never intended or meant anything more than an individual's actions should not harm another.

... I know, I sometimes get pissy & post so. I do not intend distress or upset when I do such.

[mererdog]

~ Oh... OK.

Somehow I came across as a confident voice. {That's maybe the mis-understanding? & surprising to me!}

Simple, declarative sentences create an air of confidence and authority. Look for the simple, declarative sentences in most persuasive writing samples, and you will have isolated the points they want to convince the reader of. It's a trick at least as old as Athens.

[Crzyme]

If you believe in self-ownership i.e. that you "own" or control yourself and are thus responsible for your actions, then the same must be true of each other person. You have no right to force them to do anything and they have no right to force you to do something. Also, neither they nor you have the right to stop someone from doing something so long as what they are doing doesn't harm another.

In the case of whether someone should be "allowed" to harm themselves (which you clarified as the government being the allower), the question is flawed in that government has no right to allow or disallow you anything... you were created with certain inalienable rights. If you own yourself and are responsible for your own actions, the government has no claim to your life, property or the result of your toil. And unless a person commits violence, fraud or theft, the government should have no other involvement in their lives.

The point being that people are free to do what they will so long as what they do doesn't harm anyone else. The caveat of this freedom is that they must be responsible for what they do and accept the consequences of their actions. If someone wishes to harm themselves, they have that right but not the right to harm others.

A lot of people talk about a woman's "right to choose". I believe a woman's right to choose is the same as a man's right to choose. The choice, however, is not whether killing a fetus is or is not murder but rather whether or not to keep it in your pants or not keep it in your pants.

If you choose not to, you must accept the consequences... be it a venereal disease or a baby you may not want. The right thing to do in that case is have the child and give it up for adoption. That is the price one must pay if they choose to have sex. Millions of people make that choice every day but few are prepared to accept the responsibility of their actions.

Now you might say "What about rape?" and I would say that the violence of one person does not give another person the right to commit violence on a yet another person. Yes, a rapist should be punished and not just prison but also paying restitution to support any children their violence creates. Yes, the victim did not ask to have a child nor is it fair that they should give birth but it is the responsible thing to do. To have the child and give it up for adoption. The child may be a product of his/her father's sins but that makes the child no less innocent of it's father's crimes.

That's my two cents and you are free to disagree.

you started out well here and while I personally would have loved to have another child (back when I was having children) I had cancer and the choice was no longer available, I wouldn't have had an abortion, but it is not my place, nor anyone else's to tell a woman she can not do so, just like you started this out it is a choice that must be available because it isn't our place or right to do otherwise. No matter what we personally might believe about the end of the fetus life, we have not the right to force our beliefs on anyone else.