Should We Be Allowed To Intentionally Harm Ourselves?

[SilverRose]

If a person wants total control over their own body & what they do with it, then they should take total responsibility.

catch being, when ppl start whining about their 'right' to this and their 'right' to that (drugs, alcohol abuse, etc.) at a relatively-young age, they're not thinking about decades on down the line when there's not much left of them to take responsibility WITH.

[fruitloup]

I answered yes to both. But this is with the stipulation that harm to those same rights of others is punishable. For example, I think a person should have a right to use pcp. But if they violate the rights of another due to that pcp and become violent and beat the crap out of someone, they are punished. Likewise, if a mother chooses to drink during pregnancy, fine, her choice. But if because of that choice her child is born with FAS, she is held responsible. This way a person is free to do whatever as long as they do not violate your same freedom in that. Not perfect, and could certainly be fine tuned, but I think its good enough to start with.

[Crzyme]

Note: I was inspired to make this poll after watching an episode of Law and Order: SVU the other night.

I think we should be allowed to harm ourselves

but when a person in pregnant they are harming someone else,

this is not an abortion issue, if a woman has an abortion she is once more free to do as she wishes with her body as she will not be bringing the baby to term but a woman bringing a baby to term will be bringing a person into the world and that person should be allowed to have as healthy a start as is possible.

of course doing as a person wants and harming their bodies and brains has to include that the working people will not be taking care of your ass when you are a drooling idiot due to self inflicted injury to the brain or body.

being able to harm ones self doesn't include neglecting or harming their spouse, children, neighbors, parents etc... so if they are methed out or a drunken sot or whatever everyone is free to leave them on their own, remove the children and let the person tend to themselves or wallow in their misery. And take away their Privileged adult status.

Of course people who use substances and continue to be able to work and live unimpaired should be allowed to do just that without penalties or hassles.

[mererdog]

Doggie, your wife may have been one of the few "lucky" ones that was not severely adversely affected by thier mother's drug use during pregancy.

Sure. But what does that really change? Can you say with assurance that it is always better to never be born than to be born with severely adverse effects?

Edited September 12, 2007 by mererdog

[mererdog]

I cannot speak for Claire, but MAYBE she was referring to the potential/likely permanent damage that the drugs/alcohol use could do to the unborn child

The problem lies not in the problem she addressed but in the solution she proposed.

[Dorian Gray]

Sure. But what does that really change? Can you say with assurance that it is always better to never be born than to be born with severely adverse effects?

Guess that would depend on your religious beliefs.

[Kimmy]

Allowed by whom?

The government.

[Samuron]

Allowed by whom?

The government.

To clarify further, does "allowed" simply mean it is "lawful", or does it mean "free from civil lawsuit" as well?

[Kimmy]

I could not answer the question. No matter how I looked at it, I could always foresee a line that was impossble to determine, legislate, enforce, justify or define.

For example, certain eating habits are harmful, as is putting one's self in harms way to save a child, as is sliding into second base, as is avoiding sleep to finish a project at work, as is the "no pain - no gain" philosophy of anerobic exercise, as is organ donation, as is many marriages, as is taking an unpopular stand, etc, etc...

This is why certain things are very hard to legislate or moralize. Just where do we draw the line? Who draws the line? Based on what?

I was surprised to find myself questioning my own stance while watching the show. I am a fairly black and white person, with my beliefs. If I think something should be legal, I usually feel it should be legal across the board. I may not always agree with an individual's decisions but I often think that he or she should still have the choice. This one was difficult.

* * * Spoilers about the show to follow. * * *

In the first part of the show her husband was trying to legally force her not to have an abortion. The court said it was her decision, not his, which I agreed with. Shortly after, she decided against having one.

Her husband later tried to have her committed to a rehabilitation facility because of her drinking. She was sentenced to an outpatient program. I was amazed that they would rule in his favor when they just said she had every right to abort the fetus.

Later, it was revealed she had another baby, who she gave up for adoption. This girl was born with FAS (Fetal Alcohol Syndrome). When they showed the girl I instinctively thought that they made the right call, by not allowing her to drink. Of course, I immediately halted in my thinking, wondering where in the hell that came from. So, I spent the next hour or so mulling it over.

* * * Spoilers end here. * * *

I eventually came to the conclusion that, as Tallmike said:

I may disagree with someones choices, but Im sure there are those who disagree with my choices in life too. I dont see why I should be able to force my views onto someone else unless I then consent to having others views forced onto me.

It is a thought provoking thread/poll, however.

Thank you. I was quite moved by the episode, so I figured I would share.

[Kimmy]

To clarify further, does "allowed" simply mean it is "lawful", or does it mean "free from civil lawsuit" as well?

I meant completely free from any lawful repercussions, including civil suits, etc. Edited September 12, 2007 by Elphaba

[Samuron]

I meant completely free from any lawful repercussions, including civil suits, etc.

I though so, thanks.

My answers:

Yes, with restrictions.

Yes, with restrictions.

Yes.

[Pegasuss]

The last thing you would want is the government deciding on your harm,

will fat people be arrested for eating donuts? (they cause ins rates to rise)

will you be arrested for smoking in your own home, (well their are kids in the house)

the mother drinking hurts the unborn child, (but she has the right to abort)

the person with a 60 iq has a child, (is this intentional harm)

should the unwed, un educated, unable to support mother be forced to abort? (maybe society does

not wish to pick up her tab for 18 years)

It appears to me that in most cases your harm has an indirect harm to others and society,

if only through cost.

[Crzyme]

The last thing you would want is the government deciding on your harm,

will fat people be arrested for eating donuts? (they cause ins rates to rise)

will you be arrested for smoking in your own home, (well their are kids in the house)

the mother drinking hurts the unborn child, (but she has the right to abort)

the person with a 60 iq has a child, (is this intentional harm)

should the unwed, un educated, unable to support mother be forced to abort? (maybe society does

not wish to pick up her tab for 18 years)

It appears to me that in most cases your harm has an indirect harm to others and society,

if only through cost.

you are right and have convinced me

no laws to regulate self harm nor harm for the unborn

life is a roll of the dice

some children are born with things that will affect them all of their lives some of these defects/differences are directly related to an act during pregnancy or at birth on the part of the doctor or parent it can't be illegal and for exactly the reasons you state.

and I sure don't want the government into any more stuff than they already are, as a matter of fact they should get the heck out of a lot of the stuff they stick their noses into right now.

[Phillipe]

Yes, no restrictions

Yes, no restrictions

Yes

Of course there will always be circumstances that would move me to, say, try to save the life of a suicide attempt, or attempt to talk a loved one into seeking counseling. But generally we are able to do whatever we wish as long as the repercussions of the action do not effect others - which is fairly tough to pull off, if you think about it - everything we do creates ripples...

[Qryos]

~ So, smoking crack with a fetus in the womb or a child in the house is OK.

Not in my little corner of the universe.

I don't suggest the gestapo jump in & monitor every pregnancy!

I said it's not right, when others are harmed by one's actions.

If you believe that early abortion is murder then I understand why you found what I posted offensive.

I voted 'Other: I will not confine myself to the limits of your poll!'

Because it's not a topic that can be easily confined or defined.

I'm glad you love your wife Mererdog, that she was born to find your love.

That doesn't mean that what her mother did was right.

[mererdog]

Guess that would depend on your religious beliefs.

No. it wouldn't. That would effect what I can say with assurance, but it would not effect what you can say with assurance. I can't speak for you on this.

[mererdog]

I'm glad you love your wife Mererdog, that she was born to find your love.

That doesn't mean that what her mother did was right.

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.

[mererdog]

The government.

Oh. Government should have no authority in our lives. So the government should not "allow" the actions, any more than a murderer should "spare" you.

[Dorian Gray]

I read the you, as the "people in general" varient of the word

[AT8FATES]

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!