Should We Be Allowed To Intentionally Harm Ourselves?


64 members have voted

  1. 1. Should we be allowed to intentionally harm ourselves?

    • Yes. We should be able to do whatever we want to our bodies. This would include smoking, drinking, drugs, suicide, etc.
    • Yes, with restrictions.
    • No, with exceptions.
    • No, under no circumstances should we be allowed to intentionally harm ourselves.
    • Other: I will not confine myself to the limits of your poll!
  2. 2. Does the same still apply if that person is pregnant?

    • Yes. Even a pregnant woman should be able to do whatever she wants with her body. This would include smoking, drinking, drugs, suicide, etc
    • Yes, with restrictions.
    • No, with exceptions.
    • No, under no circumstances should we be allowed to intentionally harm ourselves.
    • Other: I will not confine myself to the limits of your poll!
  3. 3. Did your answers match each other?

    • Yes.
    • No.
    • I'm not telling!

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 148
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Whether it is allowed or not people will always find a way to intentionally hurt themselves.

Many people will also hurt themselves unintentionally while they are pretending to hurt themselves intentionally. I have seen all too many cases where teenage girls try to manipulate someone else for attention or a cry for help and they overdose on Tylenol thinking that it can't hurt you, only to find out later that they have seriously damaged vital organs (I forget whether it was the liver or kidneys) and they will never be the same again.

I know that many activities are significant warning signs. For example, cutting, self-mutilation, etc. And everything should be done to get them the professional help that they need.

If we are talking about euthanasia then I believe that there should be a legal option available for it. Licensing it, make it controlled and voluntary. We have always considered it acceptable to put down an animal to relieve its pain and suffering. Is it any less humane to allow it as an option humans? I think that there should be a combination of two oral pills that can be ingested that would give them about a half an hour to spend saying goodbye to their families.

Some people could argue that smoking or obesity or alcohol abuse or drug abuse or any of a number of other activities are intentionally harmful activities. Should we ban or regulate them? That is debatable. I feel there is all too much government in the world already. So much waste and inefficiency. There has to be a better way. Wake up and smell the humanity.

~ That's a really good post turns! Thank you.

That cry or scream or whimper for help needs to be heard.

Those without hope of anything but pain should be allowed to gently die with dignity when & how they wish.

... & since I'm a fat smoking alcoholic, I can't really reply to the last part ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

This one is on my mind quite a bit with the exception of the pregnancy issue. My life is a constant cycle of this theme, as the society in which I live gives a big "NO" to this question. The world around me seems to have no qualms about hurting others by going to war and whatnot, but I feel absolutely persecuted in the world's denial of my right to religious freedom. I was recently locked up in the boobie hatch and the shrink really did not seem opposed to the idea of one taking one's own life. If it is okay to take one's own life, why the drug laws? Why is it illegal to consume drugs for religious purposes? So very often, our rights are taken away from us with the reason "it is for your own good." Surely, many people can sympathize with the right of a person who is terminally ill and in pain to take their own life. Does a child with a mental disorder have the "right" to continuously harm themself to their own end? When does one step in to help the insane? What is insanity? One thing for sure, is that this world is insane. Yes, the lunatics are running the asylum. For a long time I thought it was just me and got along pretty well. Once I realized the extent to which people would lie to themselves and others in order to fulfill some sort of immoral agenda, I started having problems. I'm not sure it is all that acceptable to infringe on someone else's rights because you think what they are doing is a bad thing for them.

- Ian

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ian,

Well spoken. I agree with the concept that no one, no government, has the right to tell me what I can or cannot do with my body. But then I also believe that I am supposed to treat my body as a creation of the creator and therefore I should take the best care of it that I am able to do. And I also know that I have no right to tell anyone else how they should take care of their body.

I guess it all boils down to that four letter word "love". If we love our body (and love whatever the creator has given us) I can't see where anyone would want to do it harm.

Yes, terminally ill and in great pain is a difficult one. But there are pain killers for that.

But on the other hand, I see no reason to try to hold on to life if one is not living. Being kept alive (in a vegetable state) with mechanical equipment is a waste of time if there is no chance that there will be a recovery.

Peace & Love!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
"tattooing is intentional harm"? :huh:

...then so might be:

--combing your hair (if you have it)

--brushing your teeth (if you have them)

--clipping your fingernails (if you grow them)

--and maybe even taking a bath (even if you dont get dirty)... is being tattooed "intentional harm", chico?


That's what I'd like to know.
Me too, since, I have a few and intend to get more. I don't think it hurts, I usually fall asleep while I'm getting one.
You have a tattoo machine the rapidly vibrates multiple needles with ink into your bleed and risk technically yes it's intentional harm. I have em and love em but it is what it is...

Sorry I missed these questions the first time. Rev. Fred pretty much answered the questions, however. My point was, if we go down the LEGAL path of whether or not we can, could or should be allowed to harm ourselves, then we go down a path that leads to such silly things as tattoos, body piercing or even some sports, and raises the question, "who decides". Since the purposeful use of needles into the skin is what it is, I assumed my reference to tattooing was obvious. Hope this clarifies the [needle] point. :shades2:

I am suddenly reminded of a great Neil Young tune, Needle and the Damage Done.....although admittedly, he was referring to a more heinous use of needles.


Tattoo'd Hooka :mike:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
Yes, no restrictions

Yes, no restrictions


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.

Exactly what he says ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

He's got it right and says it well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

The fact that there are over 6.5 Billion people on this planet, tells that someone is doing something right. A very small percentage of the population is involved in any extreme behavior.

I have two tattoos on my body, I may have a drink once in a while, I have smoked marijuana twice (it did not make me High), I really tried to pick up smoking, but couldn't get passed the bad flavor.

In the 90's a study was done on the social differences of big cities and small towns. They found in small towns people are more likely to help someone in distress. For example, an old man dressed poorly laid down on a sidewalk in both a big city and small town, faining unconsciousness or being sick.

More people went to his aid faster in the small town.

Big towns act like thick skinned takes a while for them to notice the sliver of glass working into their heal, but once it does the giant begins to limp.

When I get a sliver, I stop almost immediately.

Imposing one too many restrictive laws on people is like a sliver of glass and there should be a reaction. In a free society good behavior is encouraged and rewarded; our education is slanted toward this kind of thinking, but in some cases the theme doesn't hold in the home.

Ultimately the numbers speak for themselves. life always finds a way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 years later...

Answer #1: Yes, with restrictions. (the restriction being that, in the process of hurting one's self, one may not hurt anyone else)

Answer #2: Yes, with restrictions. (the restriction being that, in the process of hurting one's self, one may not hurt anyone else, including her preborn baby)

Answer #3: Yes

Link to post
Share on other sites

The first pole questions our stand regarding pesonal liberty. Your pole, Mithrandir, is an all together different question.

It is? I don't see how. The first poll deals with limits of personal liberty with regard harming oneself, implicates a situation where one's harming of one's self may have a deleterious effect on a innocent (or at least nonconsentual) third party (the preborn baby), and queries whether that contextual factor, by itself, changes the respondent's views on the ethics (or morality) of the activity. My set of questions merely extends the situational construct to include contemplating the limits of personal liberty with regard to harming third parties, implicates whether dependence/independence is a mediating/aggravating factor, and queries whether that contextual factor, by itself, changes the respondent's views on the ethics (or morality) of the activity. To me, it appears to be the logical next step in inquiry.

That being said, I would sincerely like to know your thoughts on the question if you'd be willing to volunteer them.

Edited by Mithrandir
Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right Bro. Kaman, no successful suicide has ever been least that which a brief search found....but many unsuccessful ones have been.

As for the poll, everyone has their own view of being a responsible person. While I personally think a pregnant Mom to be should respect the life she's bringing into this world, that does not mean there should be laws forcing her to do so. (Which by the way those laws are forthcoming "soon to a State near you" if the Feds get their way) Unfortunately this will all be done under the guise of public policy and what's "best" for us, but alas, just another restriction on our everyday lives.

"Do only that which is Right" certainly applies here, but then everyone defines that just a tad different for themselves it seems.

"Do what thou wilst as long as no harm becomes another" also applies, but then people play the odds on things that have various possible or multiple choice outcomes.

Bottom line, for any one standard to apply, everyone needs to have the same set of moral and ethical standards, which we know is a giant rabbit black hole of personal opinion.

Blessings of Peace,

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are not allowed to hurt ourselves, then we do not own ourselves, which gives all license to do anything to anyone.

I do not see that that follows. For example: A wild animal is typically unowned, but you do not have licence to do as you please to it.

And for Mithrandir:

a) Only with their informed consent.

b) Only with their informed consent.

c) Yes, although in the second case consent may be harder to establish because of the dependency.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Amulet locked this topic
This topic is now closed to further replies.