Ownership of our bodies (2 Viewers)

[loquasagacious]

An article in the smh today mentioned teenagers betting their virginity, which highlighted to me the importance of our rights to do what we want with our own bodies.

I think that ownership of our bodies is perhaps the fundamental component of freedom. Only through self-ownership are we not enslaved.

Though self-ownership we have the ability to exchange our labour for goods, services, goodwill or currency and we have the right to defend ourselves from transactions we do not wish to enter into such as rape, pregnancy or slavery.

A woman owns her body and therefore her womb. It is thus her right to decide whether to be pregnant.

It is also perfectly reasonable for people to chose to prostitute themselves, sell their organs or bet their virginity.

To me all of these rights and abilities have the common root of us owning our own bodies and being able to chose to do whatever we want with them.

Thoughts?

 

[SnowFox]

I can see this being a epic thread.

Really it comes down to morals and views, for teenagers betting their virginity, i think they are really retarded, but thats because my of my morals and point of view. Im sure if it was from theirs its a large sum of money in one transaction and...well nothing more.

 

[Kwayera]

My body is mine to do with what I wish, including donating my organs, having sex, and killing myself if ever I feel the need to.

IDK, I think that should be a fundamental human right.

 

[hermand]

My body is mine to do with what I wish, including donating my organs, having sex, and killing myself if ever I feel the need to.

IDK, I think that should be a fundamental human right.

.

 

[DavidBenGurion]

A woman owns her body and therefore her womb. It is thus her right to decide whether to be pregnant.

Assume, for a moment, that a foetus is a person. This person has been born into existence not through any fault of their own, but almost certainly by the actions of a mother. There now exists a foetus who claims ownership of his/her body, and a mother who lays claim to ownership of her body. We must evaluate the outcomes:

Abortion would lead to irreversible and total destruction of the foetus's body
Carrying through the pregnancy would lead to an escape plan for the mother of a mere 9 months of convinience

When the foetus is a person, it too has rights, and the mother's right to her womb does not override the foetus's right to life.

IF, the foetus is a person.

 

[spyro14]

First of all, I have to admit i've spent the last 10 minutes trying to work out how to pronouce your name. (laquasagacious that is)

Secondly, all comes down to in my mind whether or not a person is religious, specifically christian since I don't know much about any of the others in any depth. For a devout christian, their body is a temple which they have to show respect. Prostituting isn't what I would call self respect but hey i'm doing my best to stay impartial.

With that considered then I suppose you have to look at empirical differences between the religious and unreligious. For me when I do that, I see a once distinctive gap between human features closing but skewed toward the side of what i'm sure the religious call immorality. Somehow away from pleasing the lord and basically surviving to some screwed up materialitic monster laying safely inbetween the two. With that said, then I guess I have to admit that the difference between religious and non religious is becoming increasingly small, the numbers of devout christians in my eyes is not growing faster than the worlds population and what we are left with is people no better than whores and part time or casual Christians.

Final Conclusion, you have the freedom to do whatever you want, keeping in mind every action has a reaction (Sorry Newton). In other words the issue is not if we have freedom, it is what do we perceive the consequences of our actions to be. For Christians, Slightly harsher, you know the whole suffering in hell for eternity thing.

 

[loquasagacious]

First of all, I have to admit i've spent the last 10 minutes trying to work out how to pronouce your name. (laquasagacious that is)

Secondly, all comes down to in my mind whether or not a person is religious, specifically christian since I don't know much about any of the others in any depth. For a devout christian, their body is a temple which they have to show respect. Prostituting isn't what I would call self respect but hey i'm doing my best to stay impartial.

With that considered then I suppose you have to look at empirical differences between the religious and unreligious. For me when I do that, I see a once distinctive gap between human features closing but skewed toward the side of what i'm sure the religious call immorality. Somehow away from pleasing the lord and basically surviving to some screwed up materialitic monster laying safely inbetween the two. With that said, then I guess I have to admit that the difference between religious and non religious is becoming increasingly small, the numbers of devout christians in my eyes is not growing faster than the worlds population and what we are left with is people no better than whores and part time or casual Christians.

Final Conclusion, you have the freedom to do whatever you want, keeping in mind every action has a reaction (Sorry Newton). In other words the issue is not if we have freedom, it is what do we perceive the consequences of our actions to be. For Christians, Slightly harsher, you know the whole suffering in hell for eternity thing.

Slightly unclear spyro but I think the point your driving at:

Everyone should have the freedom/right to do what they want with their body. Peoples individual values will naturally dictate what it is that they do with their body. Religiously influenced values would generally be expected to result in different actions to values which are more secularly based.

Am I on the right track?

If I am then the issues arise when certain groups try to impose their value system on all of society by restricting the freedom/rights of individuals to make decisions which disagree with the particular groups values. Abortion is a case in point.

However I think abortion has been done to death (I went there) relatively recently so maybe lets focus on prostitution/sex-betting....

 

[DavidBenGurion]

lets not

 

[spyro14]

Slightly unclear spyro but I think the point your driving at:

Everyone should have the freedom/right to do what they want with their body. Peoples individual values will naturally dictate what it is that they do with their body. Religiously influenced values would generally be expected to result in different actions to values which are more secularly based.

Am I on the right track?

If I am then the issues arise when certain groups try to impose their value system on all of society by restricting the freedom/rights of individuals to make decisions which disagree with the particular groups values. Abortion is a case in point.

However I think abortion has been done to death (I went there) relatively recently so maybe lets focus on prostitution/sex-betting....

Sortof.... I will tell you after I work out what I was actually trying to say _=/

 

[Garygaz]

So you're saying because a child is inside a woman's body, that could give her the right to a late abortion for whatever reason she likes, because, well, it's her body?

 

[quik.]

Peoples bodies are of course their own and they thus have the choice of what to do when and where etc

I have always been of the opinion that people can (generally) do what they want, as long as they don't negatively impact on others / the freedom of others to do the same. I don't mind people smoking around me (despite thinking it is a retarded thing to do) as long as they don't blow it in my direction etc

Teens betting their virginity... well, they would most likely lose it somehow anyway. If they want to bet using it as currency then their decision, they might learn something from a bad experience they might have some great sex who knows

 

[Uncle]

"with full ownership of my body i can disregard and disobey authority and as a result can i order my finger to pull the trigger when aiming a loaded M1911 at a figure of authority.
then get arrested and lose rights, etc."

 

[Garygaz]

"with full ownership of my body i can disregard and disobey authority and as a result can i order my finger to pull the trigger when aiming a loaded M1911 at a figure of authority.
then get arrested and lose rights, etc."

I lol'd

 

[loquasagacious]

Also worth considering the question of self-ownership in light of women's boxing:

Jacquelin Magnay

Getting a left hook to the stomach is violent and brutal. Yet what is more sickening is hearing some commentators - mostly men - argue that women should not box at the Olympic Games because they shouldn't be involved in such fierce aggression.

''It is a scrag fight,'' one said. Another asked: ''Have you seen what these women look like?'' And one man wheeled out this sophisticated argument: ''I can't cop any of these women in any of these combat sports. Have you seen them play rugby? You can't really watch it. It's not feminine.''

Over the years I have heard many arguments alleging women aren't good, strong, capable or smart enough to compete in any number of sports.

These comments are scarily widespread, yet to suggest that women should be spectators outside the ring because they aren't ugly or tough enough is ludicrous, particularly when blokes object to female boxing because it isn't pretty.

Men boxing one another, with sweat and blood flying on to nearby spectators, is hardly pretty, either.

This is an argument that should be about the legitimacy of boxing being an Olympic sport at all, not whether women should be part of it. Instead, it's about the frailty of women.

Once, women couldn't do the triple jump, because it would inflict untold - and unexplained - damage to reproductive organs. Female athletes couldn't run the marathon, because they were too delicate.

And they still don't play five sets of tennis, because it is far too gruelling for their sensibilities. Only a generation ago women were finally allowed to ride bikes at the Olympics.

 

[*TRUE*]

An article in the smh today mentioned teenagers betting their virginity, which highlighted to me the importance of our rights to do what we want with our own bodies.

I think that ownership of our bodies is perhaps the fundamental component of freedom. Only through self-ownership are we not enslaved.

Though self-ownership we have the ability to exchange our labour for goods, services, goodwill or currency and we have the right to defend ourselves from transactions we do not wish to enter into such as rape, pregnancy or slavery.

A woman owns her body and therefore her womb. It is thus her right to decide whether to be pregnant.

It is also perfectly reasonable for people to chose to prostitute themselves, sell their organs or bet their virginity.

To me all of these rights and abilities have the common root of us owning our own bodies and being able to chose to do whatever we want with them.

Thoughts?

I suppose it seems a fundamental right - but people are not islands what with almost every choice we make and every action we take affecting someone else, somehow.
Do you believe children have a right to do whatever they choose to their bodies? Would they be capable of making decisions they would be truly happy with?
Edit: Just thinking aloud, really.

 

[Silver Persian]

I hate women boxing. I don't like men's boxing either - but when women are smacking each other it just makes me

Very unfeminist of me I suspect.

 

[loquasagacious]

I hate women boxing. I don't like men's boxing either - but when women are smacking each other it just makes me

Very unfeminist of me I suspect.

You might hate it but do you respect, and would you defend, the right of women to box if they so desire?

(deduction of feminist and libertarian points pending answer)

 

[Silver Persian]

You might hate it but do you respect, and would you defend, the right of women to box if they so desire?

(deduction of feminist and libertarian points pending answer)

No, I wouldn't argue against the right of women to box. I just wish they wouldn't because it makes me

And you can deduct all my libertarian points if you want to

 

[loquasagacious]

No, I wouldn't argue against the right of women to box. I just wish they wouldn't because it makes me

And you can deduct all my libertarian points if you want to

Including the ones about freedom from state sanctioned oppression of sexuality?

 

[Silver Persian]

Including the ones about freedom from state sanctioned oppression of sexuality?

Nonono. That comes from my progressive social democrat points.