Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Ace]

"For example I am sure you would agree the law should prohibit people from ritualistic sacrifice even if the sacrificed consent to the act and the sacrificer consent as well."

Why would you be sure of that? I certainly don't agree. If the sacrificee, is mentally competent adult with the capacity to understand and agree to being sacrificed...I am for it. I hope they do the sacrifice before the idiot has a chance to reproduce too.

Many time when a person wishes to have a type of mutation to one's body, the argument is that their could be other issues.  Now if it is proven that they are in the right state of mind, keep in mind that the "assumed right" to self harm is not legal and in any governmental society the people are never their own  rulers of himself but is a citizen of the state.

Also the Hippocratic oath . .  .a doctor is charged to "do no harm"

Obviously, a doctor is different, but I never mentioned a doctor. You didn't even make an argument. Why shouldn't a person be able to amputate their own arm?

You didn't answer the question all you did was say it's illegal in every country. My question was, why should it be illegal? How is it morally wrong?

Under the same thought that others have in what they think they have a right to do what they want and have an extreme fault assuming that it does not affect others including myself.

Again, you didn't answer my question, but instead told me that others agree with you. I don't care. I want to know why you think people should get to decide for other people.

Hahaha I think it will scare you if you actually know how much society and the government can and does intervene in everyone's life. Like it or not.

Why do you assume I don't already know that? I am not discussing what laws exist. I know that a person cannot legally do whatever they want to their own body, even if it affects no one else, but what I was saying is that they should be allowed to.

From your response to my post, it appears that you believe that the mere existence of a law makes that law right and moral.

So one can self harm? Hmm? interesting? Keep in mind that some people actually like to hurt them self and see nothing wrong with it. i.e. the lady known as "cat women" because of all the f-up surgery she has had on her face. Which she still wish to have more done to her but, outrageously is denied the right to do so. Hmmm?

Where is your mind right now? I never said people are not, denied the right to self harm. I said people should not be denied the right to self harm. Also, your cat woman example is not a good example because that woman wants a doctor to perform surgeries on her. Doctors are held to different standards for obvious reasons. If she wanted to perform surgeries on her self then she should be allowed to.

Also what are you counting as affecting another person? right when the act occurred, a month from then, a couple of years, what? Because affects can and do take some times to reveal them self

In this moment, in a month from now, a couple of years, or the entire span of my life cutting off my own arm harms no one but myself.

Before I answer this, may I ask if you truly wish to have a discussion about this?

I was hoping by some of my not so thoughtful replies to your questions would show that it is a little reticulated to be arguing the "right for a person to amputate their arms because they are not hurtling anyone." And that was not my intention or port to be arguing such shit. But I could be very much wrong.

It is just that at times, there are no reasonable, logical or rational argument or contour arguments that are actually being given. Instead it just start to become some jerk-off contest to see who can rebut with the most outlandish, stupid statements or arguments.

All I was trying to say is that at time you, (and others too) seem to be so adamant in not agreeing with Anima's or another’s ideas that you start to impose arguments/ rebuttals that start to forgo any reason or logic. To even agree on what is the obvious or to have any correlation with your adversary in agreement (even when it is reasonable) can not ever be, thus rebuttals with irrational "agreements of reason" are used make the argument become absurd and way off topic.

It is just that at times, there are no reasonable, logical or rational argument or contour arguments that are actually being given. Instead it just start to become some jerk-off contest to see who can rebut with the most outlandish, stupid statements or arguments. (sorry rambling here)


And of course. . .I mean come on? honestly? really? . . . no, no one, no current society or in this country should never actually considered it acceptable for anyone to allow any person, even with their freely give consent, to be sacrificed. I mean really? This is not a pissing contest here to see who can consider the most objective position to what is so obvious. Hence my example of arms amputated. But then again I could be wrong or that it is could just be me.

But if you truly wish to discus the topic, ok with me, I will continue.
I am fine with talking about whatever.