RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
September 9, 2015 at 2:18 pm
(This post was last modified: September 9, 2015 at 2:19 pm by Losty.)
(September 9, 2015 at 11:09 am)Ace Wrote:(September 9, 2015 at 10:31 am)Losty Wrote: Why can't we allow a person to amputate their arms??
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?
Ace Wrote:(September 9, 2015 at 10:31 am)Losty Wrote: Why do you think you should get to decide what is moral, just, negative, right or wrong for other people?
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.
Ace Wrote:(September 9, 2015 at 10:31 am)Losty Wrote: When an adult person who is mentally competent wants to do something that affect no one else but that person, then they should be allowed to do it. The only time anyone should be allowed to intervene is if the person is a child, is not mentally competent, or what they're doing affects someone other than themself.
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.
Ace Wrote: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.
Quote: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.