My Body

[PSPookie]

Is dead sexy, that's a given, but should I have the right to do with it as I please?

Interesting article on the topic: Your Body, Your Choice: Fight for Your Somatic Rights | Science Not Fiction | Discover Magazine

My thoughts: If I'm not dirrectly hurting somone else then I should be allowed to do as I please with my body.

[champbassist]

If what you're doing with your body influences anyone else in a negative manner, even in a roundabout, indirect way, there should be restrictions to such an act.

My 0.02.

[smeet]

Originally Posted by champbassist

If what you're doing with your body influences anyone else in a negative manner, even in a roundabout, indirect way, there should be restrictions to such an act.

My 0.02.

That's a slippery slope. What if the way I talk, dress, or pray (or not pray) influences other in a negative way? As in, what if it angers or depresses them that I'm different than they are? Most people don't like "different". That does not mean we should all conform to some supposedly inoffensive standard.

[champbassist]

Originally Posted by smeet

That's a slippery slope. What if the way I talk, dress, or pray (or not pray) influences other in a negative way? As in, what if it angers or depresses them that I'm different than they are? Most people don't like "different". That does not mean we should all conform to some supposedly inoffensive standard.

Should've worded my post better. I was talking about negatively influencing people who are dependent on you in some capacity.

[PSPookie]

Originally Posted by champbassist

Should've worded my post better. I was talking about negatively influencing people who are dependent on you in some capacity.

Who gets to define "indirrect negative influence"?

Here's a hypothetical example:

I have IBS. When it acts up I may decide to visit the thunderbunker 4 or 5 times over the course fo the day. The decision to do this with my body may indirrectly negatively influence my potty-training todler since it is abnormal behavior that will be interpreted as normal by the child.

Should I be whipped? I made a decision to do something with my body and it had indirrect negative effects on another individual; a minor child at that!

[Jim Nazium]

I think both the "my body, my choice" position in the linked article, and the "any act with negative effects on others should be restricted" suggestion posted above, depend on a western, dualistic view of the world. That is, the world can be divided into "me" and "not me", and I should have complete autonomy over "me" and limited rights with respect to "not me".

From an eastern, non dualistic perspective, it's not that simple. The distinction between "me" and "not me" isn't really valid. Everything I do affects others to some degree.

I'm a big beleiver in individual liberty, but I don't think the boundaries are as clear as some would like to believe.

[VincentSalizeri]

I agree with this concept wholeheartedly. However, I like playing the devil's advocate, so a few things come up.

-A governments job is to protect its citizens, among other things. Allowing someone to harm themselves goes against this ideal.
-In a similar vein, social welfare is an issue. What if somebody does something that damages them to the point that they cannot take care of themselves? Who steps in there? Even if they die, somebody else will have to deal with the results.
-What about those who are unaware of the dangers of certain things? They may think it's okay to drink bleach (or anything else potentially harmful), but should they be allowed to ignorantly harm themselves?
-What if someone ends up regretting what they did to themselves? Will they blame someone, will they look to someone to help? Is that other person obligated in any way to take the blame or help out, just because someone made a 'bad' decision?

[MatticusMania]

I also believe I have the right to do with my body as I please, so long as it is inconsequencial to others in a fairly direct manner.

[dbhokie]

Rights, rights, rights.

Noone really has any rights, just abilities, and allowances.

You are born, that's it, you didn't ask for it. You had nothing to do with the making of it. You are able to determine what to do with every passing moment. The question I suppose would be what ought others be able to restrict you from doing I suppose. That is why I love the concept of innumerable rights (even though many technically aren't rights). This argument never ends, there are those that believe that lower castes are infringing on their "rights" to live, by taking up space. That so many people is having a detrimental effect on this world and humanity. There are many who would tell me I have no right to smoke, because it harms others (despite lack of evidence), or that I don't have the right to drink because of the potential harm to others. Tis such a slippery slope when such things require definitive answers, because there aren't any. Many of the instances brought up are self-contradicting in this article. From recreational drug use, (which claims are made hurt others), to abortion (that depends on what one considers the viability of life). I believe that we intrinsically have a conception of what I "ought not" and "ought" to do, which is quite different from what I "think" I should not do.

[PSPookie]

Originally Posted by Jim Nazium

I think both the "my body, my choice" position in the linked article, and the "any act with negative effects on others should be restricted" suggestion posted above, depend on a western, dualistic view of the world. That is, the world can be divided into "me" and "not me", and I should have complete autonomy over "me" and limited rights with respect to "not me".

From an eastern, non dualistic perspective, it's not that simple. The distinction between "me" and "not me" isn't really valid. Everything I do affects others to some degree.

I'm a big beleiver in individual liberty, but I don't think the boundaries are as clear as some would like to believe.

That's an interesting point of view. Though, since we (or at least the majority here on TB) live in the west wouldn't the western perspective be the valid one from a legal standpoint? Were that the case, the legal test of "me" vs. "not me" is easily and concretely defined.

Though that mvoes us from the land of philosophy andinto the realm of law.

Originally Posted by VincentSalizeri

I agree with this concept wholeheartedly. However, I like playing the devil's advocate, so a few things come up.

-A governments job is to protect its citizens, among other things. Allowing someone to harm themselves goes against this ideal.
-In a similar vein, social welfare is an issue. What if somebody does something that damages them to the point that they cannot take care of themselves? Who steps in there? Even if they die, somebody else will have to deal with the results.
-What about those who are unaware of the dangers of certain things? They may think it's okay to drink bleach (or anything else potentially harmful), but should they be allowed to ignorantly harm themselves?
-What if someone ends up regretting what they did to themselves? Will they blame someone, will they look to someone to help? Is that other person obligated in any way to take the blame or help out, just because someone made a 'bad' decision?

-Is it harm if the individual in question does not believe it to be so?
-Here's where we get into the personal responsibility and social Darwinism aspect of things. Yes, someone else will have to deal with the results but that is and always will be the case, to a certain degree. No man is an island and so forth. The very existence of my mass affects the entire universe in a miniscule way. Where is the line?
-Those who are unable to take care of themselves (the young, the old, the disabled, the infirmed) should be helped. Again this is no different than what goes on every day; there's a reason we don't let 5 year olds vote. This concept is best applied to mentally conmpetent adults of consenting age.
-Personal responsibility. That's life. You got an elective amputation (pinky toes are stoopid) against medical and psychiatric advice and 10 years later you want to sue the doctors invovled because it was a horrible idea? Go pound sand. Or be an adult live with the consequences of your poor decision.

[Chebass88]

The linked article hinted at personal responsibility, but optimally, it would be enforced. Did you earn a faulty liver from drinking too much? Good - pay for it, completely. You did the damage, now pay the consequence. Of course, with all of our warm & fuzzy sentiments, it becomes "society's" concern, and so we all have to make healthcare payments. The same goes for the obese, smokers, drug users, etc.

Or, is it more accurate to say "Enjoy all the pleasures you can, as it is your body. When it comes time to paying the piper, society will take care of it"?

[PSPookie]

Originally Posted by Jim Nazium

I think both the "my body, my choice" position in the linked article, and the "any act with negative effects on others should be restricted" suggestion posted above, depend on a western, dualistic view of the world. That is, the world can be divided into "me" and "not me", and I should have complete autonomy over "me" and limited rights with respect to "not me".

From an eastern, non dualistic perspective, it's not that simple. The distinction between "me" and "not me" isn't really valid. Everything I do affects others to some degree.

I'm a big beleiver in individual liberty, but I don't think the boundaries are as clear as some would like to believe.

I've been thinking on this a little and I was wondering how you would respond to Emmanuel Kant's argument in A Critique of Pure Reason the concept of self vs. not-self exists a-priori. That is, one need not be taught the concept in order to employ it thusly negating the East vs. West dichotomy. Unless, that is, one considers it from an a-posteriori/relearning perspective.

All that was a bit dense for me so I'm just going to end with this:

[champbassist]

Originally Posted by PSPookie

I have IBS. When it acts up I may decide to visit the thunderbunker 4 or 5 times over the course fo the day. The decision to do this with my body may indirrectly negatively influence my potty-training todler since it is abnormal behavior that will be interpreted as normal by the child.

That's a weird example. I thought we were talking about serious negative implications such as your child acquiring the habit of taking drugs from you. I'm trying to figure out how going to the toilet 5 times a day could harm anybody at all. Or did I miss some American lingo in the word 'thunderbunker'?

Originally Posted by PSPookie

That's a great one!

As far as Eastern philosophy goes (I presume Jim was getting at Advaitism and related concepts) I'd say I have a connection and exposure to that, which many of you might not. Where I come from, we're basically living in a world of conflicting beliefs, with the rapid growth and globalization of India; the western culture and philosophy and our eastern beliefs are in stark contrast to each other with regards to many facets of life. The relevance this holds to this current discussion is that the said contrasts are so vivid that you cannot expect an Eastern concept to transmute into an essentially westernized scenario such as this.

Bottom line: Non-duality, to some extent, is a valid concept if you really think of it. Is it really worth considering it in today's pragmatic society (won't label it a 'western' society: don't think you can blame the fact that society is not perfect enough to apply concepts such as Advaitism on the 'west')? I don't think so, FWIW.

[madmatt]

Originally Posted by PSPookie

Is dead sexy, that's a given, but should I have the right to do with it as I please?

Interesting article on the topic: Your Body, Your Choice: Fight for Your Somatic Rights | Science Not Fiction | Discover Magazine

My thoughts: If I'm not dirrectly hurting somone else then I should be allowed to do as I please with my body.

We do not know what you are planning to do, so we can not give an accurate answer.
A rhetorical answer will be no real answer at all.
But, on the surface, I believe everyone should be able to do whatever they please with their own soul as long as they are not dragging others along unwittingly.
This is why I am pro-choice. Not because I think abortion is a great thing, but because I do not want any governing body to treat me like I am it's property. When you understand this than you will realize that Roe vs. Wade has NOTHING to do with abortion.

And I guess I'll go ahead and say it: God forbid we ever get to the point where choice is taken away because that is when they show up with your chip implant. Because, you guessed it, you now have NO choice.

[Quickie]

Originally Posted by champbassist

If what you're doing with your body influences anyone else in a negative manner, even in a roundabout, indirect way, there should be restrictions to such an act.

My 0.02.

Sorry, have to pass on this one. In today's world "Everything" influences Most people in some way.

[rr5025]

I thought this was going to be a Quintar style thread at first

[PSPookie]

Originally Posted by champbassist

That's a weird example. I thought we were talking about serious negative implications such as your child acquiring the habit of taking drugs from you. I'm trying to figure out how going to the toilet 5 times a day could harm anybody at all. Or did I miss some American lingo in the word 'thunderbunker'?

Yes, it is a weird example. That was the point. Previously, some had argued that what I should be allowed to do what I wish with my body so long as it does not have an adverse impact on others. This was an example of that concept.

Certainly, the argument was directed at things like drug use, but I was trying to make the point that it would aplpy to other aspects of life as well.

'Thunderbunker' means what you think it does The 'harm to others' that I was referencing was that the impressionable youth might think this behavior (5 trips to toilet) is normal when it is not thus having a negative impact on development and potty training.

[PSPookie]

Originally Posted by rr5025

I thought this was going to be a Quintar style thread at first

I know. It got all pholosohical in a hurry, didn't it?

Don't worry, there's still plenty of time for nonsense. This is TBOT after all

[jwbassman]

My personal belief is that you can do what you want with your body.

The only issue I don't agree with is Abortion.

That should not be someone's choice. My opinion.

[Chebass88]

Originally Posted by jwbassman

My personal belief is that you can do what you want with your body.

That's nice. So when you earn lung cancer from smoking or diabetes from a lifetime of poor eating, and a faulty liver from excessive drinking - who gets to accept the consequences / pay the bill?