Simple Question:

[JBeukema]

Does my right to do as I will with or to my own body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does it not?

 

[Lasher]

Does my right to do as I will with or to my own body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does it not?

Who told you you have a right to do as you will or want with your body? It is illegal to commit suicide, and ingesting dangerous drugs sans a doctor's supervision will also get you arrested and punished, among other things.

 

[WillowTree]

Does my right to do as I will with or to my own body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does it not?

Who told you you have a right to do as you will or want with your body? It is illegal to commit suicide, and ingesting dangerous drugs sans a doctor's supervision will also get you arrested and punished, among other things.

How many years to ya get for suicide? How can it be illegal to committ suicide when you won't be around to face a jury of yer bones?

 

[kaz]

Does my right to do as I will with or to my own body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does it not?

No, by definition if you are harming others then their rights are being violated

 

[NYcarbineer]

Does my right to do as I will with or to my own body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does it not?

Someone ring the gong.

 

[percysunshine]

Does my right to do as I will with or to my own body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does it not?

Are you going to sell tickets?

 

[snjmom]

That depends on if you have the grip to get an attorney to represent you to prove the damages.

 

[emilynghiem]

Does my right to do as I will with or to my own body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does it not?

Dear JB: I find the Golden Rule applies.
To the same degree you respect the consent of others, and don't impose where it causes threat harm or injury abuse or violation, then you have that equal capacity to enforce that standard for yourself since you follow it for yourself.

If you believe you have the right to impose on others, even to cause harm, and you accept that other people have the right to impose on you, then you and others who share this same standard have every right to set up a social contract and live by those laws.

If you impose a different standard on others who don't consent then this might cause conflict or violation. (I mentioned before, my standard is consent/consensus which either meets or exceeds standards on decisions made by majority-rule or judicial ruling, especially with religious disputes over policies which I believe require consent of the governed to prevent religious imposition or unfair discrimination/favor by govt)

The problem is really where people want their consent respected while violating the consent of others; so if everyone recognized the Golden Rule, and lived by/enforced the same standards they invoke themselves, we'd have to mediate all conflicts so nobody imposes on anyone else, but all decisions are made by consensus reflecting all equally.

 

[Mini 14]

I think I know where JB is going with this.

The answer is obviously "no."

But Roe v. Wade still stands.

I don't know why either, JB.

 

[snjmom]

Does my right to life include attaching myself to your circulatory system?

 

[Ragnar]

Does my right to do as I will with or to my own body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does it not?

Not so simple a question.

By what means is said harm inflicted? As a result your direct action or by others interpretation and resulting actions?

 

[JBeukema]

Does my right to do as I will with or to my own body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does it not?

Not so simple a question.

By what means is said harm inflicted? As a result your direct action or by others interpretation and resulting actions?

Direct lethal physical harm

 

[gekaap]

How many years to ya get for suicide? How can it be illegal to committ suicide when you won't be around to face a jury of yer bones?

How do you spend $3 trillion, when you only have $1.5 trillion? With stupidity, all things are possible.

 

[Ragnar]

Does my right to do as I will with or to my own body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does it not?

Not so simple a question.

By what means is said harm inflicted? As a result your direct action or by others interpretation and resulting actions?

Direct lethal physical harm

Then, sans any concrete example of an actual event, I'd have to say no. We don't have a right to actions which directly violate the rights of others. There can be no such thing as a right to violate the rights of others.

 

[snjmom]

Do you have the right to protect yourself from an invader, even one that you let in willingly?

 

[JBeukema]

Do you have the right to protect yourself from an invader, even one that you let in willingly?

If you let it in willingly, it's not an invader. By definition.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Only if the 'others' are legally protected from harm.

 

[BlindBoo]

Does my right to do as I will with or to my own body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does it not?

First, the nanny state has deemed that you do not have the right to do what you will with your body and property.

So the simple answer is no it does not.

A more complex answer involves questioning when a persons rights begin. The moment of conception or the moment of live Birth? Somewhere in between perhaps, or even after live birth?

 

[Wiseacre]

Does my right to do as I will with or to my own body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does it not?

It does not in my book. Morally you have no right to harm somebody else. Why isn't this thread under the Ethics area?

 

[JBeukema]

Does my right to do as I will with or to my own body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does it not?

First, the nanny state has deemed that you do not have the right to do what you will with your body and property.

So the simple answer is no it does not.

A more complex answer involves questioning when a persons rights begin. The moment of conception or the moment of live Birth? Somewhere in between perhaps, or even after live birth?

Legally, neither has anything to do with it.

Fully-grown adults had no rights if they were Mormons in Missouri

Missouri Executive Order 44 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course, that's if anyone wants to appeal to the Law. Some might argue the law can be wrong and we shouldn't obey the Law just because it is Law.