gungadin09 -> RE: "A woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body" (4/19/2011 7:57:37 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather ...on that basis, any laws that restrict me from doing what i want with my body, or ingesting what i want, is morally void. it is unnatural. ...and i would probably agree with you if the consequences for making that choice were confined to you and you alone. i would say that any person mentally fit to consent to a risky activity has the right to participate in that activity, provided that the only harm that could possibly come from it would fall directly on themselves... but that isn't always the case, is it? Crack is highly addicting, and being addicted to crack, (or even just doing crack) carries a risk that is *not* born solely by the one person who has *consented* to take that risk. The risk is also born by society, which is why the law, in prohibiting crack, weighs the rights of society against the rights of the individual. (The same reasoning applies to drunk drivers.) If you don't accept the idea that "society" has rights, then try seeing "society" as just a group of individuals who all have their own rights. And in this case, one of those rights might be, not being operated on by a surgeon who has a crack addiction, and is therefore less able to do their job than a surgeon who is not addicted to crack. i think you'll find that the decision to do crack doesn't always just affect *one* person's body, what *one* person wants to do with their life. It's a decision that may affect innocent bystanders, which is why the law mediates the rights of one individual against the rights of all the rest. If you want to call those rights "priveledges" instead, because they are not absolute, i'm fine with that. i don't think it makes much difference what you call them. The point is, they exist. pam
|
|
|
|