|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Experienced Member |
Personal Autonomy:
Because all humans have the same minimum capacity to suffer, prosper, reason, and choose, no human has the right to impinge on the life, body, or freedom of another. Ruth Mackey, Bio-ethicist, in arguing The Stupidity of Dignity Are we there? Will we get there? Should we be there? |
||
|
|
Member |
Must be nice to live in a perfect world. In the meanwhile, here in the real world, such things sometimes become necessary. Wouldn't it be nice that a police officer wasn't needed to "impinge on the freedom" of another person? Wouldn't it be great if we didn't have to put people in prisons? Wouldn't it be nice if no one ever attempted to commit a violent crime and against me or my family? Then I wouldn't be forced to impinge on their freedom or their body?
Must be nice.... |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Worst of all from this point of view are those more uncivilized forms of eating, like licking an ice cream cone--a catlike activity that has been made acceptable in informal America but that still offends those who know eating in public is offensive. ... Eating on the street--even when undertaken, say, because one is between appointments and has no other time to eat--displays [a] lack of self-control: It beckons enslavement to the belly. ... Lacking utensils for cutting and lifting to mouth, he will often be seen using his teeth for tearing off chewable portions, just like any animal. ... This doglike feeding, if one must engage in it, ought to be kept from public view, where, even if we feel no shame, others are compelled to witness our shameful behavior.
Leon R. Kass Founder, President's Council on Bio-Ethics |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
The New Republic |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Of course no one has THE RIGHT to impinge upon another....But we all do in one way or the other....One cannot control what others do, but we all can control how we react. Forgiveness comes to mind, too often we think that by forgiving someone, we let them off the hook, when in reality all we did was choose to not take a poisonous pill in the hope it would hurt the one that hurt us. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Git back is hard. People who play 'git back' are sick. I just ignore what I don't want to hear. I had a neighbor who played 'git back' in the end she moved out because no one would talk to her
|
|||
|
Member |
Seems like this road is a short putt to "old people should be euthanized to preserve their dignity and to make room for the youth of today".
Slippery slope. --M |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Tho I didn't see it that way ... the "personal autonomy" means deciding for yourself to what degree of invasive interaction a person permits to be put through ... anything from a DNR order to freezin' yer head and sending it to Mars.
|
|||
|
|
Member |
There is a "mortal danger," he writes, in the notion "that a person has a right over his body, a right that allows him to do whatever he wants to do with it."
The right winger equivalent of lefties promoting the end of property rights. Another reason to remain an independent on the voter list. |
|||
|
|
Member |
I'm 74 and still have a drivers license. I drive to the police station, drive about a 100 miles north to see my cousin, Never had an accident since I was 32. I still have all my facuties
|
|||
|
Experienced Member |
Sorry to take the thread off subject for a moment (I know I have an awful habit of doing that), but I don't see "the end of property rights" as a "lefty" creation. One need only look at how George W. Bush acquired the Texas Rangers and the land for their new stadium to see that political leanings have nothing to do with ones desire to "end property rights". Only the desire to grow rich, and a conscious that will allow you to do it even though it makes others suffer, is necessary. |
|||
|
|
Member |
I stand corrected. Both sides of the political world have drunk from that trough, and the Supreme Court has sided with big gov/business to take the little guy's land to enhance revenue. That said, the left is still more than happy to restrict a landowner's property rights for the environment, etc. Hasn't there been a bit of preaching in some public schools about how property rights are oppressive to people (that don't own any)? Ideology drives the faithful to mind other people's business. That should get us back on topic  |
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
The fact, in short, is that freedom, to be meaningful in an organized society must consist of an amalgam of hierarchy of freedoms and restraints. ~Samuel Hendel
There are two freedoms - the false, where a man is free to do what he likes; the true, where he is free to do what he ought. ~Charles Kingsley Freedom is that instant between when someone tells you to do something and when you decide how to respond. ~Jeffrey Borenstein  |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
I'll respectfully disagree with you, just to say that no one's property rights give them the right to damage the commons, i.e. the environment. If you are dumping chemicals into the ground of your own property, and it gets into the water system of a nearby community, then I'm afraid "property rights" shouldn't protect you from paying the price. |
|||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by eve community |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|||
| Site | Military.com Forums | ||
| Servlet | eve2da047 | ||
| Version | 1.2.22 build 9062 | ||
| Module | Forums 4.0.3 | ||
| Stylesheet | "Front Door" | ||
| Wordlet Set | "Default Wordlet Set" | ||
|
