Question about abortion and self-ownership

TheScatman · 11-16-2006, 12:58 AM

I often hear abortion rights activists use the phrase "it a women body, let her do as she pleases" or "its between her and her doctor". So wouldn't it logically follow that anyone who is pro-choice favors a very strong right of self-ownership over ones body? If so....why don't they favor:

Allowing personal drug use by adults at home (if even only by themselves, so no claims of child abuse, hurting others come into play)?

Seems like if one has ownership over her body to use a medical procedure that ~30 percent of people consider infanticide, it would follow one could use drugs by themselves, in their home, since nobody can argue its murder.

Thoughts?

Kytro · 11-16-2006, 01:06 AM

Originally Posted by TheScatman

Allowing personal drug use by adults at home (if even only by themselves, so no claims of child abuse, hurting others come into play)?

I don't know if there there is a single viewpoint on this in the group. People don't really hold consistent viewpoint that often though.

nbiggershaft · 11-16-2006, 04:30 AM

Originally Posted by TheScatman

I often hear abortion rights activists use the phrase "it a women body, let her do as she pleases" or "its between her and her doctor". So wouldn't it logically follow that anyone who is pro-choice favors a very strong right of self-ownership over ones body? If so....why don't they favor:

Allowing personal drug use by adults at home (if even only by themselves, so no claims of child abuse, hurting others come into play)?

Seems like if one has ownership over her body to use a medical procedure that ~30 percent of people consider infanticide, it would follow one could use drugs by themselves, in their home, since nobody can argue its murder.

Thoughts?

I don't know that they are direct correlations. But I suppose I am pro choice, and against any laws that limit what you can do with your body, why you ask? expecting a different answer?

lew · 11-16-2006, 10:20 AM

I'm for legalizing all drugs but banning abortion.

DosEquis · 11-16-2006, 11:06 AM

I would legalize all natural drugs... the kind that lead no manufacturing such as weed. The shit like meth needs to remain illegal.

AVengeance · 11-16-2006, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I would legalize all natural drugs... the kind that lead no manufacturing such as weed. The shit like meth needs to remain illegal.

Then you run into what is "natural" and what is not. For example, if I mix pot and mint, is it no longer natural? What about pot and a synthetic chemical that gives it a nice aroma? What about genetically manipulated pot that has a higher THC content (just like corn with higher yield)?

You can't help but be a hypocrite if you support the "natural-only" stuff.

DosEquis · 11-16-2006, 11:46 AM

Grow weed, grow mint, combine them its still natural. It takes no manufacturing. You don't need extra chemicals or lab to put them together.

TheScatman · 11-16-2006, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I would legalize all natural drugs... the kind that lead no manufacturing such as weed. The shit like meth needs to remain illegal.

see you are just drawing an aribitrary point. if I have self ownership over my body, why cannot I not "mix my labor" with certain chemicals and then own/use the product? I am not saying your position is that odd in todays politics, I am just saying its not very defensible morally

edit - and do you see how your logic can be used against your pro-choice position? I could say "its okay if a women has an abortion, but anything that involves chemicals or manufactured things needs to stay illegal".

TheScatman · 11-16-2006, 01:42 PM

also to support ANY personal drug use laws you have to deny self-ownership, no other way around it. If I own myself, how can the government tell me what to put in my body?

DosEquis · 11-16-2006, 01:53 PM

I get your point but your point involves a situation that is more 'black and white'. Mine involves some gray areas because i don't think it is simple enough to be a cut/dry black/white situation. There are drugs like meth, crack, or coke that can make people go physically out of control to feed their addictions and hurt or even kill other people. Sure there are laws against hurting and killing people, but under an uncontrollable condition they can't prevent themselves. Weed never killed anyone.

TheScatman · 11-16-2006, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I get your point but your point involves a situation that is more 'black and white'. Mine involves some gray areas because i don't think it is simple enough to be a cut/dry black/white situation. There are drugs like meth, crack, or coke that can make people go physically out of control to feed their addictions and hurt or even kill other people. Sure there are laws against hurting and killing people, but under an uncontrollable condition they can't prevent themselves. Weed never killed anyone.

But my point is in a free society we let others do what they please until they violate the rights of others. For example, dropping out of college will lead to a higher chance of poverty, and thus crime. Do we ban that?

If anything in a free drug market there would be potency testing and warnings, thus making your above situations all the less likely.

DosEquis · 11-16-2006, 02:04 PM

Legal drugs with potency testing won't matter. The legal drugs that come out available for purchase, if designed to be within a certain strenght, is just going to be trumped by a guy making better shit in his basement.

The college drop out -> poverty - > crime is a significantly larger stretch than someone who is on their 4th day of a meth binge looking to score more drugs. It is about taking preemptive steps to help prevent from other innocent people having their rights violated.

TheScatman · 11-16-2006, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Legal drugs with potency testing won't matter. The legal drugs that come out available for purchase, if designed to be within a certain strenght, is just going to be trumped by a guy making better shit in his basement.

The college drop out -> poverty - > crime is a significantly larger stretch than someone who is on their 4th day of a meth binge looking to score more drugs. It is about taking preemptive steps to help prevent from other innocent people having their rights violated.

But how do you know what percent of meth users commit crimes? where is this information coming from? another point proven, central planners dont know which drugs to ban, in what strength to use them, or when they can be bad, or what percent of the time they cause crimes.

What if 90% of meth users are non-violent? 99? And what about the meth user who only uses it 3 times a month? Clearly his rights are being violating by personal drug use bans

Diamond Cross · 11-16-2006, 02:25 PM

Statistics such as that found at the CDC.

TheScatman · 11-16-2006, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Statistics such as that found at the CDC.

link? any non biased non governmental study?

nbiggershaft · 11-16-2006, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by TheScatman

see you are just drawing an aribitrary point. if I have self ownership over my body, why cannot I not "mix my labor" with certain chemicals and then own/use the product? I am not saying your position is that odd in todays politics, I am just saying its not very defensible morally

The point where they are chemically altered for the point of making them more addictive is where I draw the line. I'm still not sure what the point of all this is, just a general poll?

TheScatman · 11-16-2006, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

The point where they are chemically altered for the point of making them more addictive is where I draw the line.

But the question remains, who gave you ownership over their body to tell them to what to put in it? You are first assuming that drug laws are valid, then trying to justify them...

TheScatman · 11-16-2006, 02:41 PM

So IF we ban meth use since it could cause crime, couldnt we ban abortion because it could cause the fetus pain?

7th Ninjai · 11-16-2006, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by TheScatman

also to support ANY personal drug use laws you have to deny self-ownership, no other way around it. If I own myself, how can the government tell me what to put in my body?

As a non drug user myself, it really is that simple to me. I'm personally against drug use and I'm pro-choice, but I don't want to make decisions for other people or have the government make that decision for me. It's your body, do what you will.

nbiggershaft · 11-16-2006, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by TheScatman

But the question remains, who gave you ownership over their body to tell them to what to put in it? You are first assuming that drug laws are valid, then trying to justify them...

What? The modifying drug thing for more addictiveness thing? I'm not talking about whatever people what to put in their own bodies, I just wouldn't want to see manufacturers changing the drugs to make them even more addictive so people can't get off them see- cigarettes.

"You are first assuming that drug laws are valid, then trying to justify them..."
whats that about? you high right now?