SHiT iFOUND Episode 10

I agree with the examples that you give for those at the whim of ahnoter. And yet I think they are distinguishable as I mentioned above. Only in the case of a mother and child in the womb does one being's own actions about themselves so directly impact ahnoter. We do not have to encroach on the physical, bodily rights of the Nazis, mother of a one year old or doctors treating a coma patient in order to save the lives of these individuals. Well perhaps we have to kill the Nazis to get to the Jews but that involves different issues. Suicide and self-mutilation do cause the end of ahnoter person's life if that person is in the womb. And yes, in a way I do think women who get abortions are self-destructive. But I think people have some natural rights to be self-destructive. Well with regard to your specific question although having a foreskin is not a disease, it can lead to potentially higher rates of cancer. I don't know enought about gerantology to know if old age is a disease state, so I will decline to answer. And the complications inherent in childbirth demonstrate that the mother and child have a tenuous physical relationship, one where much is asked of the mother not just at the moment of conception but throughout the pregnancy. I do think that some of the complications of pregnancy are not part of the bargain struck when the mother conceives. A constant reaffirmation of the child is necessarily part of the pregnancy.I don't think you can really dispute a right to bodily integrity. It's part of liberty isn't it? What can you do without the right to control your own body. I mean from a utilitarian viewpoint if you are a donor match for bone marrow, shouldn't we be able to extract it from you everytime someone needs some? Or can you say no. Can you agree once and does that waive your right to say no in the future? You are right that a woman who decides to stay pregnant has not compromised her bodily integrity, quite the opposite. But for a woman who no longer choses to be pregnant, you must force her to remain pregnant against her will in which case you have compromised her ability to control her own body. Does that trump someone's right to live? I think that is an awful close call. And you talk about consequences of a voluntary act. The consequences of having sex are not pregnancy. Pregnancy is a possible consequence of sex not a necessary one. Also I don't think you can ignore the fact that science has created an avenue where that possiblity can be eliminated. If you don't like your tatoo, try having it removed or cutting it off your skin by hand. If this ends up killing the tattoo artist, then I would say you probably had the right to kill him. If it doesn't then I would say no. As for the analogy, I thought it discussed a person who was in danger (the person dangling from the edge who will fall) and did not discuss a threat to the life of the person not in danger (the person who can act to save or pry lose the person who is about to die I don't know what the threat to them is). Perhaps I misunderstood. Laws allowing religious freedom are being strengthened. Look up RFRA and RLUIPA. And there is an outcry about the laws allowing parents to refuse medical treatment. If you have a cite you can point me to I will read up on how they are being rolled back. I would recommend Marci Hamilton's book God and the Gavel and its cases cited for my knowledge on this point. Well there are lots of ways to ensure you don't get pregnant. Not having sex is only one. We could suggest that people remove their reproductive organs or lock people in a room until they are ready to get pregnant, but we don't do that. Catholic teaching is consistent, but it largely devalues the role of sex for activity other than procreation. I don't think that is the end of the discussion. Biologically, sex's primary purpose is for procreation, but it is not limited to that purpose. Pregnancy creates a person with rights. Because sex does not necessarily create a pregnancy, I can only assume that sex does not create a person with rights. And my main argument is that although the fetus has rights, when they are directly in competition with the rights of the mother, and the mother's rights are as significant as a right to her bodily integrity, there can be no brightline rule. I don't think we are talking about a right not to be bothered. That trivializes the situation. I think that displays a contempt for the mother. I don't share that contempt nor am I contemptuous of the unborn, I recognize that there is no good answer to this problem. Wouldn't it be interesting if a child could chose not to be born. Well, the law generally recognizes that once you have a child of your own, you have legaly rights attendant. Now whether you are responsible enough or not is a separate issue. I know lots of adults who are not responsible enough to have children. My recollection is that incest is always a crime. Because consent is not considered freely given. e2€œSo that's my reasoning. The rights of the mother and child are in conflict. The child depends on the mother for life in a way different than any analogy can capture. It is a unique problem. I would not decide against either the mother or child in every scenario, because to do so would strip them of an inalienable right. Sentience is the difference between thinking and unthinking. Awareness of one's own existence. I have no idea what PETA thinks. But I know some animals are carnivores, some herbivores, and some omnivores. People are omnivores and I think animals are delicious. Inherent worth. I would say I have only what worth I ascribe to myself. That worth is not inherent. It is fashioned. Well I don't really feel degraded at work, but I have in the past. None of the examples I gave would be actionable under workplace harassement laws. And telling someone they have no worth to the company and are not a good worker is not illegal. And in some sense if it is true, I don't believe it is immoral either. So you feel badly being degraded at work? I am sorry, but did you know there are workplace harrasment laws? Much of what you describe may be, in fact, illegal. And it is almost certainly immoral.Good luck to your kids. I hope for all our sake's none of our kids get an STD. And if they have a monogomous marriage, you're right, they won't be at risk. Unfortunately, you and they will have to completely rely on ahnoter human being for half of this bargain. I think you would agree that not every society has the same marriage customs, and certainly societies vary in how they treat sexuality. I think the control of impulses which you contemplate are unnecessarily harsh.Thanks for serving your country.