If "socializing" the cost helps lowers health insurance and medical costs for everyone, including you, then what is wrong with that?The political left does argue that what one does to one's own body effects others, based on the fact that we now socialize the cost of the eventual negative consequences of unhealthy behavior. But they don't actually want to control anyone's self-sabotaging behavior. Rather they just want to control the taxpayer checkbook to be able to write off the suffering of the stupid. They essentially want to tie everyone's shoelaces together and declare "See!? We're all in this together! Now follow me."
If you sell or donate one of your kidneys then aren't you trading a piece of your property?
If "socializing" the cost helps lowers health insurance and medical costs for everyone, including you, then what is wrong with that?
Well it doesn't, so there's something very wrong with that.
Physician assisted suicide could be considered one such law. As it stands, I think it's not a crime to commit suicide (at least not a crime which is punishable - what are they gonna do? Put the corpse in jail?) However it is a crime to help somebody commit suicide. This IMO is the equivalent of being legally allowed to smoke marijuana but making it a crime to sell it.
But your kidney is a part of you and you have the same bundle of property rights to use, transfer, exclude and immunity from expropiation over your body as you would if you owned a piece of land. Of course once you've consented to sell or donate a kidney and it is removed then you have "transfered" your right of "use" of your kidney to someone else.Ones its detached from you its not part of you.
But your kidney is a part of you and you have the same bundle of property rights to use, transfer, exclude and immunity from expropiation over your body as you would if you owned a piece of land. Of course once you've consented to sell or donate a kidney and it is removed then you have "transfered" your right of "use" of your kidney to someone else.
Wouldn't that require an amendment to the Constitution?Without the due process of law ... i.e. you could have a euthenasia process of law.
Your point was taken.... "Of course once you've consented to sell or donate a kidney and it is removed then you have "transfered" your right of "use" of your kidney (property) to someone else"...and it is no longer a part of you.Once you remove it, its not part of you ... Its not "you," thats my point, if you sell your kidney but keep it part of you then that sale is meaningless.
Doesn't matter if you buy it. Society controls how you act in many ways. You cannot opt out of society's rules without leaving the society. So long as you are a part of the society, you are bound by those rules. Welcome to the social contract.
If "socializing" the cost helps lowers health insurance and medical costs for everyone, including you, then what is wrong with that?
Wouldn't that require an amendment to the Constitution?
As a side, "due process of law" originated from the Magna Carta....
"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."
Oliver Cromwell once said, "I care not for the Magna Farta." lol
Just because it can arguably be said there is a benefit to all, does not make it right.
There would also be a benefit to all to strictly control diets, exercise, what products are manufactured and what technology is used. None of that is right either.
In other words, "I have no defense so I'll attack your character instead". Got it. Thanks for playing.Rewrite that in english and I will consider responding to it.
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, which Amendment provides that: “[n]o state shall make or enforce any law which shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
The government doesn't recognize or protect the self owner's right to have a physician assisted suicide. But I would think the self owner would still have the right to commit suicide if he can do it without any external help. Like you said, "what are they gonna do, put a corpse in jail?"
Thats rediculous, your doing drugs, who you sleep with and so on are not the buisiness of society at all.
Physician assisted suicide could be considered one such law. As it stands, I think it's not a crime to commit suicide (at least not a crime which is punishable - what are they gonna do? Put the corpse in jail?) However it is a crime to help somebody commit suicide. This IMO is the equivalent of being legally allowed to smoke marijuana but making it a crime to sell it.
As long as you buy the idea of implied consent.
I agree, but an infringement on one of your ownership rights does not mean you don't still own yourself because you still have a bundle of other ownership rights.Yes, that has little actual bearing on whether or not 1 person can assist another in suicide. It's about the role of the state in regard to a person's life. If I "own" my body, given the definition given here - I should by definition be able to entrust it to those I see fit after I am no longer able to hold my own faculties. With that said, a law banning assisted suicide WOULD infringe on my ability to do as a please with my body as long as I am not affecting anyone.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?