It's my body verses it's my money...

Question for the OP:

I sense that your poll and your explanation in post #1 differ. Your explanation, to me at least, suggests that you are asking about the seeming contradiction in attitudes, and the two questions point out said contradiction. People's specific opinions aren't really relevant... though many are answering them anyway.

Am I correct in my interpretation regarding your intent, or am I missing it?

JohnWOlin said:

No because I know what the guy is getting at. He wouldn't be posting this out of the blue unless it was in context with a current event. That's how everyone in here works. They think they are crafty posting a poll that has "Nothing to do with" a current event in hopes that someone that normally sees one way on the issue sees it differently when it is made vague to them in a poll, therefore giving the OP some kind of smug internet satisfaction. /End thread.

Click to expand...

See, that's what I'm saying. I started the poll so I know that your bias is wrong. And, as it says in the intro, I posted it because the 2 questions (which I consider similar) were running independently and people react completely differently to each based on the particular example. The same people (characteristically) say either 1.) that the collective we CAN'T have a say in what someone else does with their body, but we CAN have a say in what they do with their property; or 2.) that the collective we CAN have a say in what someone does with their body, but we CAN'T have a say in what they do with their property.

Do you think the comparisons are similar? If so, why? If not, why?

To rephrase: 1.) Should government or society be able to force you to do something with your body for your good or for the good of another AND be able to force you to do something with your property for your good or for the good of another? Or, 2.) Should government or society not be allowed to take control of your body (regardless of the good for you or another) AND not be allowed to take control of your property (regardless of the good for you or another)? Or, 3.) You don't think it's an accurate comparison.

radcen said:

Question for the OP:

I sense that your poll and your explanation in post #1 differ. Your explanation, to me at least, suggests that you are asking about the seeming contradiction in attitudes, and the two questions point out said contradiction. People's specific opinions aren't really relevant... though many are answering them anyway.

Am I correct in my interpretation regarding your intent, or am I missing it?

Click to expand...

Sorry, Radcen - can you rephrase? I guess I'm interested in seeing if what I consider a contradiction is perceived by others as a contradiction. And, if it's not perceived that way, why is it not a contradiction? Meaning, I guess I'm open to suggestions that the 2 assumptions aren't comparable, but I'd like to know why.

Also, the question itself softens my thinking a bit in both areas. Meaning, I tend to lean to inconsistency when comparing these 2 things as well.

The two aren't related. But but statements are wrong.

GreenvilleGrows said:

Sorry, Radcen - can you rephrase? I guess I'm interested in seeing if what I consider a contradiction is perceived by others as a contradiction. And, if it's not perceived that way, why is it not a contradiction? Meaning, I guess I'm open to suggestions that the 2 assumptions aren't comparable, but I'd like to know why.

Also, the question itself softens my thinking a bit in both areas. Meaning, I tend to lean to inconsistency when comparing these 2 things as well.

Click to expand...

I'm getting ready to head out for the day, but I'll try to remember to come back to this later this evening.

GreenvilleGrows said:

I agree with the sentiment somewhat, although, I'd say that "we share governance of our money with each other via the government". It's our government even if we suck at controlling it.

However, that thinking also implies that as long as the government says it's ok, then it's ok. But, the government changes both how it views rights over your own body or others and how much of what is "yours" that it takes. Just because "we", via the government, "decided what was best" doesn't mean it was what was best. It's just what passed.

Click to expand...

good points

Its not reasonable to draw an equivalent comparison between a person's body and their finances. Yes money is personal property and shouldn't be interfered by the government unless necessary. However, taxes are needed to keep our society functioning and paying a percentage of income is a reasonable burden. A person's body is their most private possession and should be considered off-limits except in the most serious of circumstances. The standard for interfering with a person's body must be considerably higher than for levying a tax.

GreenvilleGrows said:

I thought it was a little interesting that 2 poles asking potentially similar questions appeared at the same time with striking differences in opinions.

One pole essentially said "should humans who don't carry a child in their womb have a say in whether or not the child is born?". The other one essentially said "should people who don't contribute financially to government expenses have a say in how much tax revenue is collected and/or what it is spent on?"

Statement 1: It's my body, and whatever happens with my body is totally up to me even if someone else is dependent upon my body or is otherwise vested in the health of my body.

Statement 2: It's my money, and whatever happens with my money is totally up to me even if someone else is dependent upon my money or is otherwise vested in my earnings.

Are these comparable statements?

Do you totally agree to both simultaneously? Do you totally disagree with both simultaneously? Do you think there is compromise in both areas?

Click to expand...

As one pole said to the other, "stand tall".
Or, are we talking of polls,poles, or Poles ??
Statement one and two : I disagree to an extent with both, in truth, we never have "total" control.. We do have far to much selfishness, that baby in the womb must have a voice - the mere presence suffices.
First poll : IMO, the woman should have primary voice....this is right and logical....but there is also the voice of the baby and the man...We need to come together as a society..
Second poll : IMO, The "contributions" must have nothing to do with the voice, in government.

earthworm said:

Statement one and two : I disagree to an extent with both, in truth, we never have "total" control.. We do have far to much selfishness, that baby in the womb must have a voice - the mere presence suffices.
First poll : IMO, the woman should have primary voice....this is right and logical....but there is also the voice of the baby and the man...We need to come together as a society..
Second poll : IMO, The "contributions" must have nothing to do with the voice, in government.

Click to expand...

Thanks. So, if the statements are comparable, it sounds like your views are consistent. It sounds like you're saying "society" should be able to exert control on the individual's body for the good of the other individuals involved. And that "society" (or, at least its representation, the government) should be able to exert control on the individual's personal property as well. Am I interpreting your view correctly?

It's my body, and whatever happens with my body is totally up to me even if someone else is dependent upon my body or is otherwise vested in the health of my body.

A woman does not get pregnant alone. A child is a mutual choice. If a woman does not wish this responsibility, why should she be attempting "negotiations"? Also to the same token, why should a male be inviting this arrangement?

Statement 2: It's my money, and whatever happens with my money is totally up to me even if someone else is dependent upon my money or is otherwise vested in my earnings.

I could only wish that I had some direct authority over the funds which are confiscated from me.

Simon W. Moon said:

I thought there would be poetry.

Click to expand...

I thought there would be people from Poland.