• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you own yourself (self ownership)?

Do you own yourself (self ownership)? Should or shouldnt you own yourself?

  • Yes (should)

    Votes: 32 76.2%
  • Yes (shouldn't)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No (should)

    Votes: 3 7.1%
  • No (shouldn't)

    Votes: 7 16.7%

  • Total voters
    42
BTW do those that believe people are property.

If you sell youself to someone does that person have exclusive rights to you? I.e. can he sue you for masturbating? (even though your his property, he has to sue you ... your defiling his property, which is you).
 
Not sure why people on the left are having such difficulty with the concept of self ownership all of the sudden. The entire abortion rights movement is based upon the premise that a woman has the right to determine what happens with HER body--as in it is her body, she owns it and she gets to decide whether or not to carry a child to term or abort it. If she does not own her own body then the decision on whether or not to abort is not hers but someone else's.
The idea that the body is just some abstract ownerless vessel to house our consciousness is not supported by any rational argument or any rational law. And hardly worthy of 59 pages of debate.
 
Last edited:
Not sure why people on the left are having such difficulty with the concept of self ownership all of the sudden. The entire abortion rights movement is based upon the premise that a woman has the right to determine what happens with HER body--as in it is her body, she owns it and she gets to decide whether or not to carry a child to term or abort it. If she does not own her own body then the decision on whether or not to abort is not hers but someone else's.
The idea that the body is just some abstract owneess vessel to house our consciousness is not supported by any rational argument or any rational law. And hardly worthy of 59 pages of debate.

A woman IS her body, when they say its "her body" they are saying that to say that no one can tell her what she can do with her body, but its not like there is a seperation between her and her body, she IS her body, its not property.
 
Not sure why people on the left are having such difficulty with the concept of self ownership all of the sudden. The entire abortion rights movement is based upon the premise that a woman has the right to determine what happens with HER body--as in it is her body, she owns it and she gets to decide whether or not to carry a child to term or abort it. If she does not own her own body then the decision on whether or not to abort is not hers but someone else's.
The idea that the body is just some abstract ownerless vessel to house our consciousness is not supported by any rational argument or any rational law. And hardly worthy of 59 pages of debate.
I don't understand how anyone believes they can sell themselves. Go ahead, use your will as much as you are able to lift the arm of the person next to you. Regardless of how much power you put into that belief, the arm will not move without the volition of that person or the use of outside physical force. A very simple test to show plainly and completely that ownership, and all the trappings that go with it, is a sham when it comes to people. I am autonomous and would exist with or without society. While you may be able to influence my decisions you cannot physically control me so ownership is superfluous. Without the option to sell why bother having a price tag, cash register, or storefront at all?
 
Last edited:
When you say this is my car. This is my house. These are my shoes. In what significant way are you saying something different than when you say this is my body?
 
When you say this is my car. This is my house. These are my shoes. In what significant way are you saying something different than when you say this is my body?

You can sell your car, you can give away your shoes, you can rent out your house. You can't do any of those things with your body.
 
Everyone *should* own their own body. But as long as the government is allowed to dictate what you can and cannot put into your body (drugs), and in what ways you can and cannot offer your body for sex (prostitution), the government proports to own your body, not you.
 
Everyone *should* own their own body. But as long as the government is allowed to dictate what you can and cannot put into your body (drugs), and in what ways you can and cannot offer your body for sex (prostitution), the government proports to own your body, not you.

The government is an extension of the people, it is SOCIETY which has decided that nobody can use drugs, nor can be engaged in prostitution, through their elected representatives and their votes, they have made those things illegal. As everyone is bound by the social contract as a consequence of being part of the society, everyone agrees inherently to follow the dictates of society. Stop being melodramatic.
 
The government is an extension of the people, it is SOCIETY which has decided that nobody can use drugs, nor can be engaged in prostitution, through their elected representatives and their votes, they have made those things illegal. As everyone is bound by the social contract as a consequence of being part of the society, everyone agrees inherently to follow the dictates of society. Stop being melodramatic.
It sounds like you agree that other people (SOCIETY) own my body in those contexts, and not me?
 
The government is an extension of the people, it is SOCIETY which has decided that nobody can use drugs, nor can be engaged in prostitution, through their elected representatives and their votes, they have made those things illegal. As everyone is bound by the social contract as a consequence of being part of the society, everyone agrees inherently to follow the dictates of society. Stop being melodramatic.

If you buy the whole 'Social Contract' premise.
 
If you buy the whole 'Social Contract' premise.

Thats true with any philosophy, islamic law, natural law/rights, christian dominionism, etc. You have to buy any of it.
 
It sounds like you agree that other people (SOCIETY) own my body in those contexts, and not me?

They have a significant amount of control over your actions, yes. They can decide that you can't steal, murder, rape, etc. They can decide what speed you're allowed to drive and what penalties are levied against you if you violate the law. Do they own you? No. Do they control certain aspects of your life? Damn straight. Welcome to the social contract.
 
If you buy the whole 'Social Contract' premise.

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.
 
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.

Great job not understanding what the social contract is.
 
When you say this is my car. This is my house. These are my shoes. In what significant way are you saying something different than when you say this is my body?
So you're willing to defend a theory of Dualism? Some mythical homunculus sitting in the head controlling the body? Otherwise you're just proposing word games - and cheap word games at that.
 
They have a significant amount of control over your actions, yes. They can decide that you can't steal, murder, rape, etc. They can decide what speed you're allowed to drive and what penalties are levied against you if you violate the law. Do they own you? No. Do they control certain aspects of your life? Damn straight. Welcome to the social contract.
Those are laws that govern what you cannot do to other people. I'm talking about laws that govern what you cannot do to your own body, when it doesn't affect anyone else but you. Call it a "social contract" all you want, but the fact remains we do not own ourselves as long as it's legislated to us what we can and cannot do to our own bodies.
 
Those are laws that govern what you cannot do to other people. I'm talking about laws that govern what you cannot do to your own body, when it doesn't affect anyone else but you.

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."
 
A woman IS her body, when they say its "her body" they are saying that to say that no one can tell her what she can do with her body, but its not like there is a seperation between her and her body, she IS her body, its not property.
I think we are essentially saying the same thing. It is just that you object to the idea of property and, thus, ownership of ones own body. Your body belongs to you. It is yours, and no one elses. On that we seem to agree. Equating this to ownership or property is just a means associating the possession of ones own body to other things one might possess. We are just using different terminology to describe the same thing.
 
So you're willing to defend a theory of Dualism? Some mythical homunculus sitting in the head controlling the body? Otherwise you're just proposing word games - and cheap word games at that.
Rewrite that in english and I will consider responding to it.
 
Those are laws that govern what you cannot do to other people. I'm talking about laws that govern what you cannot do to your own body, when it doesn't affect anyone else but you. Call it a "social contract" all you want, but the fact remains we do not own ourselves as long as it's legislated to us what we can and cannot do to our own bodies.

Fine, I'm not arguing that you do own yourself, in fact, I'm saying that self-ownership is entirely irrelevant. The "social contract", the inherent agreement that, as a part of a given society, you agree to follow society's dictates or suffer the proscribed penalties, isn't limited to just what you do to other people. Society can and does make all kinds of rules about what you can do, regardless of it's effects on you or others. You can disagree all you want whether that should be the case, the fact is, it is the case.
 
Those are laws that govern what you cannot do to other people. I'm talking about laws that govern what you cannot do to your own body, when it doesn't affect anyone else but you. Call it a "social contract" all you want, but the fact remains we do not own ourselves as long as it's legislated to us what we can and cannot do to our own bodies.
Can you give us an example of a law that governs what you can't do to your own body when it doesn't affect anyone?
 
The government is an extension of the people, it is SOCIETY which has decided that nobody can use drugs, nor can be engaged in prostitution, through their elected representatives and their votes, they have made those things illegal. As everyone is bound by the social contract as a consequence of being part of the society, everyone agrees inherently to follow the dictates of society. Stop being melodramatic.

Thats rediculous, your doing drugs, who you sleep with and so on are not the buisiness of society at all.
 
I think we are essentially saying the same thing. It is just that you object to the idea of property and, thus, ownership of ones own body. Your body belongs to you. It is yours, and no one elses. On that we seem to agree. Equating this to ownership or property is just a means associating the possession of ones own body to other things one might possess. We are just using different terminology to describe the same thing.

you ARE your body, thats the difference, I'm saying seperating your self and your body in some sort of duelism is only a linquistic metaphor, but in reality you are your body, property or possession is a relation you ahve to somethign else.

I suppose its just semantics.
 
you ARE your body, thats the difference, I'm saying seperating your self and your body in some sort of duelism is only a linquistic metaphor, but in reality you are your body, property or possession is a relation you ahve to somethign else.

I suppose its just semantics.
If you sell or donate one of your kidneys then aren't you trading a piece of your property?
 
Can you give us an example of a law that governs what you can't do to your own body when it doesn't affect anyone?

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom