PDA

View Full Version : Who Owns Your Body



cosmocreator
Thursday, December 11th, 2003, 10:01 PM
This is my first poll ever. I've made it a poll because few can express themselves in deep philosophical terms. Yet, everyone can still have an opinion. I will comment further later.

Ominous Lord Spoonblade
Friday, December 12th, 2003, 12:35 AM
I voted "other". The Hell's Angels own my body. :-(

just kidding! hehehehehe


I really voted "I own my body". Though I don't really look at my body of being a thing of "ownership". I never real think in terms of "It's my body"...it's never concerned me. I just do what I will with it anyway. That includes covering it in tattoos or filling it with alcohol, if I so choose. No one else has such control over it.

My body is a vessel used to manifest the need for my mind to absorb the world around it through actions that it can't complete on it's own. :-|

cosmocreator
Friday, December 12th, 2003, 01:06 AM
I voted "other". The Hell's Angels own my body. :-(

just kidding! hehehehehe


I really voted "I own my body". Though I don't really look at my body of being a thing of "ownership". I never real think in terms of "It's my body"...it's never concerned me. I just do what I will with it anyway. That includes covering it in tattoos or filling it with alcohol, if I so choose. No one else has such control over it.

My body is a vessel used to manifest the need for my mind to absorb the world around it through actions that it can't complete on it's own. :-|

From the day you are born, your body is slowly being taken away from you, by the Being who really owns it.

Awar
Friday, December 12th, 2003, 01:59 AM
Why is the concept of ownership so important here?
I own my body, in the sense that I control it, yet there are billions of other equasions that influence what I do, and what my body does.

Finally, we all die, maybe we go to 'the great owner in the sky', maybe we return to the great unity with more wisdom, maybe we just disintegrate into the mollecules that nurture the ground, in the great circle of life ( Lion King, Disney co. ).

Hakuna matata :-)

We don't see the entire spectrum of our world, we don't see much more past what we directly encounter, let alone such 'higher' concepts.

If we respect our bodies, we get more fun out of them.
When our bodies don't work right, we don't have fun.

I guess our bodies have a big ammount of shares in this partnership :-)

cosmocreator
Friday, December 12th, 2003, 02:25 AM
Why is the concept of ownership so important here?

Why is anything important?


If we respect our bodies, we get more fun out of them.
When our bodies don't work right, we don't have fun.

And it's all about having fun.

Awar
Friday, December 12th, 2003, 02:50 AM
Why is anything important?
Ah! The eternal why!
And it's all about having fun.so then answer me, is it not about having fun? :-D

I don't know the answers, I was just asking some questions.
Do you think it'd be a safe bet that the one who knows answers to these questions spends time on a discussion board?

Mac Seafraidh
Friday, December 12th, 2003, 02:55 AM
Well, I do not want to sound unintelligent or anything but I would say my brain and my heart. I myself own my own body. I cannot think deeply into this one unfortunately.

Ominous Lord Spoonblade
Friday, December 12th, 2003, 03:22 AM
From the day you are born, your body is slowly being taken away from you, by the Being who really owns it.

Then why did they give it to me if they are going to take it back? What a gift!


And it's all about having fun

Well, yeah! I personally have always thought that this concept was obvious :-P
But, unfortunately, we have to do things that aren't fun -like work, etc. Why do we do them, though? So that we can live -have food, a home, etc. Why do we want to live? For the things that we enjoy in life! If someone seriously and truly gets no enjoyment out of life they usually choose to end it. Who (in their right mind) lives to work and do things that bring them no fulfillment (ie. fun)?

Awar
Friday, December 12th, 2003, 03:27 AM
I'd also add that our bodies are built in such a way that the things we once did to survive could count as fun too.

In the old times, if you wanted to survive( feed your body) you had to use your body for hunting, which is today considered a fun sport. :-)

Even today, after centuries of the society that does the shaping and conditioning ( Instead of nature ), humans still find most enjoyment in physical activities and socializing.

cosmocreator
Friday, December 12th, 2003, 03:45 AM
I don't want to make anyone appear unintelligent. Few people reach the philosphical level, the highest level of understand. But if you post something, I will question it so as to come to a mutual agreement on any particular subject. I'm capable of thinking at the philosophical level but rarely do so anymore. It takes too much time to think things through thoroughly.

Existence is not about having fun. Though some things may be enjoyable and others not, neither are a meaning of existing. There is a saying, Vanessa, find work that you thoroughly enjoy, and you'll never work a day in your life. Apparently, some people who do have the answers to difficult question, do spend time on some discussion boards. :-)

cosmocreator
Friday, December 12th, 2003, 03:53 AM
My body is a vessel used to manifest the need for my mind to absorb the world around it through actions that it can't complete on it's own. :-|


You have an amazing mind Vanessa. Who owns it? And how do you know who owns it?

Awar
Friday, December 12th, 2003, 04:01 AM
Let's say that Human existence is a series of events.
Each day of our lives we gather informations, process them, act in accordance to what we learned, or in accordance to what our instincts tell us, most of the time in accordance to both at the same time ( in varying proportions ).

For hundreds of thousands of years, we've lived in a certain state of existence that shaped us. Series of events through a million and a half years that have shaped our bodies, our thought.

We're built for a certain way of life, a mostly physical way of life, where also intelligence ( wit ) meant the difference between life and death.

We're not built for the way of life that most of us lead today. Most of the time, we can't even do the things we're built for, because this doesn't comply with societal regulations.

Because of this, we sometimes act in ways that would certainly have gotten us wiped from the gene pool just ten millenia ago.

cosmocreator
Friday, December 12th, 2003, 04:06 AM
Let's say that Human existence is a series of events.
Each day of our lives we gather informations, process them, act in accordance to what we learned, or in accordance to what our instincts tell us, most of the time in accordance to both at the same time ( in varying proportions ).

For hundreds of thousands of years, we've lived in a certain state of existence that shaped us. Series of events through a million and a half years that have shaped our bodies, our thought.

We're built for a certain way of life, a mostly physical way of life, where also intelligence ( wit ) meant the difference between life and death.

We're not built for the way of life that most of us lead today. Most of the time, we can't even do the things we're built for, because this doesn't comply with societal regulations.

Because of this, we sometimes act in ways that would certainly have gotten us wiped from the gene pool just ten millenia ago.


Do you think these events, thoughts, and instincts have been random and without meaning or do you conceive a specific direction?

Awar
Friday, December 12th, 2003, 04:12 AM
I don't know if there is a direction. For all we know, we might even be going in circles. Evolution, Humanity, Civilization, hell, maybe even the universe itself bangs out from a single point, spreads in all directions, but is eventually compressed into a single point again by gravity, until the moment in which it explodes again. :-)

My point is only that we probably can't see that part of the spectrum of existence. We only see and do what we're built for.

cosmocreator
Friday, December 12th, 2003, 04:18 AM
The only thing that's going to go in circles here is trying to debate this with you.

Who built us and why?

Awar
Friday, December 12th, 2003, 04:19 AM
Actually, I've come to conclusion that the purpose of intelligent life in the universe is to finally stop with the endless repeating of the cycles of creation and destruction. Both the universal and the local historical cycles will go on until some entity becomes aware and powerful enough to finally finish the bloody thing :-)

I think I've reached enlightenment, and proved Buddha at the same time.
Therefore, I'll reward myself with some ice-cream.

Ominous Lord Spoonblade
Friday, December 12th, 2003, 04:30 AM
You have an amazing mind Vanessa. Who owns it? And how do you know who owns it?

Well..thanks Cos! :-D Who owns it? I would have to say that the concept of "ownership" is something that man has created essentially to protect his own resources. In the past it was something simple like "that goat is mine" lol, really just to ensure that it would be used up by someone to sustain themselves. We have a history of "looking out for number one" ;-) As the mind is part of, and in fact the essence of, what is "ourself", it really is not a resource and is not something to which ownership applies. To me, my mind stands on it's own. I am my mind, and it is me, Ger. I am not the "property" of someone or something. How do I know this? It's what I believe. Just as someone might believe the opposite. These things can't be proved.

Nihilist
Friday, December 12th, 2003, 04:44 AM
Whoever has the means to control it.

Moody
Friday, December 12th, 2003, 05:05 PM
I put 'Creator', simply because it is a question that needs a spiritual answer - the Body and the Soul are inseparable.

This is complicated by the notion that a slave is owned by his master - but does the master own the slave's soul?
If not, and the slave's soul is inseparable from his body, then the slave is not owned or ownable.

As to the possibility of self-ownership of one's body/soul;
Should I be able to sell my internal organs [i.e., third-worlders sell their kidneys etc., to first-worlders awaiting transplants etc.,]?

If the law forbids this, then I do not truly own 'my' body/soul.

Prostitution, suicide and abortion are related questions in this connexion.

The philosophical aspect of such "owner-ship" reveals a disjunction; 'this time is out of joint', i.e., -
Do I 'own' anything in a DEEP sense?
Or is ownership MERE possession - a possession which passes from one hand to another?

This leaves the ultimate question;
WHO IS THE FINAL POSSESSOR?

Here we can only answer vaguely - the Creator.

Phlegethon
Friday, December 12th, 2003, 11:06 PM
The blood bank and the sperm bank own my body. My mind is mine to use, though.

cosmocreator
Friday, December 12th, 2003, 11:13 PM
The blood bank and the sperm bank own my body. My mind is mine to use, though.


How does a person separate mind from body?

Ominous Lord Spoonblade
Saturday, December 13th, 2003, 03:06 AM
How does a person separate mind from body?

It's not as difficult as one might think. Like this...

:-D

Moody
Monday, December 15th, 2003, 05:36 PM
Yeah - the concept of 'ownership' implies an owner and the thing owned.
It is a mistake of grammar which leads to the construction 'I own my body' as there is no real separation between owner and owned in the individual.
I am my body, my body is me - 'ownership' doesn't arise - it is a tautology.

Just as we say the 'lightning flashed' - in actual fact, the lightning cannot be separated from the flash - the flash IS the lightning.

So this rules out the tautalogious idea that 'one can own one's own body'.

Given that this is a product merely of the structure of grammar [subject/object being written throughout our thinking], then can we be 'owned' as objects?

Yes, as slaves etc., we are owned in the sense of being objects possessed by other agents.

But our sense of self [or 'soul'] rebels against this; you can possess me as an object, but my self cannot be owned.
If this is true, and we also agree that it is nonsense to say that an object can own itself, then my body cannot be owned as such.

The only possible ownership of bodies belongs to that of a Creator [if there is such a thing]. The Creator as the AUTHOR of the world asserts his rights of ownership as the world is OBJECT to him.

Of course, this is a theological answer; a philosopher might have to stop here and say that the notion of self-ownership and Other ownership of humans is not possible in real terms, while the concept of a Creator is speculative.

If we rule out the Creator [and I would always leave open the posssibility], then we'd have to say that NO-ONE owns my Body.

Only the Creator could be said to do so.

Aethrei
Friday, December 26th, 2003, 02:16 PM
I voted for the first. Just like body and soul/spirit cannot be separated, neither can body and Being. I am be-ing because I have willed this life. I believe in the eternal-recurrence. I can say I own my Body therefore, because life itself has chosen to express me through this body as I had willed it [i.e., life].

Gladstone
Friday, December 26th, 2003, 08:39 PM
I voted for the first. Just like body and soul/spirit cannot be separated, neither can body and Being. I am be-ing because I have willed this life. I believe in the eternal-recurrence. I can say I own my Body therefore, because life itself has chosen to express me through this body as I had willed it [i.e., life].

When you speak of eternal recurrence, do you mean reincarnation?

Aethrei
Tuesday, December 30th, 2003, 12:31 PM
When you speak of eternal recurrence, do you mean reincarnation?

No, reincarnation is something like transmigration of the soul [same soul in different bodies = avatars, so I think it sees soul and body as different]; recurrence would mean willing this exact and identical body again and again.

Gladstone
Tuesday, December 30th, 2003, 12:44 PM
So, in other words, that there are people with not only the same soul that return but look identical as well (having the same body as before) with perhaps certain cultural changes. I have never heard of such a belief; that is interesting. :)

Razmig
Saturday, January 3rd, 2004, 05:48 AM
I voted I OWN MY BODY since I like to beleive I have control over myself, however since we have been raised in a society where trends and clothing are a must, I would say that ultimately SOCIETY controls me, my actions, my life and body, as well as my soul. So in opposite of the creator, I think the destroyer (Satan) controls both my body and the corruption of society itself.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Saturday, January 3rd, 2004, 07:25 AM
I think this was posed as a religious question. Since I do not believe in any god, I owe my own body but, I will grant, there are exceptions. For instance, if you are in the military, that military owns your body. If you are a devoted follower of a political movement, such as for instance, the 3rd Reich, then the Volk would own your body. Some religious people think their god ownes them.

Another question might be: Where do we go after we die? The answers might shed light on this topic it the real question is one of control.

Razmig
Saturday, January 24th, 2004, 07:41 PM
I think this was posed as a religious question. Since I do not believe in any god, I owe my own body but, I will grant, there are exceptions. For instance, if you are in the military, that military owns your body. If you are a devoted follower of a political movement, such as for instance, the 3rd Reich, then the Volk would own your body. Some religious people think their god ownes them.

Another question might be: Where do we go after we die? The answers might shed light on this topic it the real question is one of control.
In a hole deep deep inside the earths crust. Or in a vase on top of my sons fireplace.

In my religion, kragapashte(religion of the fire), it is said that when a man dies, he is only reborn as an element as strong as his character. However I'm not very religious, and tend to lean more toward Christian values (as they are moral) instead of being a practicing fanatic Christian.

George
Sunday, March 14th, 2004, 10:00 PM
part individual, part community

kinvolk
Sunday, March 14th, 2004, 10:51 PM
I voted that the Creator owns my body. Being a Priest of Phineas I dont have a choice. I hope He treats it well,,,. So far so good!

cosmocreator
Sunday, March 14th, 2004, 10:54 PM
More than half voted that they own their own body. I wonder if this is at all indicative of decline due to detachment from the creator. A loss of direction and unified purpose.

RedEgosyntonicSun
Sunday, March 14th, 2004, 11:52 PM
Whoever has the means to control it.Our needs have the means to control the body.
So our needs own the body.
We own our needs.
So we do own the body.

But I think that controlling over smth doesn't mean owning it.
To control smth means to own control over it.
To own smth means that this smth is a piece of you and thus it influences you.


Actually I own my body and my body owns me.

cosmocreator
Monday, March 15th, 2004, 06:49 AM
Actually I own my body and my body owns me.


And how do you feel about having your body slowly being taken away from you by death?

Moody
Monday, March 15th, 2004, 05:11 PM
Yes - we could just as well say that Death owns our bodies since he demands the final payment which none can escape.

I was interested in something Marla/Vanessa touched on earlier in the discussion: the notion of the tatoo.
Slaves were tatooed as a sign of ownership [relate this to DNA based ID card systems mooted in the West].
A tatoo in that case symbolised that someone else owned you.

Then again, ancient Germanic and Celtic tribes tatooed their bodies as a symbol of freedom/ manhood.

Is this free-will tatooing an attempt to take ownership of our own bodies?

Tatoo you.

cosmocreator
Monday, March 15th, 2004, 08:36 PM
Yes - we could just as well say that Death owns our bodies since he demands the final payment which none can escape.

I was interested in something Marla/Vanessa touched on earlier in the discussion: the notion of the tatoo.
Slaves were tatooed as a sign of ownership [relate this to DNA based ID card systems mooted in the West].
A tatoo in that case symbolised that someone else owned you.

Then again, ancient Germanic and Celtic tribes tatooed their bodies as a symbol of freedom/ manhood.

Is this free-will tatooing an attempt to take ownership of our own bodies?

Tatoo you.


The Creator and death are one and the same. Death is just change, a transition.

RedEgosyntonicSun
Monday, March 15th, 2004, 08:38 PM
And how do you feel about having your body slowly being taken away from you by death?
Actually I'm slowly giving my body to Death.:)
Thus I manifest that I control and I do own my body. :cig (http://www.forums.skadi.net/misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=1#)

cosmocreator
Monday, March 15th, 2004, 08:53 PM
Actually I'm slowly giving my body to Death.:)
Thus I manifest that I control and I do own my body. :cig (http://www.forums.skadi.net/misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=1#)


Wishful thinking. That would only be true if you had a choice. ;)

RedEgosyntonicSun
Tuesday, March 16th, 2004, 12:43 AM
Wishful thinking. That would only be true if you had a choice. ;)
hmm...choice.
As you mentioned choice , I think that
namely The Choice , or our nature-given
right to choose the way that we treat our
body is evidence that we got some (not absolute)
ownership over the body.
But you also said :

The Creator and death are one and the same. Death is just change, a transition
I agree. And I could add that The Death is one of
the faces of The Creator (cosmo.??.;))
And of course I agree as you implied that
our Choice is limited by Death.

So why should we absolutize ?
The owners are :
- I (as I have limited choice how to treat my body)
- The Creator ( as he could transform into Death and "visit" body :~( )

Figurative said :
I am "the tenant" of the body.
God is "the housekeeper /manager".

...

Louky
Tuesday, March 16th, 2004, 12:34 PM
I chose the option about the Creator ultimately owning my body. I noticed that most people voted themselves as the owners. Now I can see the popularity of tattoos and piercings stemming from the need to mark the body with a proprietary label, of advertising self-ownership. I think it's a healthy instinct to rebel against ownership by any society which is not in accord with the divine plan, though.

These are kind of disjointed thoughts, but I see an upward movement in evolution as if the Creator (however you define it) has a plan for us, individually, and as a species, and it's our responsibility to do our bit toward that end. That's why I think the Creator ultimately owns our bodies. We are part of a plan and our upward progress is not the result of atomistic individuality. And we are responsible to something greater than ourselves.

old aryan
Wednesday, March 17th, 2004, 09:19 PM
Ownership is relative, though, isn't it?
Can we roll back aging, really; can we change our body to prevent decay, sickness?
I see ownership as having a control over preventing the object in question from changing radically, and in staying in its original state or 'package-new' appearance.
Maybe a lease is what we may have with the body, with the understanding of the 'planned obsolescence', when time and oxygen and every other thing brings what we know to be life to its end.
Maybe we are owned by the microbes, bacteria, etc. within us that live on generation on generation off of this soft machine?

Moody
Thursday, March 18th, 2004, 04:03 PM
Perhaps only the Immortals can say that they really own their own bodies.

For we mere mortals, the Grim Reaper is our Slave Master and we his Slaves. We have to 'go' when he says so.
Of course we can thwart him by committing suicide but then we've just done his job for him - hollow victory.

So, this tendency to try to find a 'cure' for death; all the usual sci-fi themes are there - down-load a young mind as yours gets old; clone your own body parts and use the fresh ones as yours wear out etc.,
One day, this living abortion, 'man', will find immortality ...

Then and only then will he sit back and say - NOW I own myself ...

And that self-owning man has an eternity of boredom in front of his cloned eyes ...

"That's the way I like it baby, I don't wanna live for ever".
[Lemmy out of here]

Siegfried
Thursday, March 18th, 2004, 08:53 PM
I voted 'The Creator', as I am a Cosmotheist (http://www.cosmotheism.net).


Death is just change, a transition.

Indeed. We - body, mind, soul, and spirit - are one with the Cosmos. When we die, we merely lose our waking consciousness and become an unconscious part of the Whole, just like we were before birth.
There is no death; there is only Cosmos.
Once we come to fully understand this, we are no longer afraid of losing the life in our physical body; we are capable of dying for the greater good.

nemo
Friday, March 19th, 2004, 12:45 AM
The finance Company! that's who!

Razmig
Friday, March 19th, 2004, 08:12 AM
The finance Company! that's who!
health insurance, and my teath to my dental =)

of coarse in my religion also...the being of your body will always belong to Mortven, and the aftermath to Holagan....anyone else follow these gods? eheh

Jack
Wednesday, March 24th, 2004, 10:46 PM
The only thing that's going to go in circles here is trying to debate this with you.

Who built us and why?

Why do you assume there is a who? And why do you ask for a reason why 'he' (or whatever) built us?

'Control is ownership' - Karl Marx. I agree with Moody, though possibly not in the sense he refers. The creator owns himself.

Scoob
Wednesday, March 24th, 2004, 10:50 PM
I wasn't aware there were other Cosmotheists here. Good to know.

And what you write is true.

More rep points for you. ;)

I agree with this type of metaphysical scheme/representation. Although I think the question of "who owns your body" is moot. Ownership is a human idea/behavior, and ascribing such ideas to the Cosmos is silly.

cosmocreator
Thursday, March 25th, 2004, 12:12 AM
I agree with this type of metaphysical scheme/representation. Although I think the question of "who owns your body" is moot. Ownership is a human idea/behavior, and ascribing such ideas to the Cosmos is silly.


I was going to post something on ownership (in general) but haven't gotten around to it.

Nuovo Vesuvio
Friday, December 24th, 2004, 03:30 PM
helooo...you say few can explain themselves in philiphical terms...even though i cant spell philospohical, i can explain it in those terms i think.

YOU own your body. YOU! Unfortunately some people let others own them, but only YOU have the power to let society and others own YOUR body, and of course you have the power to take it away from them. God does not 'own' your body as such. Remember, your body is like a physical vehicle for your real self to experience on the 3D grid.

the few who practice black arts are total losers, and if they ever try to control you, failure will be the eventual if not instant outcome.

Nuovo Vesuvio
Friday, December 24th, 2004, 03:34 PM
also, it is not your parents because see it this way. You already existed. When your parents 'made you,' they simply welcomed you into this life. In fact, they simply created your body, you control it and use it.

GreenHeart
Thursday, September 29th, 2005, 08:09 PM
The "Creator" may have created my body for my soul to inhabit, but my soul is mine, and so is the body it inhabits. I control my own destiny by the choices I make every day, IMO. My soul "owns" my body, so to speak, since my soul controls my body, causing it to move and manipulate things for me so my soul can gain experience.

I think the real question here is, shall I eat a ham or chicken sandwich? :chinrub


;)

I just thought about something, and I know this thread is old and nobody will probably read it, but I think the notion that you dont own your own body because it slowly dies it wrong, because, for example- you have a pet which you "own" but it will eventually die. You may own food which will eventually either be eaten or decay. Everything dies and/or decays eventually I suppose. That is due to the laws of nature which are, with wishful thinking, the will of the creator, but what if the creator is just as powerless as us to prevent decay (if they so willed it)? Who or what then owns the creator?

And for the ultimate philosophical question: What is the purpose of death and decay at all? I know many answers to this question but I can't say I will ever be able to fathom them all...

æþeling
Thursday, September 29th, 2005, 11:13 PM
The Gods created my race. They gave me a soul and a conscience. Not me personaly, but my ancestors. I have inherited these gifts passed down the ages. The man sitting here typing has the souls of countless of his kin. He is the latest in a long line. My actions affect the Web of Wyrd. What has happened in the past effects me know. What I do now affects others and the future. What others do affects me. I am in charge of my destiny. The Norns spin all of us a thread. It is up to us where we take it.

Gorm the Old
Saturday, October 1st, 2005, 03:13 AM
I am the USER of my body. I don't think that the issue of "ownership" is relevant and I have given it very little thought. Wherever I got it and whoever "owns" it, it is the instrument of my will. Living in a material world , I need an instrument of matter to act upon that world to effect my will. I have been provided, I know not how, with this body as such an instrument. Though the body has needs of its own, much of what I do is done to satisfy MY needs, not those of the body. The brain, for example, needs oxygen and ATP. Almost nothing I do is directed at satisfying those needs. If I encounter an unfamiliar word in my reading, I get up , walk across the room, and take a dictionary out of the bookcase and look up the word. My body didn't really need that small amount of exercise. My brain wasn't nourished by those actions. I (whatever I am) needed the definition of that word. I used my body to enable me to obtain that definition. Whether or not I "own" this wonderful instrument for carrying out my will seems very unimportant to be. Under the old CCCP, high Communist officials didn't "own" the dachas and Zis limousines which they used, but they had exclusive and unrestricted use of them, so what difference did it make ? Of course, this is what freedom is all about. I have exclusive and virtually unrestricted use of this body because I am free. If I were a slave (or a soldier) this would not be true. The reason that I hate the very idea of slavery is that I am jealously possessive of the
exclusive use of this body.

Northern Paladin
Monday, October 3rd, 2005, 04:18 AM
The body provides a vehicle for us to exercise our will. We are responsible for it and I believe it's in our best interest to take good care of it...

As for why we die. One can only ponder. But I suppose it's because God wanted life on Earth to carry a certain urgency and finality.

SouthernBoy
Monday, October 3rd, 2005, 04:21 AM
I believe that I own the majority of my body, but my sexual organs and functions belong to my group. :)

Siegfried
Monday, October 3rd, 2005, 08:45 AM
I believe that I own the majority of my body, but my sexual organs and functions belong to my group. :)

Does that mean, that within the legal bounds of the community, any member of your group has unconditional access to your "sexual organs and functions"? ;) If not, I'm not sure we can say the group owns that part of your body.

Northern Paladin
Monday, October 3rd, 2005, 10:24 PM
Does that mean, that within the legal bounds of the community, any member of your group has unconditional access to your "sexual organs and functions"? ;)

Perhaps Southernboy has been in a prison shower? Because that's one of the few places his statement applies.:D

SouthernBoy
Tuesday, October 4th, 2005, 02:14 AM
Does that mean, that within the legal bounds of the community, any member of your group has unconditional access to your "sexual organs and functions"? ;) Yes, and I, theirs'. :D

Siegfried
Tuesday, October 4th, 2005, 08:15 AM
Yes, and I, theirs'. :D

I suddenly understand how you came to this position ;)

maskedhate
Tuesday, October 4th, 2005, 08:45 AM
I, of course!

Is that a joke?

Siegfried
Tuesday, October 4th, 2005, 08:56 AM
I, of course!
Is that a joke?

The State may siege ownership of your body if you are in violation of the law, and may do so for extensive periods of time. In the West, this has been regulated and even in prison the State does not acquire the full rights to your body (torture and forced experimentation are forbidden). This does, however, raise some interesting questions. :)

Drömmarnas Stig
Tuesday, October 4th, 2005, 06:23 PM
At first glance the question seems obvious, "of course I own my body" one would think.

As long as the body is alive and kickin' that is almost true.
In my opinion I own my body, if I take care of it. Random destruction (hurting oneself on purpose, drug addiction...) is not tolerable though.
Society pays for the education and health care of its members.
That's why society can demand of each member to take care as good as possible of their bodies.

Same is valid for a woman who bears a disabled child and wants to give birth to it.
Who is going to pay for it? Society, yeah great.
She has no right whatsoever to demand that.
The disabled unborn child only partially belongs to the mother.

_____________

Now to dead bodies.
I don't believe in any religion or afterlife. It's unreasonable. Reason and logic dictate a healthy society. Thus tolerance towards religious beliefs are inadequate.
Hence dead bodies belong to society only.
Society alone has the right to decide how to best use the corpse.

So it's a split decision between "I own it" and "society owns it".

maskedhate
Wednesday, October 5th, 2005, 07:41 AM
The State may siege ownership of your body if you are in violation of the law, and may do so for extensive periods of time. In the West, this has been regulated and even in prison the State does not acquire the full rights to your body (torture and forced experimentation are forbidden). This does, however, raise some interesting questions. :)

Good point..but...

1-My answer was about myself ( i am not..and i never was penal processed)

2-In that case The State private you of some rights like freedom, using the public force, but you sitill owns your body...For example you can do what you want with your body in prison (obiously with the prison limitations) like walk to the right or walk to the left into your cage :P

Agustinik
Sunday, October 9th, 2005, 09:12 PM
I´ve choosen Society.

Of course, you can use your body to attend your own bussines, walk, serve yourself a cup of tea, climb a mountain, etc.

You own your body in the sense that you can use it to do whatever you want, but with certain limitations dictated by the Society wich you are part of.

Being part of a Society, you have to be an useful and productive element of it. You have to put the community interests first than yours. Otherwise you´re a parasite and a charge - and even a traitor.

As part of a Society you have certain obligations like maintain your body in a good shape.

You can´t take drugs, fill yourself with alcohol, etc. because it will degrade you mental and phisically, converting you in an anti-social, unuseful, inferior element. You became a problem, affecting your society in a negative way.

The same with abortion: healthy children abortion have to be forbbiden in a healthy society (unless it affects the mother´s body in a deadly way).
Members of a society should be forbbiden to abort healthy new good members of it. It´s not a desicion of the mother on her own body what prevails over the community´s interests.

The contrary with deformed, mentally weak and/or defectuous children: They have to be aborted, because they´re not a healthy element for a healthy society. NOT aborting these children should be forbbiden, no matter the mother´s decision on her body and her would-be children.

You can´t mix your blood with other different that your community´s blood. Doing it massively would affect the genetical composition of your community destroying it in the long term.

Another example: If your community is under attack you have to put your body at the defense´s forces to protect it. It´s not your desicion, it´s your duty.

In conclussion: If you´re part of a Society, your control over yourself is limited by the community´s interests. Both your body and soul are owned by your country.

Hoarsewhisper
Sunday, October 9th, 2005, 09:45 PM
It looks that Augustinik has chosen the most utilitarist and most society-oriented stance. One could almost think you were an ant :D .

But seriously, Augustinik: you claim that wealthy women should be forced to have their children born and mothers of cripples should be made to abort.
One thousand dollar question (even if a very old one): Just WHERE do you propose to set a limit between the wealthy and poor, and: between cripple and healthy child?
This is not an academic question. And: who is going to decide about it?

Your views about abstention from excess of alcohol and tobacco (drugs are forbidden anyway): I have read an economic analysis of the effects of smoking on economy, I think in British Medical Journal.
The State earns huge amounts of money out of tobacco-tax and people who smoke live shorter. As a result – the heavy smoker is going to die early, using only a little bit of his retirement pension. However you look at it – society wins by your smoking. So – I don`t buy this one either.

But, generally – I think it`s 50:50. At times of war (in countries with conscription) you just have to become a cannon-meat, like it or not.

I was a little shaken by Nibelung`s views about disposal of corpses. Whether you like religion or not – you have to respect the feelings of relatives. If it is important for them that you be buried in a certain way (and they can afford it) – their wish should be honoured. Civilized societies do it. We are not robots, after all. Or what.:(

Hoarsewhisper
Sunday, October 9th, 2005, 09:59 PM
WOW!
I have totally forgotten the most important owner of my body (totally unforgivable - I hopy she doesn`t see it):

My wife is the most important owner of it!!! It`s self-evident, of course.

Agustinik
Monday, October 10th, 2005, 04:56 AM
I´m sorry!! I confused the word "Wealthy" with "Healthy" in my post!!!
I wasn´t refering to economic classes or status!! Just salud:)
I´ve edited it and replaced the wrong words.

AGUSTÍN

Jack
Monday, October 10th, 2005, 05:42 AM
I revise my previous position: ownership is a metaphysically bankrupt concept :D

Agustinik
Monday, October 10th, 2005, 05:54 AM
It looks that Augustinik has chosen the most utilitarist and most society-oriented stance. One could almost think you were an ant :D

Well... I´m not an ant:-O


But seriously, Augustinik: you claim that wealthy women should be forced to have their children born and mothers of cripples should be made to abort.
One thousand dollar question (even if a very old one): Just WHERE do you propose to set a limit between the wealthy and poor, and: between cripple and healthy child?
This is not an academic question. And: who is going to decide about it?


I don´t have dollars, do you accept pesos??

The limit between wealthy and poor is not important, but Genetics do is. Economical status can change, Race can´t... read my post, I made a mistake with the words :(

And the limit between cripple and healthy child should be set by medics specialized in genetic defects and eugenics.
I think that children with strong defects are those who should be aborted, more when that defect is hereditary.


Your views about abstention from excess of alcohol and tobacco (drugs are forbidden anyway): I have read an economic analysis of the effects of smoking on economy, I think in British Medical Journal.
The State earns huge amounts of money out of tobacco-tax and people who smoke live shorter. As a result – the heavy smoker is going to die early, using only a little bit of his retirement pension. However you look at it – society wins by your smoking. So – I don`t buy this one either.

Some drugs are forbidden, tobaco isn´t, and soon many others will be made legal by our insane system.

And I think people is more important than economics and taxes. Having a smoking population is expensive. Smoking produces a series of illness that have to be treated in hospitals, and other problems that cost to the society a lot of money. People who smokes also produce ill children many times more than non-smoking people....



But, generally – I think it`s 50:50. At times of war (in countries with conscription) you just have to become a cannon-meat, like it or not.

OK, but a really healthy State would provide a good training for those who are going to fight. However, healthy states have very big armies and don´t need to call their reserves or civilians.


I was a little shaken by Nibelung`s views about disposal of corpses. Whether you like religion or not – you have to respect the feelings of relatives. If it is important for them that you be buried in a certain way (and they can afford it) – their wish should be honoured. Civilized societies do it. We are not robots, after all. Or what.:(

Mmm.. I haven´t read Nibelung´s post, but I agree with you. Every person should be buried (or burn or whatever) as he/her like... Religion is not a matter of the State if it doesn´t affect the people in a bad way.

The Unforgiven
Tuesday, October 11th, 2005, 08:41 AM
The only one who owns my body is myself. Why should anotherone owns something that always be mine since i've been born?

I didnt understand the question i think?

Jack
Tuesday, October 11th, 2005, 01:25 PM
The only one who owns my body is myself. Why should anotherone owns something that always be mine since i've been born?

I didnt understand the question i think?

You answered it adequately. The question was who has a right to your body.

A question for those who claim to own their body: if I punched your body, you would think, and feel, instantly that I have hit you. In which case, you and your body are inseperable. So you cannot own your body anymore than a knive can engrave itself. ;)

Hoarsewhisper
Tuesday, October 11th, 2005, 03:24 PM
I don`t trust anarchists. Sorry, nothing personal.

Agustinik: it`s ok med Pesos, if the exchange rate is decent. Tank you for the info conc.: your (not) being an ant.
As for your Freudian mistake wealthy-healthy: it`s not so mistaken after all. Wealthy people are usually more healthy. But the principle is the same: who`s going to choose.

“And the limit between cripple and healthy child should be set by medics specialized in genetic defects and eugenics. I think that children with strong defects are those who should be aborted, more when that defect is hereditary.”

When a strong defect is hereditary, the child will usually not become a parent in later life – the one frightening exception being f. ex. Huntington`s chorea, which sets in late in the procreative phase.
Medics specialized in genetic diseases – yes, one could think of a list f serious diseases and suggest abortion (parents refusing it should then be alone responsible for all expenses due to the disease if the child is born). But the problem is, that the vast majority of serious diseases is polygenic and, as yet unpredictable. Which means that, in order to remove all cripples from the society would need mercy killing. And this means some hard choices. I, as a doctor, would hate such a job.

Now to buzz and tobacco: sure, you are right: the health of a society is most important. I mentioned the article from BMJ as a joke. For, as a matter of fact, it is an economic plus for a society to have people smoke. Take it as one of the signs that the present system is rotten. I do.

“OK, but a really healthy State would provide a good training for those who are going to fight. However, healthy states have very big armies and don´t need to call their reserves or civilians.”

My example with conscription was just – an example. Being a member of a community means that you have some rights and duties. One could say, the same way: the society owns your body because you have to drag your carcass out of the bed every morning and go to school or wherever you go… But is it ownership? What does it mean to OWN something, anyway? It means, imo, to have a right to do something with the thing. Society makes you wake up, shave etc… So, it`s like …time share (of your body).

A to disposal of corpses: as long as a particular disposal does not harm the society decisively, I still think that religious and other feelings should be respected. The ultimate utilitarism would be to make a food for pigs out of old human corpses: probably the most efficient means of disposal. Tastes good, Nibelung?

See yo,

Perkele
Sunday, November 26th, 2006, 09:30 PM
The One with the Mind owns also the passage to the materialistic dimension; a body.

I believe that body is a dwelling place of spirit and thus could be seen as a part of the consept of being "human" or any living self-aware creature. (Who and what is who?)

In this kind of question it ought to be defined what is a human or what does he represent. There's certain idea behind all activity of a person.

Body is only an instrument to perform spiritual play of ideas in the middle of the universe.