Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
The only thing I'm not sure about this (except the issue I raised above) is when people's behavior indirectly but unquestionably impacts others.
Fewer seat belts worn means more injuries in car accidents means more backup in ER waiting rooms and higher insurance premiums. So I'm impacted financially and logistically by low seatbelt uptake. Does that justify mandating seatbelt use? It's not like I'm getting hit in the face by a swinging fist, exactly. Thoughts?
|
It shouldn't be illegal to not wear a seatbelt, it should be made illegal tomanufacture or alter a car to start without the seatbelt engaged properly - except for very specific circumstances in the case of disabilities.
It's the same sort of argument as the argument in favour of permanent headlights being on (shudders), day or night, as wherever this has been implemented there's been a massive observed reduction in BOTH daytime and night time RTI's OR airbags, OR, OR, OR, OR...
Lots of people, suffering from major cases of survivors bias, reject harm reduction measures as unnecessary invasions of do-goodery, and some of that's right.
A ridiculously insignificant degree of my personal comfort doesn't even come close to an argument VS the collective benefit of dramatically reducing fatalities.
Practical harm reduction Vs Half-assed ass-hattery.
---------- Post added at 05:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:16 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xerxys
**shields self from pitch forks**
Hmm, levite, you got most of it spot on but I disagree when it comes to abortion, suicide & pre-agreed-upon euthanasia, the drugs thing including marijuana and prostitution.
Abortion is murder, plain and simple. What is it they say, statue of limitations? How far can the line be drawn? A life is a life is a life. When you abort you refuse or even go as far as choosing someone Else's fate. You may ask what about inflicting a cruel life on somebody? I am for abortion if there are medical reasons involved that threaten the life of either parent or child. But in a civilization such as the USA, no. We can handle whatever is thrown at us so let the kid live!!
Pre-agreed-upon euthanasia implies suicide. We have DNR (Do not resuscitate) and I think that's as far as I am comfortable with. Suicide requires mental instability. I very much refuse to believe that a sane person would want to commit suicide. And also, here's a age old question for you to ponder, "do the ends justify the means"?
I'm pretty much going to quote MSD on the drugs. I would prefer that you don't wait around the corner to rob me so you could get another fix. I have seen aggression induced by hard drugs and marijuana is just a slippery slope. Don't get me wrong, I read tisonlyi's post, but this is the USA and not Europe. When we have 2000 years of history under our belt then why not. In the meantime, let's enforce the rules as they are because I highly doubt the general public outside this board can handle Marijuana running the streets like cigarettes.
As for prostitution, I'm just reciting my own prejudices here, but I believe the mental capacities required from a woman or man are the lowest of the low. It's all in the element of the situation. Going after streetwalkers is by no means a greater risk than Escorts. It's all in the perceived differences that different people feed off. That's why it can be different to, say, acting porn (the aesthetic requirements notwithstanding). |
And the laws are doing so well in stopping suicide, prostitution, drugs et al, aren't they?
Abortion doesn't belong here, it's a completely separate debate.
Any honest doctor, at least in the UK, will tell you they hide an awful lot of euthanasia behind the policy of killing the patient with enough morphine to manage their pain.
Euthanasia is, was and always will be part of medical care.
Deal with it by denying it, or deal with it in an adult, regulated manner. (the same goes for the drugs, prostitution and suicide too...)