I want to talk a bit about morals, and not the big social ones, like why child molestation is wrong, or why incest is wrong 90% of the time (see dear prudence’s twincest letter for the other 10%). Rather the smaller more personal ones, like access to birth control, abortion.

Now I must admit, in most cases I am going to lie in the “pro” category, even if I don’t agree with the action. Because for the most part they will not effect me, or people I know in a negative way. If there are harmful side-effects from allowing something to happen (say sexual abuse from polygamist marriages) then rather then just banning them to prevent a potentially small percentage of abuse (since it hasn’t been an acceptable practice for over 1500 years, we can’t say what the actual percentage of the population would practice if it wasn’t illegal) the government should just regulate it (like they do in the example of polygamy, monogamist marriages).

For an extreme example, there are people who are extremely unhappy with a body part, usually a limb (Body integrity identity disorder) to the extent that some wish for it to be removed, and will try to force doctors to remove it. When it goes to that point, and a person will not seek psychiatric help, or it has not helped with the issue, then it should be an option. (then again only if they are willing to discuss it with a psychologist…). If a woman can say that they will never want to have kids (even if it’s they want kids but won’t because they carry a genetic disorder like Tay sachs disease), they should have the option to get their tubes tied. Same in the case of preventative medicine, if a woman or man feels her/his chances of getting a disease (example, having already been diagnosed with breast cancer. Or having had her mother and grandmother die of ovarian cancer) is too high they should be able to do so, even if the doctors disagree, and the patent finds the risk of getting the disease too stressful.

If the decision will not effect you directly, if it only really effects the person or family that makes the decision, and does no harm, why should you, or I or anyone, have a legal say in it. (and yes I do have more examples, and opinions if y’all need them on this topic)



2 comments on “Morals

  1. I think, more generally, decisions should be made consequentially, rather than by arbitrary principles like “marriage is between one man and one woman.”

    The example of BIID is interesting, though. We don’t respect the wishes of the mentally incompetent, which is why we don’t give euthanasia to depressed patients. But in the case of BIID, there often isn’t a cure. The only options then are to amputate or leave the person suffering – neither of which are good, but with amputation being the better one.

    The whole situation is horrifying to me, and I’m really glad it’s a rare disorder.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s