Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster
Why does consent have to have reasonable limits?
I find it troubling that the Supreme Court can determine our own decisions on our own bodies (in the absence of provable mental illness). Perhaps a "women's body is her own" only applies to certain policies? But when those choices offend our delicate sensibilities (prostitution or rough sex), then the SC should step in to save us all.
But there is a long list of things that the supreme court decide with which I disagree.
I would assume the very reason that two hockey pugilists are not charged is because of consent. And yet, despite clearly damaging behaviour related to contact sports and hockey fighting, the SC is silent.
(euthanasia would be another example where consent to harm oneself should be permitted, but that's another thread for another day.)
|
There always needs to be limits. Nothing is black and white or 100% one way or the other. How about if one pugilist knocks out the other and than picks him up and hits him again? They've both consented to fight but there is a degree to what lengths each can expect the other to go. Also I believe some people need to be protected from themselves as they may not be in position to make reasonable choices.