[betty boop]

Another thoughtful, deliberative position betty?

I can't have a thoughtful, deliberative position WRT total nonsense. What ontological sense does it make to say I "own" my body? Or that I "own" my mind, or my soul? Or my nose, my ears, my hands, etc., etc.? A human being is an organic, dynamic composite of all these necessary things. These are not things we "have," in the sense that I have a house, or a car, or a career, or a cat; these are things that make us what we are, things that pertain to our essential being. What sense does it make to say that we "own" what we, in fact, ARE? The question is idiotic, because it presupposes a total abstraction and reduction of what a human life is, and then sets up "relations" between the self and the body that do not exist in nature.

[First Amendment]

The question is idiotic, because it presupposes a total abstraction and reduction of what a human life is, and then sets up "relations" between the self and the body that do not exist in nature.

Actually, the topic is so deep that to dismiss it in a few sentences doesn't give it justice. Thinkers and seekers of the truth, as well as spiritual practitioners from all religions, have concluded that the self is the eternal soul/atma, and the body is a temporary vehicle or covering that is in our possession, for a time.

[tpaine]

Your premise that we are discussing owning our own bodies in an "ontological sense" is the nonsensical view here betty.
We own our bodies in the political sense, as you well know. - This is a self evident truth.

Your use of such off the wall irrational tactical points is very telling betty. You seem to have run out of socalled logical reasons to support 'sin laws', so you're grasping at straws.