@endurancefun: a denial? It's an attempt to represent myself, and the motivation behind what I say. I realize that since we only discuss one topic on this forum, it can pretty easy for others to misunderstand me, and the entire purpose of communication is to be understood. Does this satisy your interest?
Astor a sex change being the 'biggest most fundamental change you could ever make', I disagree. The only part I consider an 'extreme' part of reassignment is hormone therapy, as it affects brain chemistry, and our brains are who we are. But that is no more extreme than prescription drugs or recreational drugs. Your brain is what makes you who you are, not your dangly bits. And if you're thinking of ploughing that field, banning hormone therapy requires that we also ban prescription painkillers for the same reason. That seems unrealistic and not in service of the interests of the people.
Perhaps it was merely a slip of the tongue, but being gay is not reversible. You're either gay, or you're something else. Someone may have a fluid orientation but that doesn't mean they're 'turning' one way or the other.
Lastly, the part about 'socially damaging'. The only reason a sex change is socially damaging is because a certain group of people has decided to make it as socially damaging as they can. And then they look at their actions as proof that it's 'socially damaging'; it's a case study for meme theory. With this exact same argument, X is bad because it's socially damaging (and so we must restrict it), you could fill X with anything; interracial marriage, evangelical Christianty, feminism or anti-feminism, or mouthing off against the British government. That others in society may act abusively if you do X is no way a valid criticism of X, it's merely a slavish dogmatic clinging to status quo, regardless whether it is just or unjust.
As for euthanasia I've never argued the issue out in order to figure out the most just and free solution to it. Because that's what I do, I don't just pick a side because 'grrr I hate dem libs/theists', I approach issues like a judge would, and look for an egalitarian, universalist doctrine that remains just in both common and edge cases, that does not violate the Constitution and that upholds the highest ideals of freedom, justice and liberty. So I don't want to go through it completely or change the topic, but I suppose I would support assisted suicide with both the proviso that they're found to have legal consent and maybe make them complete a semi-obstructive form or have a mandatory waiting period, since its been proven that suicide is often very spur-of-the-moment and people often reconsider with time. ... Then again, as I'm saying this I'm pretty sure doing anything obstructive in this manner would be unconstitutional. So I'd have to think of a modified solution that best serves everyone. If that sounds difficult and rigorous then welcome to the vagaries of free society.
Log in to comment