In recent years, the popularity of high-risk
has sparked a debate about whether governments should prohibit
activities or allow individuals the
to participate at their own risk.
some argue that these
are unnecessarily dangerous and should be restricted by law, others believe that personal choice should take precedence.
essay will examine both perspectives, and I will explain why I personally support the latter view.
Supporters of banning dangerous
often emphasize public
and moral responsibility. They argue that activities like skydiving, base jumping, and mixed martial arts pose significant risks of severe injury or even death. From their perspective, governments have a duty to protect citizens from harm, even when that harm is voluntary.
, statistics from the World Health Organization show that extreme
account for a considerable percentage of recreational injuries annually, placing additional pressure on healthcare systems.
, advocates of
view believe that banning
would prevent avoidable tragedies and reduce societal costs.
, many believe that engaging in risky
should be a matter of personal
. They contend that individuals are capable of assessing risks and making informed decisions about their own bodies.
, most extreme
require extensive training, strict
protocols, and often legal licensing, which helps reduce the dangers involved.
, mountain climbers are typically required to obtain permits and undergo technical preparation before attempting hazardous climbs like Mount Everest.
, proponents of
perspective argue that rather than banning these
, governments should focus on ensuring they are regulated safely.
Personally, I lean towards the second view because I believe in the importance of individual autonomy.
I understand the concerns regarding
, I think the right to choose one’s lifestyle and interests should not be limited by the government, provided that proper
measures are in place.
, many athletes find a deep sense of purpose, achievement, and identity through participating in
. Restricting them would not only suppress personal
but
deprive society of the inspirational stories and cultural contributions that these athletes bring.
In conclusion,
some people advocate for banning dangerous
in the interest of public
, others believe in preserving individual
through regulation rather than prohibition. After examining both sides, it is clear to me that allowing people to make their own choices—
ensuring
standards—offers a more balanced and respectful approach to
complex issue.