Unconscious Women Should Be Left to Die

[Traditio]

Women, liberals say, have a right to privacy. What this means is that another person cannot, intentionally or unintentionally, violate a woman's bodily integrity, for example, by putting thing into her body, without her informed and expressed consent.

That's why liberals think that it's OK to murder unborn children. If a woman doesn't want that baby in her uterus, then hey, it's her body. If she didn't say "OK," then get that baby out of there!

Now, suppose that there is an unconscious woman who is on the verge of death (she had, say, a heart attack). A man is nearby, who is considering whether or not to give her mouth to mouth rescucitation. There are paramedics and doctors wondering whether they should administer treatment, possibly even invasive treatment (for example, a ventillator, IV fluids, etc).

There are people wondering whether or not they should move the woman to different surroundings (say, a hospital).

Based on liberal thinking, my answer is: "No. That woman is unconscious. She cannot give her informed, expressed consent, and she has a right to privacy. Respect her privacy rights! Leave her to die! "

 

[Rusha]

:think:

Too much misogyny in your post to make a valid point ...

MANY men make the same exact argument (which makes them no less wrong). Should *those* unconscious men be left to die?

 

[Traditio]

:think:

Too much misogyny in your post to make a valid point ...

Ad hominem. Do you have an answer to my actual reasoning process?

 

[Rusha]

Ad hominem. Do you have an answer to my actual reasoning process?

Quote my whole post.

 

[Traditio]

MANY men make the same exact argument (which makes them no less wrong). Should *those* unconscious men be left to die?

Based on liberal reasoning, it works for men too. This guy is pro-abortion? He believes in an inalienable right to privacy unless informed, expressed consent is given to the contrary?

Well, ok. He's unconscious (say, from a drug overdose). He can't give his expressed, informed consent. Guess we have to let him die!

Of course, the way out of this is simply to admit that "right to privacy" reasoning, as applied by liberals, is just asinine and stupid.

 

[Rusha]

Based on liberal reasoning, it works for men too. This guy is pro-abortion? He believes in an inalienable right to privacy unless informed, expressed consent is given to the contrary?

Well, ok. He's unconscious. He can't give his expressed, informed consent. Guess we have to let him die!

Of course, the way out of this is simply to admit that "right to privacy" reasoning, as applied by liberals, is just asinine and stupid.

And you would know these unconscious men and women were pro-abortion ... HOW???

FTR, the right to privacy is a complete smoke screen when it comes to that person demanding the right to kill another human being because they are convenient.

 

[Traditio]

And you would know these unconscious men and women were pro-abortion ... HOW???

FTR, the right to privacy is a complete smoke screen when it comes to that person demanding the right to kill another human being because they are convenient.

Rusha, you're missing the point of my argument. If we start with the premise that people have an inalienable right of privacy which can only be "waived" by expressed, informed consent, then what follows is that doctors, paramedics, etc. cannot help unconscious or otherwise incoherent or mentally incapacitated people.

Does that sound correct?

 

[Rusha]

Rusha, you're missing the point of my argument. If we start with the premise that people have an inalienable right of privacy which can only be "waived" by expressed, informed consent, then what follows is that doctors, paramedics, etc. cannot help unconscious or otherwise incoherent or mentally incapacitated people.

Does that sound correct?

No. Privacy was never intended to allow one human being the right to intentionally kill another human being.

Just because pro-abortion advocates follow the mentality you suggested in your OP doesn't mean we need to stoop to their level.

 

[Quetzal]

Women, liberals say, have a right to privacy. What this means is that another person cannot, intentionally or unintentionally, violate a woman's bodily integrity, for example, by putting thing into her body, without her informed and expressed consent.

That's why liberals think that it's OK to murder unborn children. If a woman doesn't want that baby in her uterus, then hey, it's her body. If she didn't say "OK," then get that baby out of there!

Now, suppose that there is an unconscious woman who is on the verge of death (she had, say, a heart attack). A man is nearby, who is considering whether or not to give her mouth to mouth rescucitation. There are paramedics and doctors wondering whether they should administer treatment, possibly even invasive treatment (for example, a ventillator, IV fluids, etc).

There are people wondering whether or not they should move the woman to different surroundings (say, a hospital).

Based on liberal thinking, my answer is: "No. That woman is unconscious. She cannot give her informed, expressed consent, and she has a right to privacy. Respect her privacy rights! Leave her to die! "

Unless there is a DNR, medical professionals override this sense of "privacy" to save an individuals life.

 

[shagster01]

Women, liberals say, have a right to privacy. What this means is that another person cannot, intentionally or unintentionally, violate a woman's bodily integrity, for example, by putting thing into her body, without her informed and expressed consent.

That's why liberals think that it's OK to murder unborn children. If a woman doesn't want that baby in her uterus, then hey, it's her body. If she didn't say "OK," then get that baby out of there!

Now, suppose that there is an unconscious woman who is on the verge of death (she had, say, a heart attack). A man is nearby, who is considering whether or not to give her mouth to mouth rescucitation. There are paramedics and doctors wondering whether they should administer treatment, possibly even invasive treatment (for example, a ventillator, IV fluids, etc).

There are people wondering whether or not they should move the woman to different surroundings (say, a hospital).

Based on liberal thinking, my answer is: "No. That woman is unconscious. She cannot give her informed, expressed consent, and she has a right to privacy. Respect her privacy rights! Leave her to die! "

Where I live there is a law that protects anyone who acts in good faith to help somebody from getting sued by anyone for it later. It's a non-issue here.

 

[patrick jane]

Women, liberals say, have a right to privacy. What this means is that another person cannot, intentionally or unintentionally, violate a woman's bodily integrity, for example, by putting thing into her body, without her informed and expressed consent.

That's why liberals think that it's OK to murder unborn children. If a woman doesn't want that baby in her uterus, then hey, it's her body. If she didn't say "OK," then get that baby out of there!

Now, suppose that there is an unconscious woman who is on the verge of death (she had, say, a heart attack). A man is nearby, who is considering whether or not to give her mouth to mouth rescucitation. There are paramedics and doctors wondering whether they should administer treatment, possibly even invasive treatment (for example, a ventillator, IV fluids, etc).

There are people wondering whether or not they should move the woman to different surroundings (say, a hospital).

Based on liberal thinking, my answer is: "No. That woman is unconscious. She cannot give her informed, expressed consent, and she has a right to privacy. Respect her privacy rights! Leave her to die! "

View attachment 19739

 

[Traditio]

Where I live there is a law that protects anyone who acts in good faith to help somebody from getting sued by anyone for it later. It's a non-issue here.

You realize "it doesn't come up" isn't an answer to my OP, yes?

 

[Traditio]

Unless there is a DNR, medical professionals override this sense of "privacy" to save an individuals life.

You have two alternatives:

1. Either a woman does not have an absolute right to privacy, and her expressed, inform consent is irrelevent in at least some circumstances

or

2. unconscious women should be left to die.

There's no third option.

But if you select the first option, then the pro-abortion argument, "but it's MY body!" becomes much less convincing, doesn't it?

 

[Quetzal]

You realize "it doesn't come up" isn't an answer to my OP, yes?

That also isn't what he said. He said there is a law that protects people who act in good faith to help someone else.

 

[Traditio]

That also isn't what he said. He said there is a law that protects people who act in good faith to help someone else.

That's still not a legitimate answer to the OP. The OP basically says:

Let's assume premise A. Conclusion B follows.

Saying: "Hey, there's laws here" doesn't really anwer that.

 

[Quetzal]

You have two alternatives:

1. Either a woman does not have an absolute right to privacy, and her expressed, inform consent is irrelevent in at least some circumstances

or

2. unconscious women should be left to die.

There's no third option.

But if you select the first option, then the pro-abortion argument, "but it's MY body!" becomes much less convincing, doesn't it?

It isn't irrelevant, but let's remember, if someone becomes unconscious due to medical reasons and requires life saving care, it will be given to them. Since they are unable to give expressed consent (because they are unconscious), medical staff will give them care because they would much rather that person live than die. They are not going to with hold CPR on principle. I really don't see what you are getting at.

 

[Traditio]

It isn't irrelevant, but let's remember, if someone becomes unconscious due to medical reasons and requires life saving care, it will be given to them. Since they are unable to give expressed consent (because they are unconscious), medical staff will give them care because they would much rather that person live than die. They are not going to with hold CPR on principle. I really don't see what you are getting at.

You're still failing to come to grips with my dilemma. Saying: "They are going to do so and so" or "I would do so and so" doesn't answer my point.

Does the woman have an absolute right to privacy or not? Can that right be "waived" only presupposing her expressed, informed consent? If she does not "waive" that right vis-a-vis expressed, informed consent, then if someone acts on her body, does he thereby violate her right to privacy?

If you say "yes" to all of that, then it might be the case that you are going to perform CPR. But by your own admission, you are effectively "raping" her with medical treatment by performing CPR.

If you actually believed all of that nonsense about a right to privacy, you would simply let her die. But you insist on violating her rights?

Shame on you, you horrible human being.

 

[Arthur Brain]

A few months ago I was walking back from the supermarket and a guy behind me fell over, hit the back of his head on a wall and knocked himself out. Was I violating his privacy by calling emergency services?

This has to be one of the dumbest threads ever started by you Trad and that really is saying something...

 

[Quetzal]

You're still failing to come to grips with my dilemma. Saying: "They are going to do so and so" or "I would do so and so" doesn't answer my point.

Does the woman have an absolute right to privacy or not? Can that right be "waived" only presupposing her expressed, informed consent? If she does not "waive" that right vis-a-vis expressed, informed consent, then if someone acts on her body, does he thereby violate her right to privacy?

If you say "yes" to all of that, then it might be the case that you are going to perform CPR. But by your own admission, you are effectively "raping" her with medical treatment by performing CPR.

If you actually believed all of that nonsense about a right to privacy, you would simply let her die. But you insist on violating her rights?

Shame on you, you horrible human being.

CPR, rape, not the same thing. What an idiotic train of thought you have going here.

 

[Traditio]

A few months ago I was walking back from the supermarket and a guy behind me fell over, hit the back of his head on a wall and knocked himself out. Was I violating his privacy by calling emergency services?

If we grant the liberal premise that there is an absolute right to privacy, then yes, you were violating his privacy.

This has to be one of the dumbest threads ever started by you Trad and that really is saying something...

It's a dumb thread because the liberal premise is dumb. I don't think that you guys are understanding that this thread is a reductio ad absurdum.