Unconscious Women Should Be Left to Die

[Traditio]

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

Did you not see the scare quotes? And I note that you are still failing to confront my actual argument. Either because: 1. you don't understand it or 2. you can't answer it from a liberal point of view (I suspect that the latter is the case).

So, I'll restate my argument to make sure that you aren't failing to confront my argument because you can't understand it.

1. Let it be assumed that a person has an absolute right to privacy, which can only be "waived" by expressed, informed consent.

2. This right to privacy especially involves those actions which involve acting on somebody's body.

3. Medical treatment involves acting on somebody's body in the sense of 2.

4. An unconscious person cannot give expressed, informed consent.

5. Therefore, the administration of medical treatment to an unconscious person violates his absolute right to privacy.

You [apparently] have two options:

1. You can grant the conclusion.
2. You can reject the first premise.

Which do you pick?

 

[Quetzal]

Did you not see the scare quotes? And I note that you are still failing to confront my actual argument. Either because: 1. you don't understand it or 2. you can't answer it from a liberal point of view (I suspect that the latter is the case).

So, I'll restate my argument to make sure that you aren't failing to confront my argument because you can't understand it.

1. Let it be assumed that a person has an absolute right to privacy, which can only be "waived" by expressed, informed consent.

2. This right to privacy especially involves those actions which involve acting on somebody's body.

3. Medical treatment involves acting on somebody's body in the sense of 2.

4. An unconscious person cannot give expressed, informed consent.

5. Therefore, the administration of medical treatment to an unconscious person violates his absolute right to privacy.

You [apparently] have two options:

1. You can grant the conclusion.
2. You can reject the first premise.

Which do you pick?

Your assumption is flawed in that it is too broad. Do people have an absolute right to privacy everywhere they go?

 

[PureX]

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

Liberals aren't absolutists, so your premise derails right there, before it even gets rolling. There is no "liberal premise of absolute privacy".

 

[TracerBullet]

The legal definition of the Right to Privacy : In Constitutional Law, the right of people to make personal decisions regarding intimate matters; under the Common Law, the right of people to lead their lives in a manner that is reasonably secluded from public scrutiny, whether such scrutiny comes from a neighbor's prying eyes, an investigator's eavesdropping ears, or a news photographer's intrusive camera; and in statutory law, the right of people to be free from unwarranted drug testing and Electronic Surveillance.

 

[Traditio]

Your assumption is flawed in that it is too broad. Do people have an absolute right to privacy everywhere they go?

So you reject the premise? If you reject the premise, then you are forced to say the following:

It is not the case that a person has an absolute right to privacy. In at least some instances, that person's expressed, informed consent does not matter.

Is that what you assert? If you reject that, then you must affirm the "flawed" assumption.

 

[Traditio]

Liberals aren't absolutists, so your premise derails right there, before it even gets rolling. There is no "liberal premise of absolute privacy".

Then liberals can't appeal to "a right to privacy" as an argument for abortion. The answer is pretty clear in that case: "There is no such right in this particular case."

 

[TracerBullet]

So you reject the premise? If you reject the premise, then you are forced to say the following:

It is not the case that a person has an absolute right to privacy. In at least some instances, that person's expressed, informed consent does not matter.

Is that what you assert? If you reject that, then you must affirm the "flawed" assumption.

no we reject your flawed definition of the right to privacy

 

[Quetzal]

So you reject the premise? If you reject the premise, then you are forced to say the following:

Sorry, I don't negotiate with terrorists.

 

[TracerBullet]

Then liberals can't appeal to "a right to privacy" as an argument for abortion. The answer is pretty clear in that case: "There is no such right in this particular case."

the right of people to make personal decisions regarding intimate matters
the right of people to lead their lives in a manner that is reasonably secluded from public scrutiny, whether such scrutiny comes from a neighbor's prying eyes, an investigator's eavesdropping ears, or a news photographer's intrusive camera

 

[Quetzal]

Then liberals can't appeal to "a right to privacy" as an argument for abortion. The answer is pretty clear in that case: "There is no such right in this particular case."

There it is. I knew this was a bait and switch. I was not disappointed.

 

[Traditio]

Sorry, I don't negotiate with terrorists.

Forced by logical necessity and the rules of good reasoning.

Never mind. I apparently must have forgotten that I was talking to liberals. :nono:

 

[Traditio]

the right of people to make personal decisions regarding intimate matters
the right of people to lead their lives in a manner that is reasonably secluded from public scrutiny, whether such scrutiny comes from a neighbor's prying eyes, an investigator's eavesdropping ears, or a news photographer's intrusive camera

The same dilemma applies no matter what way we go about it. Either there is an absolute right to privacy, or in some instances, the person's informed, expressed consent does not matter.

There's no escaping this dilemma.

 

[TracerBullet]

Forced by logical necessity and the rules of good reasoning.

Never mind. I apparently must have forgotten that I was talking to liberals. :nono:

you abandoned good reasoning when you made up your definition for the right to privacy

 

[Quetzal]

you abandoned good reasoning when you made up your definition for the right to privacy

Beat me to it.

 

[Traditio]

you abandoned good reasoning when you made up your definition for the right to privacy

Do liberals claim, or do they not claim, that a person has sovereign authority over his own body, and that others may act on his body only if he freely consents to it? Is this not the very premise to which they appeal in arguing against rape and in favor of abortion "rights"?

 

[TracerBullet]

The same dilemma applies no matter what way we go about it. Either there is an absolute right to privacy, or in some instances, the person's informed, expressed consent does not matter.

There's no escaping this dilemma.

in the realms of philosophy and logic a dilemma is an argument forcing an opponent to choose either of two unfavorable alternatives.

You aren't presenting a dilemma because you have set up a situation based on a false definition

 

[Traditio]

in the realms of philosophy and logic a dilemma is an argument forcing an opponent to choose either of two unfavorable alternatives.

You aren't presenting a dilemma because you have set up a situation based on a false definition

The alternative I've presented is the following:

1. It is the case that a person must consent to whatever someone else does to his body, or else, that person violates his rights.

2. It is not the case that a person must consent to whatever someone else does to his body. In at least some instances, his consent is irrelevent.

Necessarily, one of the two of these must be true.

You can continue to dodge the issue by attacking my definition of privacy rights, but the fact of the matter is, the dilemma that I've offered is logically necessary. I've pretty much said: Either A or not A. Pick one.

 

[shagster01]

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?

There certainly is a 3rd option. We have it now.

 

[TracerBullet]

Do liberals claim, or do they not claim, that a person has sovereign authority over his own body, and that others may act on his body only if he freely consents to it? Is this not the very premise to which they appeal in arguing against rape and in favor of abortion "rights"?

why would liberals claim such false things?

again the actual definition to the right to privacy:

In Constitutional Law, the right of people to make personal decisions regarding intimate matters.

In Common law, the right of people to lead their lives in a manner that is reasonably secluded from public scrutiny, whether such scrutiny comes from a neighbor's prying eyes, an investigator's eavesdropping ears, or a news photographer's intrusive camera.

In statutory law, the right of people to be free from unwarranted drug testing and Electronic Surveillance.

 

[TracerBullet]

The alternative I've presented is the following:

1. It is the case that a person must consent to whatever someone else does to his body, or else, that person violates his rights.

2. It is not the case that a person must consent to whatever someone else does to his body. In at least some instances, his consent is irrelevent.

Necessarily, one of the two of these must be true.

You can continue to dodge the issue by attacking my definition of privacy rights, but the fact of the matter is, the dilemma that I've offered is logically necessary. I've pretty much said: Either A or not A. Pick one.

Neither must be true because your definition of the right to privacy isn't true.