Unconscious Women Should Be Left to Die

[quip]

A possible rights violation, though........

Why assume by default that the woman in question would deem medical intervention as a violation of her right to privacy?
You could just as easily assume her assent to such intervention as it's saving her life. (A more apt scenario btw.)

As per the conservative norm...you've conveniently side-stepped the woman in question's volition.

Wait till she wakes up...and then get back to me regarding any case of privacy violation...or lackthereof.

 

[Traditio]

Actually, against the madness of the liberals of this thread, an easier (and more logically rigid) way of expressing my dilemma:

1. When dealing with a woman's body, her consent always matters.
2. When dealing with a woman's body, her consent sometimes does not matter.

As Quetzal and Tracer might notice, this is a necessary dilemma independently of how we define "right to privacy."

Logically, the form of the above dilemma is:

Either:

Always A.
Sometimes, not A.

Which is, of course, logically exhaustive. You might object that I'm missing "Always not A," but "Always not A" does not contradict "Sometimes, not A."

Proof that a denial of the former necessarily entails the latter:

1. Let it be granted that it is not the case that a woman's consent always matters.
2. Assume that there is no instance in which a woman's consent does not matter.
3. Let it be granted that there is an arbitrary instance, b, in which a woman's consent does not matter.
4. 3 contradicts 2.
5. Therefore, given 2 as our assumption, a woman's consent always matters.
6. 5, however, contradicts 1.
7. Therefore, it is not the case that there does not exist a circumstance in which a woman's consent does not matter.
8. Therefore, there exists a circumstance in which a woman's consent does not matter.

Sorry, liberals. But there's no way out of my dilemma. Either a woman's consent always matters, or else, sometimes, a woman's consent does not matter. :idunno:

 

[PureX]

Actually, against the madness of the liberals of this thread, an easier (and more logically rigid) way of expressing my dilemma:

1. When dealing with a woman's body, her consent always matters.
2. When dealing with a woman's body, her consent sometimes does not matter.

This is so idiotic! You can't even define what "matters" means. And yet you imagine that you have locked us all into some iron clad logical dilemma! The stupidity of it is astounding.

"Matters" to whom? "Matters" in what way? The term "matters" is completely subjective and yet you imagine that this 'option' is some sort of absolute because you put the word "always" in front of it???

As Quetzal and Tracer might notice, this is a necessary dilemma independently of how we define "right to privacy."

Logically, the form of the above dilemma is:

Either:

Always A.
Sometimes, not A.

Which is, of course, logically exhaustive. You might object that I'm missing "Always not A," but "Always not A" does not contradict "Sometimes, not A."

Both statements are gibberish because you can't even define what "matters" mean. The only dilemma here is how you could be so logically impaired that you can't see that.

 

[Traditio]

A possible rights violation, though........

The assumption is that the woman's actual consent is necessary.

Why assume by default that the woman in question would deem medical intervention as a violation of her right to privacy?

Because her actual consent has not been obtained. She was unconscious.

You could just as easily assume her assent to such intervention as it's saving her life. (A more apt scenario btw.)

Then the abortion case weakens considerably, if we get to start telling the woman what she consents to.

Wait till she wakes up...and then get back to me regarding any case of privacy violation...or lackthereof.

Remind me, what are your arguments against rape?

 

[Traditio]

This is so idiotic! You can't even define what "matters" means. And yet you imagine that you have locked us all into some iron clad logical dilemma! The stupidity of it is astounding.

PureX, let me be clear: I was thinking of Tracer and Quetzl. The post wasn't designed to deal with your objections.

"Matters" to whom?

We can adjust the dilemma so "matters" can be replaced with "constitutes a rights violation if not actually present."

 

[Granite]

[/YELLOW]

You really got ripped off with your philosophy degree. That is the stupidest line of reasoning I have seen. Wow. Just wow.

Even by Trad's standards this thread's pretty ridiculous.

 

[Traditio]

Even by Trad's standards this thread's pretty ridiculous.

Granite, the OP of this thread was intentionally provocative. I wasn't seriously arguing for the conclusion of the OP. I was giving a reductio ad absurdum argument.

 

[Granite]

Granite, the OP of this thread was intentionally provocative. I wasn't seriously arguing for the conclusion of the OP. I was giving a reductio ad absurdum argument.

The thread's poorly wrought and you don't seem to know what you're talking about. As usual.

Have fun, kids.:zoomin:

 

[Traditio]

The thread's poorly wrought and you don't seem to know what you're talking about. As usual.

Have fun, kids.:zoomin:

Ok. Then why don't you enlighten me?

Unless, of course, because, as always, you are all talk with absolutely nothing to back it up.

 

[shagster01]

Granite, the OP of this thread was intentionally provocative. I wasn't seriously arguing for the conclusion of the OP. I was giving a reductio ad absurdum argument.

But laws prevent your scenerio so it isn't provoking.

 

[Traditio]

But laws prevent your scenerio so it isn't provoking.

Here is literally what you are telling me:

1. I assume the first premise: "A woman's consent always matters."
2. From that premise, it follows that an unconscious woman's rights are being violated when given medical treatment.
3. 2 doesn't matter, however, since we have a law that says: "By the way, though, she can't do anything about it."

My question isn't about what the laws are. My question is about what follows from the premise.

And really, all that you are doing is agreeing with me: a woman's consent doesn't always matter.

 

[quip]

The assumption is that the woman's actual consent is necessary.

You mean her "actual" consent is a prerequiste to your little construct here.

Then the abortion case weakens considerably, if we get to start telling the woman what she consents to.

How so? Women aren't unconscious when they choose to have an abortion..or when prohibited at such. Depending on the situation.

Remind me, what are your arguments against rape?

Break down the similarities for me between (post hoc) assenting to rape and (post hoc) assenting to medical attention in order to preserve your life. lain:

 

[Quetzal]

The most remarkable part about this thread is that Traditio believes he is making some profound, enlightened argument. When, in reality, he still has no idea how flawed his argument is. Seven pages of idiocy and counting. opcorn:

 

[Rusha]

Here is literally what you are telling me:

1. I assume the first premise: "A woman's consent always matters."
2. From that premise, it follows that an unconscious woman's rights are being violated when given medical treatment.
3. 2 doesn't matter, however, since we have a law that says: "By the way, though, she can't do anything about it."

My question isn't about what the laws are. My question is about what follows from the premise.

And really, all that you are doing is agreeing with me: a woman's consent doesn't always matter.

You might have had an argument IF you had gone with "when can a person's consent be overridden?".

One answer .... when a PARENT is the only person capable of saving the life of one of their unborn/born children.

Should a father or mother be required to offer their child a kidney IF he is capable of surviving without it? Blood? Etc.

The responses you are receiving have to do with your well known history of being intentionally inconsiderate and provoking others with extreme examples and exaggerations.

 

[shagster01]

Here is literally what you are telling me:

1. I assume the first premise: "A woman's consent always matters."
2. From that premise, it follows that an unconscious woman's rights are being violated when given medical treatment.
3. 2 doesn't matter, however, since we have a law that says: "By the way, though, she can't do anything about it."

My question isn't about what the laws are. My question is about what follows from the premise.

And really, all that you are doing is agreeing with me: a woman's consent doesn't always matter.

The laws as they are now work. Question all you want. But you are trying to fix something that ain't broken.

Everything is not equal. It is case by case, as it should be.

 

[Sitamun]

So if I am to sum up, Trad is trying to use the consent argument (for matters pertaining to sex) and assigning their same meaning when it comes to life saving actions done by doctors, nurses, EMT's, and random people on the street to those in distress yes?

First of all, they aren't the same. Second, when it comes to life saving actions, consent of the "victim" is implied. It's why DNR orders are required in hospitals. Rape and Emergency Medical Treatment are not one and the same, neither can it be applied to abortion. All three issues are different.

 

[PureX]

Following Trad's logic …

 

[Town Heretic]

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.

The right to privacy, as it's being used, is a right to individual autonomy over their own bodies. So assume the reasonable person standard. A reasonable person, in jeopardy, would desire to be rescued. Consent is reasonably implied by the hypothetical. That should shield you from liability provided what you do in response is also reasonable.

 

[Quetzal]

So if I am to sum up, Trad is trying to use the consent argument (for matters pertaining to sex) and assigning their same meaning when it comes to life saving actions done by doctors, nurses, EMT's, and random people on the street to those in distress yes?

First of all, they aren't the same. Second, when it comes to life saving actions, consent of the "victim" is implied. It's why DNR orders are required in hospitals. Rape and Emergency Medical Treatment are not one and the same, neither can it be applied to abortion. All three issues are different.

Precisely.

 

[Traditio]

So if I am to sum up, Trad is trying to use the consent argument (for matters pertaining to sex) and assigning their same meaning when it comes to life saving actions done by doctors, nurses, EMT's, and random people on the street to those in distress yes?

In particular, those who are unconscious.

First of all, they aren't the same. Second, when it comes to life saving actions, consent of the "victim" is implied. It's why DNR orders are required in hospitals. Rape and Emergency Medical Treatment are not one and the same, neither can it be applied to abortion. All three issues are different.

Either you think that a woman's consent is always necessary in order to avoid violating her rights, or else, you don't. If you tell me that the unconscious woman should receive medical treatment, then you don't actually think that consent always matters. It only matters when it suits your liberal agenda.

If you tell me that her consent is implied, then I'll reply that, nonetheless, 1. there is no actual consent and 2. at this point, you are telling the victim what she consents to. "By law, you consent to this, regardless of your actual intentions."

You'll tell me that there's no relationship to rape and abortion, but there is at least this much of an analogy: the consent argument doesn't work. There is no prima facie reason why the same argument can't apply to abortion: "Yes, I am aware that you don't want to be pregnant. However, it is unreasonable for you to seek an abortion, and we are going to tell you what you can and cannot consent to in this case. Your actual consent is irrelevent."

You'll object to this, and I'll answer that you do roughly this in the case of the unconscious woman who needs medical treatment.

Telling me that a woman hasn't consented to have sex, or that she hasn't consented to be pregnant, does not in and of itself demonstrate a violation of right. Further arguments are needed.