The Conservative War On Women

Valmorian wrote:

Of course, but the ethical consideration at its base is the same. Does anyone have an ethical right to use your body to survive?

And we're back to when does a clump of cells become an "anyone," a person with legal rights...

Valmorian wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Valmorian:

Bioethical considerations in those cases extend beyond body rights, because a lot of people stand to make a profit on each transplant case.

Of course, but the ethical consideration at its base is the same. Does anyone have an ethical right to use your body to survive?

Of course not, I have a penis.

OG_slinger wrote:
Valmorian wrote:

Of course, but the ethical consideration at its base is the same. Does anyone have an ethical right to use your body to survive?

And we're back to when does a clump of cells become an "anyone," a person with legal rights...

Actually, we're not. The bodily rights argument allows for full personhood or not. Or rather, it makes that question irrelevant.

NSMike wrote:

Actually, we're not. The bodily rights argument allows for full personhood or not. Or rather, it makes that question irrelevant.

And yet the pro-life counter argument against bodily rights argument goes right back to slut punishing: the woman participated in an activity that created the fetus and, since she has the right plumbing, she is therefore responsible for bearing that child to term.

Why? Because it's always assumed by the pro-life crowd that the clump of cells is a person.

OG_slinger wrote:
NSMike wrote:

Actually, we're not. The bodily rights argument allows for full personhood or not. Or rather, it makes that question irrelevant.

And yet the pro-life counter argument against bodily rights argument goes right back to slut punishing: the woman participated in an activity that created the fetus and, since she has the right plumbing, she is therefore responsible for bearing that child to term.

Why? Because it's always assumed by the pro-life crowd that the clump of cells is a person.

And still, whether the clump of cells is a person or not, the bodily rights argument still stands. I haven't heard anyone effectively refute it. They just go around in circles and misunderstand the premise because they can't figure out that person or not, our society does not extend the right to supersede the rights of another person and require the non-fatal use of their body (or fatal for that matter, but that was just clarification).

Call the clump of cells a person. Give it a name, make a college fund, do whatever, the argument still stands.

NSMike wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
NSMike wrote:

Actually, we're not. The bodily rights argument allows for full personhood or not. Or rather, it makes that question irrelevant.

And yet the pro-life counter argument against bodily rights argument goes right back to slut punishing: the woman participated in an activity that created the fetus and, since she has the right plumbing, she is therefore responsible for bearing that child to term.

Why? Because it's always assumed by the pro-life crowd that the clump of cells is a person.

And still, whether the clump of cells is a person or not, the bodily rights argument still stands. I haven't heard anyone effectively refute it. They just go around in circles and misunderstand the premise because they can't figure out that person or not, our society does not extend the right to supersede the rights of another person and require the non-fatal use of their body (or fatal for that matter, but that was just clarification).

Call the clump of cells a person. Give it a name, make a college fund, do whatever, the argument still stands.

But, we also, except for rare circumstances, do not allow people to decide to terminate the life of another. And, if you assume that the fetus is a person, then by allowing an abortion to proceed, you are allowing someone to commit murder.

For people who are pro-life, the fact that a woman may be forced to carry a child to term is a much, much smaller problem than allowing the fetus (which is a person, in their point of view) to be murdered.

mudbunny wrote:
NSMike wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
NSMike wrote:

Actually, we're not. The bodily rights argument allows for full personhood or not. Or rather, it makes that question irrelevant.

And yet the pro-life counter argument against bodily rights argument goes right back to slut punishing: the woman participated in an activity that created the fetus and, since she has the right plumbing, she is therefore responsible for bearing that child to term.

Why? Because it's always assumed by the pro-life crowd that the clump of cells is a person.

And still, whether the clump of cells is a person or not, the bodily rights argument still stands. I haven't heard anyone effectively refute it. They just go around in circles and misunderstand the premise because they can't figure out that person or not, our society does not extend the right to supersede the rights of another person and require the non-fatal use of their body (or fatal for that matter, but that was just clarification).

Call the clump of cells a person. Give it a name, make a college fund, do whatever, the argument still stands.

But, we also, except for rare circumstances, do not allow people to decide to terminate the life of another. And, if you assume that the fetus is a person, then by allowing an abortion to proceed, you are allowing someone to commit murder.

For people who are pro-life, the fact that a woman may be forced to carry a child to term is a much, much smaller problem than allowing the fetus (which is a person, in their point of view) to be murdered.

I don't feel like enumerating the bodily rights argument here, so here's a link that answers a lot of those questions, and poses other moral problems. Ultimately, the response analogies are imperfect and don't precisely counter the idea. But that's pretty much always the case.

NSMike wrote:

I don't feel like enumerating the bodily rights argument here, so here's a link that answers a lot of those questions, and poses other moral problems. Ultimately, the response analogies are imperfect and don't precisely counter the idea. But that's pretty much always the case.

When you deal with arguments like this that touch so strongly on emotions *and* you combine it with such a significant difference in a viewpoint that involves the very basic starting point of the argument, it is hard to find arguments that aren't imprecise.

The basic requirement for any series of arguments using logic is to start off from the same assumptions. You then use logic to arrive at the conclusion. When two people don't agree to the same assumptions, any further argumentation is moot - you're never going to arrive at anything constructive. It's the assumptions that need to be aligned, not the arguments.

I would happily debate any political position in favour of banning abortions that also presented thoughtful approaches to ensuring a full and happy life for the child. I would take more seriously someone that said they were pro-life and as such would like to see mandated spending towards the expansion of child adoption services and quality, regulated social services. Someone who thought that foster care and public schools should be fertile ground in which a child can grow to become a happy and productive adult. Someone who cared as much about children as they did about fetuses.

In my experience, though, that Venn diagram has a very narrow intersection.

A related question: if someone is drowning, are you required to risk your life to help them?

The only difference between that and pregnancy is that 'the woman is to blame' for taking an action. She did something wrong, and therefore loses her right to avoid risking her life.

Malor wrote:

A related question: if someone is drowning, are you required to risk your life to help them?

The only difference between that and pregnancy is that 'the woman is to blame' for taking an action. She did something wrong, and therefore loses her right to avoid risking her life.

Well letting that person drown is kind of like making them deal with the consequences of their actions. So I'm not sure this analogy really works.

But what if the drowning person is a baby?

Malor wrote:

But what if the drowning person is a baby?

They shouldn't have gone swimming less than 30 minutes after eating.

SixteenBlue wrote:
Malor wrote:

But what if the drowning person is a baby?

They shouldn't have gone swimming less than 30 minutes after eating.

Eh, jokes aside, I think Malor's analogy actually does work. Risking your life to save another's is a wonderful and noble thing but no one is attempting to make that required by law. Only in this one specific situation where the words consequence always pops up.

"Risking your life" isn't even necessary. It's completely legal that you not give help to another dying individual even if it doesn't put you at risk.

Counterpoint - I may have also just described negligent homocide, so...

Seth wrote:

"Risking your life" isn't even necessary. It's completely legal that you not give help to another dying individual even if it doesn't put you at risk.

Counterpoint - I may have also just described negligent homocide, so...

Should you be forced, at threat of imprisonment, or financial hardship, to go through a bone marrow donation process?

Did this story get posted?http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1114/1224326575203.html

He says that, having been told she was miscarrying, and after one day in severe pain, Ms Halappanavar asked for a medical termination.

This was refused, he says, because the foetal heartbeat was still present and they were told, “this is a Catholic country”.

She spent a further 2½ days “in agony” until the foetal heartbeat stopped.

Seth wrote:

"Risking your life" isn't even necessary. It's completely legal that you not give help to another dying individual even if it doesn't put you at risk.

Counterpoint - I may have also just described negligent homocide, so...

No, negligent homicide is when through your own actions create an unsafe situation by which a person dies. You keep powdered bleach and powdered creamer in similar containers on the counter say. You have a sink hole in your yard that is not staked off or fixed and a meter reader falls in. You work on your car without the parking break on or the wheels chocked, it rolls down your drive and kills a kid on his bike.

Tanglebones wrote:

Should you be forced, at threat of imprisonment, or financial hardship, to go through a bone marrow donation process?

A probe up your bum or hoo-hah if you do not elect to be an organ doner.

Thanks, KG - I wasn't sure of the nuance there.

Edit - argh I can't re write this without it sounding sarcastic! I really did appreciate the post, KG!

Seth wrote:

Thanks, KG - I wasn't sure of the nuance there.

Edit - argh I can't re write this without it sounding sarcastic! I really did appreciate the post, KG!

IMAGE(http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/5469765_700b.jpg)

Malor wrote:

A related question: if someone is drowning, are you required to risk your life to help them?

The only difference between that and pregnancy is that 'the woman is to blame' for taking an action. She did something wrong, and therefore loses her right to avoid risking her life.

I'll try to find the case, but I remember hearing about a woman having charges pressed against her for not diving into a river to save a stranger's drowning baby a few years ago. The woman couldn't swim, but the baby's father, who was right there, could. Clearly, he'd suffered enough, but women should be expected to sacrifice themselves for the almighty child.

EDIT: Here we go: Experts disagree with jury verdict against woman in boy's drowning

Kraint wrote:

Did this story get posted?

I was going to put that up, as it seems a pretty gross violation of medical ethics that touched off a disgusting horror story.

I am willing to bet at some point she agreed to watch the kid. Or the dad told the kid to stay with her, and she kept an eye on him.

Pennsylvania and New Jersey have a strange history of bystander laws. US legal history also affords special situations when it comes to small children.

These are very tough cases. The article has an obvious angle. You cannot remove the emotional hit of when a child dies.

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
Malor wrote:

A related question: if someone is drowning, are you required to risk your life to help them?

The only difference between that and pregnancy is that 'the woman is to blame' for taking an action. She did something wrong, and therefore loses her right to avoid risking her life.

I'll try to find the case, but I remember hearing about a woman having charges pressed against her for not diving into a river to save a stranger's drowning baby a few years ago. The woman couldn't swim, but the baby's father, who was right there, could. Clearly, he'd suffered enough, but women should be expected to sacrifice themselves for the almighty child.

EDIT: Here we go: Experts disagree with jury verdict against woman in boy's drowning

Yeah, you can thank Good Samaritan laws for this kind of BS. It used to be fairly well understood that a private citizen only has a duty to their spouse or child. Now, there's a whole bunch of grey area depending on which state you're in.

Why is there not a good web site for comparing and contrasting state laws like this? Besides the fact that some states consider their laws to be copy-protected works and cannot be freely distributed.

I think we need to know more of that scenario. There are interesting bits in that article that could go either way but were used against her. For instance, she ran for help (to tell the father) and there were others that tried to grab the son, one of which couldn't swim either.

So obviously there were some facts that need to be filled in because if other were attempting to save him and she ran for additional help and to tell the father, then I don't understand the verdict. Well to be honest I don't understand the verdict anyway. Because she knew the father and had already grabbed him from the water once, then she was a proxy guardian with legal responsibility? No way, I don't agree with that at all. Also, panicking is not a crime.

KingGorilla wrote:

These are very tough cases. The article has an obvious angle. You cannot remove the emotional hit of when a child dies.

No doubt. The root sensationalist piece fueling those GS laws, the rape and murder of a young girl in a Vegas bathroom, is vile and infuriating. (And it looks like there's no GS law in Pennsylvania, anyway. My oversight.)

Maybe they thought the fact that she'd already brought him back to his father once was sufficient to establish the 'special relationship'. Still, I don't want to be held accountable for someone else's charge without a clear establishment of said accountability, moral or cultural obligations to children aside.

Mixolyde wrote:

Why is there not a good web site for comparing and contrasting state laws like this? Besides the fact that some states consider their laws to be copy-protected works and cannot be freely distributed.

Well we have 52 discrete state codes of laws changing as often as every year, or with greater frequency depending on high court actions. You toss into that municipal and county level measures-say Detroit's measure to stop enforcement of the state's marijuana possession law and it is a severe undertaking.

Couple that with poor media coverage of legal developments, they cannot afford to do it.

You shoot me a business model, and we can make it happen buddy.

The closest we might get are the legal research services like West, Lexis, Hein.