440 replies to this topic

[Renegade]

How did I ever say they were an exception.

You did. You said that she owns her live, she doesn't own her fetus. That makes fetal cells an exception to what she is considered to "own". Why?

[Molly]

I wasn't going to wade into the merits of implied consent, but since it has become the discussion....

As I had noted before, on this continuum, irrevocable 'implied consent' was used as the argument in favor of outlawing contraception (much less abortion).

It was also used to 'establish' the impossibility of the rape of a wife by a husband. (You made the mistake of marrying him, and therefore irrevocably consented to any sick thing he wants to do to you at any time.)

It has been used to free rapists. (You wore attractive clothing; walked down that street; are not a virgin...all the rest of those 'blame the victim excuses.)

It _can_ be used to justify almost any foulness that we want to visit on people: You skipped school when you were 16, and therefore consented to lifelong poverty; You wandered into a dangerous neighbourhood and therefore consented to being mugged; you drove down a street on New Years Eve, and therefore consented to being killed by a drunk driver; You skiied, and thus consented to paraplegia......

'Implied consent' is a mediocre excuse to do whatever the hell we feel like doing. It isn't a _reason_ for anything.

[Molly]

I'm willing to say that a woman can rightfully deny the use of her body at any time, but Renegade, you are right that issues gets stickier when the fetus is viable elsewhere.

The practical fact is, when we are talking late term abortions , odds are the point might not be just 'not my body', but rather 'this thing must not be allowed to live'. As such, we are wandering into euthanasia country, and the Robert Latimer situation.

I'm still willing to keep state hands off of that, but would have a lot more difficulty justifying it.

[Renegade]

And why exactly do we pick 3 months as the threshold when the argument is that any woman having unprotected sex has already given implied consent to carry a resulting pregnancy to term? If it's an argument about giving implied consent, then she is obligated to see the pregnancy through, as soon as she is aware of being pregnant.

I picked 3 months as an example. We can debate what constitutes a reasonable period. You must misunderstand what I mean by implied consent. I do not believe that having sex, whether unprotected or protected is enough to imply consent. Given that preganancy is only one possible outcome of sex, it seems reasonable that you cannot infer intent to consent to pregnancy from simply participation in sex. The only ones who maintain that participation in sex is enough to imply consent are zealots such as Mr Canada and they do it without any support of legal precedence.

Even if you assume participation in sex implies consent, there is no reason why such consent is irrevokable. So the question is what would a reasonable person interpret as a woman's consent to carry a pregnancy to term? IMV, a clear set of rules that define that the lack of abortion after a specfic period, constitutes irrevokable consent to carry the pregnancy to term. A woman knowing these rules can either choose to abort within that term or not, but knowing that by not aborting she is in effect giving irrevokable consent.

The arguments in favour of establishing a cutoff line when fetal viability, development of the cerebral cortex or central nervous activity, mark periods of fetal development which society is using to establish when the fetus should be regarded as a human life with its own interests, such as the right to continue living, and that these rights are enough to justify inconveniencing the mother who wants to terminate the pregnancy. Before the 20th week, for example, there is no person to be obligated by any agreement of consent, implied or otherwise.

Yes I agree with this, however there is a margin of error. Some of of the earliest babies which have survived have been less than 22 weeks. I'm not knowledgable enough to know but I'm skeptical that in those cases significant activity would only have started 2 weeks before.

IMV, 20 weeks is too close to the time when provable viable fetus have been developed. I would favour a cut-off period earlier than 20 weeks. For example 16 weeks. I fail to see that it is a significant intrusion on women to make a decision within 16 weeks in lieu of 20 weeks.

So, in the Thompson example, where the donor is connected by intravenous tubes to the recipient, you would use a rule of irrevocable consent to physically restrain the donor, keeping him manacled in the next bed for the next nine months because of that promise to perform this life-saving action. It would be noble of the volunteer to go through with the promise, but in the end I think his action has to be voluntary, and if he gets bored after a few weeks in a hospital bed, he should still have the freedom to leave, even if that means the recipient will die without his life-saving effort. I still don't see it as an obligation to be enforced by binding contract.

Yes I agree with your view. In the case of the violinst, there has been no consent given so she not obliged to continue the life-saving action.

To use the violinst analogy, if the violinist were given the option to disconnect and had a reasonable period to think about it, and she knew that by not disconnecting when given the option, she was consenting to continue the life-saving action without the option of revoking consent, then I think constent can be implied and the procedure carried out to completion.

Why not? Unless the deceased is being cryogenically frozen in the hope of being resusitated and cured at some future time, what good are those organs to a dead man? In this type of situation, organ donation should be mandatory, since there are no compelling reasons aside from superstition, for refusing.

Because one of the principles we hold to in society, and I agree with is the notiion of one's right to oneself. In death that determination of what to do with one's body falls to the person one designates (ie one's family). The state should not have the right to intefere in removing choice in what to do with oneself regardless if one is dead or alive.

[DrGreenthumb]

Here is a good question for Mr Canada. What if a new test could determine wether a fetus was genetically predisposed to homosexuality? If you knew your potential son was likely to be a homosexual would you have a different opinion? Oh oh what if that test was 100% accurate after say 4 months? What would you do then MrCatholic? Would you allow the birth and love your gay son? Would you disown the son and put him up for adoption? Would you disown the wife for giving birth to a baby who was gay? Or would you walk your new gay son down the aisle of the church that he chooses to marry his gay immigrant man-bride in; giving up all your homophobia and thanking God for sending the gift of such a wonderful son who taught you not to be a bigoted a-hole?

[Progressive Tory]

I'm not trying to convince you. I'm examining a hypothetical situation which may or may not ever become reality. You advocate choice without any seeming boundries on that choice. Let's say a woman chooses not to allow her body to host a pregnancy. Also let's say technology allows the doctor to retrieve the fetus intact. Should she and she alone have to choice to detemine if that fetus is implanted somewhere else and carried to term? Should the father also have a say as it is his DNA being propogated? Should society have a say in where it is implanted? It is no longer a question of "my body, my choice" as the woman would have already denied use of her body.

Yes, it would still very much be her choice. For one thing, it is a far more invasive procedure than an abortion, from what I understand. There's an element of fear that the 'science project' doesn't work and creates a deformity that may haunt her. Again, it can be offered as a solution but not mandated as a solution. It's still in her body until she decides it shouldn't be.

I support the research as an option, since it could help many, especially those battling on religious grounds. But only as an option.

We're also forgetting that it's often the father who encourages abortion for a variety of reasons. Not ready for fatherhood...married.

[Renegade]

I wasn't going to wade into the merits of implied consent, but since it has become the discussion....

As I had noted before, on this continuum, irrevocable 'implied consent' was used as the argument in favor of outlawing contraception (much less abortion).

It was also used to 'establish' the impossibility of the rape of a wife by a husband. (You made the mistake of marrying him, and therefore irrevocably consented to any sick thing he wants to do to you at any time.)

It has been used to free rapists. (You wore attractive clothing; walked down that street; are not a virgin...all the rest of those 'blame the victim excuses.)

It _can_ be used to justify almost any foulness that we want to visit on people: You skipped school when you were 16, and therefore consented to lifelong poverty; You wandered into a dangerous neighbourhood and therefore consented to being mugged; you drove down a street on New Years Eve, and therefore consented to being killed by a drunk driver; You skiied, and thus consented to paraplegia......

'Implied consent' is a mediocre excuse to do whatever the hell we feel like doing. It isn't a _reason_ for anything.

Molly, It is precisely for the reasons you outline that I advocate a clearer definition of what constitutes irrevocable consent. In the case of pregnancy, because we have not defined exactly what actions or lack of actions constitute irrevocable consent, we leave room for arguments from pro-lifers that the act of sex is enough to imply irrevocable consent. By defining specficly what constitutes irrevocable consent, it nullifies the argument that anything less would be considered irrevocable consent as some of the pro-life movement would have the public believe.


Let us use the example of rape. The only difference between consensual sex and rape is the notion of mutual consent. In order to avoid arguments of "implied consent" being given due to dress or provocative behaviour, we have had to clearly define that consent is construed by the positive actions of the participants OR the lack of dissent from someone capable of disenting (ie "No means No")

I'm preplexed as to why the pro-choice community seems to be resistant to defining what constues irrevokable consent. By not clearly defining it, ammunition is given to pro-lifers to use the loosest possible ( and frequently irrational) definitions of implied consent to argue that consent was given.

Edited by Renegade, 08 January 2009 - 08:16 AM.

[Renegade]

Yes, it would still very much be her choice. For one thing, it is a far more invasive procedure than an abortion, from what I understand.

Since we are taking about the hypothetical, I was assuming that it wasn't any more invasive than abortion. Is the invasiveness the only issue?

There's an element of fear that the 'science project' doesn't work and creates a deformity that may haunt her.

It is interesting that you are concerned that the deformity may haunt "her". Should you also be conserned that the potentially deformity may haunt the father? Why would deformity from an expelled fetus only be a concern to her?

Again, it can be offered as a solution but not mandated as a solution. It's still in her body until she decides it shouldn't be.

Agreed. But in this case we are talking about what say she should have once it is no longer in her body.

We're also forgetting that it's often the father who encourages abortion for a variety of reasons. Not ready for fatherhood...married.

What we have not discussed and is equally interesting is what say if any the father should have in assuming the obligations of parenthood. Many in the pro-choice movement advocate that act of sex is not sufficient to infer that mother has consented to become a parent. Should the father also have that choice? Now I am not talking about the father deciding to abort a child during the pregnancy, that is clearly up to the woman. I am talking about post-birth whether the father should have the option to consent to assuming the duties of fatherhood.

[Molly]

The fact that 'irrevocable implied consent' could be defined means it could then be redefined with every tiny shift of the political wind- making it a tissue-paper fortress at it's very best.

At worst, if used as any kind of basis, it is an open invitation to the Mr. Canadas (and Stockwell Days) of the world to begin the re-defining. It's not a defense against the anti-choice/anti-women/anti-human rights crowd, but rather a plush welcome mat at the wide-open barn door.

Edited by Molly, 08 January 2009 - 09:43 AM.

[Molly]

(Balance of competing interests has some merit, which is largely why we have the practical situation that we currently have, but implied consent does not, and frankly, must not.)

[fellowtraveller]

Prolifers have a clear goal: get any kind of legislation regarding abortion and access to abortion as a federal law or statute.
Anything is possible after that.

[Renegade]

(Balance of competing interests has some merit, which is largely why we have the practical situation that we currently have, but implied consent does not, and frankly, must not.)

To be honest Molly, don't think at all the current situation is a result of "balance of competiing interest". Currently the only interest respresented is that of the mother and she can legally abort right up to the moment of birth without regard to the unborn baby's interest.

[Renegade]

The fact that 'irrevocable implied consent' could be defined means it could then be redefined with every tiny shift of the political wind- making it a tissue-paper fortress at it's very best.

So could the definition of "consent" for rape. So why hasn't that been "redefined with every tiny shift of the political wind".


BTW, what prevents "balance of competing interests" from being "redefined with every tiny shift of the political wind" or makes it more resistant to balance shifts?

At worst, if used as any kind of basis, it is an open invitation to the Mr. Canadas (and Stockwell Days) of the world to begin the re-defining. It's not a defense against the anti-choice/anti-women/anti-human rights crowd, but rather a plush welcome mat at the wide-open barn door.

I couldn't disagree with you more on this. It is the current situaion which has no rules, is the wide-open barn door. Without some form of consent you have to either agree that state can impose its will on mothers without her consent (for example in banning late term abortions), or you would have to permit unrestricted access to late-term abortions. Either option is an extremely egregious rights violation.

Edited by Renegade, 08 January 2009 - 09:59 AM.

[Molly]

Legally, yes, but in any practical sense, not even close. It is the practical human understanding that competing interests exist that makes it difficult to the point of near impossibility.

Sometimes, folks do the right thing, even without laws saying that they must, or facing the threat of jail .

[Molly]

"So could the definition of 'consent' for rape. So why hasn't that been 'redefined with every little shift of the political wind'?"


It has been! Drastically and often!