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?
Jump to content
Posted 08 January 2009 - 04:37 AM
How did I ever say they were an exception.
Posted 08 January 2009 - 04:46 AM
Posted 08 January 2009 - 05:06 AM
Posted 08 January 2009 - 05:07 AM
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posted 08 January 2009 - 06:17 AM
Posted 08 January 2009 - 07:26 AM
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'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.
Posted 08 January 2009 - 08:01 AM
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.
Edited by Renegade, 08 January 2009 - 08:16 AM.
Posted 08 January 2009 - 08:14 AM
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.
We're also forgetting that it's often the father who encourages abortion for a variety of reasons. Not ready for fatherhood...married.
Posted 08 January 2009 - 09:35 AM
Edited by Molly, 08 January 2009 - 09:43 AM.
Posted 08 January 2009 - 09:40 AM
Posted 08 January 2009 - 09:48 AM
(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.)
Posted 08 January 2009 - 09:56 AM
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 Renegade, 08 January 2009 - 09:59 AM.
Posted 08 January 2009 - 09:57 AM
Posted 08 January 2009 - 10:06 AM