Unconscious Women Should Be Left to Die

[Traditio]

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.

Your definitions are noted.

However, you are still failing to deal with the dilemma that I've offered. Necessarily, one of those two propositions are true. Which do you assert to be the case?

 

[TracerBullet]

Your definitions are noted.

However, you are still failing to deal with the dilemma that I've offered. Necessarily, one of those two propositions are true. Which do you assert to be the case?

not my definitions but the actual legal definitions

 

[Traditio]

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

Granted that the definition that I use for "right to privacy" isn't the one that you use, it doesn't follow from this that the dilemma that I've offered isn't logically necessary. Again, I've basically just offered you A or not A.

You disagree? Then offer me a third option which is "intermediate" between those two propositions.

 

[PureX]

Then liberals can't appeal to "a right to privacy" as an argument for abortion.

… When the woman in question is laying unconscious in the street? … perhaps not.

So, what you seem to be suggesting is that when we find a woman unconscious in the street, we CAN refuse to give her an abortion, since she has no control over her own body under those circumstances.

Wow! What an amazingly idiotic point!

 

[TracerBullet]

Granted that the definition that I use for "right to privacy" isn't the one that you use, it doesn't follow from this that the dilemma that I've offered isn't logically necessary.

Actually it does because your definition isn't the actual one.

 

[Traditio]

not my definitions but the actual legal definitions

I will give you one more chance, after which, I will simply ignore you. I am offering you two mutually exclusive alternatives. Necessarily, one of the two is true:

1. If someone wants to act on my body, then my consent is always necessary.

2. There are some instances in which my consent is irrelevent to what happens to my body.

Either:

1. Affirm 1,
2. Affirm 2,

or

3. Offer me an alternative which is intermediate between 1 and 2.

 

[Traditio]

Actually it does because your definition isn't the actual one.

You have no idea how logic works, do you?

 

[TracerBullet]

I will give you one more chance, after which, I will simply ignore you. I am offering you two mutually exclusive alternatives. Necessarily, one of the two is true:

But it is not necessary that one be true

 

[Traditio]

… When the woman in question is laying unconscious in the street? … perhaps not.

So, what you seem to be suggesting is that when we find a woman unconscious in the street, we CAN refuse to give her an abortion, since she has no control over her own body under those circumstances.

Wow! What an amazingly idiotic point!

I agree. "What an amazingly idiotic point." Fortunately, it's one that I didn't make.

My point is simply the following:

If you grant that a woman's consent is irrelevent if she's lying unconscious and doctors, paramedics, etc. want to give her medical treatment, then you have just granted that there are at least some circumstances in which a woman's consent is irrelevent.

Necessarily, if some a is B, then there are Bs.

 

[Quetzal]

You have no idea how logic works, do you?

Tracer's definition holds more weight because he is using the appropriate definitions. You are not. You need to redefine your argument within those definitions or admit your argument is flawed and dismiss it.

 

[Traditio]

But it is not necessary that one be true

Last chance. If you want to maintain this, then present me with a proposition which is intermediate between those two. Example:

All dogs are green.
All dogs are not green.

You in turn could tell me: Some dogs are green, but not all dogs are green.

 

[Traditio]

Tracer's definition holds more weight because he is using the appropriate definitions. You are not. You need to redefine your argument within those definitions or admit your argument is flawed and dismiss it.

Again, I basically said: "A or not A. Pick one."

You're telling me: "But B."

Ok, let us grant B. But that doesn't answer my point at all.

 

[TracerBullet]

Last chance. If you want to maintain this, then present me with a proposition which is intermediate between those two. Example:

All dogs are green.
All dogs are not green.

You in turn could tell me: Some dogs are green, but not all dogs are green.

The premise of your argument is flawed. So either revise your premise or dismiss your dilemma.

 

[Quetzal]

Again, I basically said: "A or not A. Pick one."

You're telling me: "But B."

Ok, let us grant B. But that doesn't answer my point at all.

I think you are getting frustrated because you are trying to get us to bite on a baited question. For this topic, there are no absolutes. There are questions, judgment calls, and special circumstances that you are trying to boil down into a yes or no question.

 

[PureX]

I agree. "What an amazingly idiotic point." Fortunately, it's one that I didn't make.

My point is simply the following:

If you grant that a woman's consent is irrelevent if she's lying unconscious and doctors, paramedics, etc. want to give her medical treatment, then you have just granted that there are at least some circumstances in which a woman's consent is irrelevent.

Your problem is that no one ever denied that where consent is not possible, that it must be treated as though it were possible. You're jousting at windmills and imaging them to be "the enemy". When in fact they are fictions that exist only your own absurd vision of reality.

 

[Traditio]

The premise of your argument is flawed. So either revise your premise or dismiss your dilemma.

And there we have it. You are apparently incapable of having a rational debate and apparently have no idea what constitutes good reasoning. Have a pleasant day. I am done with you. I would be better off debating with a brute animal.

 

[TracerBullet]

And there we have it. You are apparently incapable of having a rational debate and apparently have no idea what constitutes good reasoning. Have a pleasant day. I am done with you. I would be better off debating with a brute animal.

A rational debate and good reasoning would include addressing issues such as a flawed premise.

 

[Traditio]

I think you are getting frustrated because you are trying to get us to bite on a baited question. For this topic, there are no absolutes. There are questions, judgment calls, and special circumstances that you are trying to boil down into a yes or no question.

I'm getting annoyed because what I am saying is analogous to the following:

1. Either dogs are animals

or

2. it is not the case that dogs are animals.

And you and tracer bullet insist on saying: "But cats are animals!"

O...k...and your point is...?

 

[Traditio]

Your problem is that no one ever denied that where consent is not possible, that it must be treated as though it were possible.

Except, liberals constantly deny this in the case of rape.

 

[Quetzal]

I'm getting annoyed because what I am saying is analogous to the following:

1. Either dogs are animals

or

2. it is not the case that dogs are animals.

And you and tracer bullet insist on saying: "But cats are animals!"

O...k...and your point is...?

Look, there are fields of study dedicated to the ethics and law you are talking about. This is a huge topic with so many examples, legal cases, etc. I am dismissing you on the simple fact of over simplification. This is not a topic where absolutes make sense.