I'll tell you that the same line of reasoning makes a woman's actual consent in the case of 1. abortion and 2. at least some sexual encounters, irrelevent.
Unconscious Women Should Be Left to Die
- Thread starter Traditio
- Start date
I'll tell you that the same line of reasoning makes a woman's actual consent in the case of 1. abortion and 2. at least some sexual encounters, irrelevent.
As I said: you're basically just agreeing with me. In at least some cases, a woman's consent doesn't matter. :idunno:
shagster01
New member
Sometimes consent has to be assumed in life saving situations, unless she is wearing a DNR bracelet.
In other words: sometimes, her actual consent is irrelevent.
Why are you so uncomfortable admitting this?
Quetzal
New member
Because you are going to bait-n-switch like you have already done 2-3 times in this thread.
shagster01
New member
Her consent is not irrelevant in that case. It is just impossible to get.
IF SHE CAN GIVE IT, IT MUST BE HEEDED. If she can't, then one must act with best intentions.
Sitamun
New member
This!
Trad I think you think you've dropped this massive mind blowing revelation in everyone's lap. You haven't. You've just shown your own lack of complex thought. It is an extremely rare thing in life to come across issues that are either/or, black or white if you will. The world exists mainly in various shades of gray. The intentions in each and every individual case need to be considered.
shagster01
New member
Yes. Trad's stupid argument could also be used to claim that since we let people die in hospice units, paramedics should let people die on the street too.
shagster01
New member
Me saving her life makes her a victim? A victim of what? If me saving her life in an emergency situation requires that her privacy be violated, it is not me who is violating it. It is whatever caused the emergency situation that has violated it.
That's not his point though...instead he's desperately trying to smear the right to privacy issue regarding abortion by attempting to make it seem absurd. He's summarily failing at this though....only succeeding in making himself appear absurd.
If it is impossible to get her consent, and you are acting on her anyway (without her actual consent), then her actual consent doesn't matter. I'm not sure wheter or not this is a self-evident proposition, but if it isn't, it's pretty close.
Then you'll tell me about her implicit consent. But I'll note that implicit consent is not actual consent (just as having a habitual knowledge of french is not the same as actually speaking french). And once again, you grant my point: her actual consent does not matter in that case (i.e., it is irrelevent).
Note, Shagster, there are two and only two logically possible options here:
Either the unconscious woman's actual consent is relevent
or
the woman's actual consent is not relevent.
If it is not relevent, then it is irrelevent (that's what the word "irrelevent" means).
If it is relevent, you cannot act. If you can act, then her consent is not relevent, and, therefore, irrelevent.
Is it really so hard to admit this?
This doesn't follow from anything that I've said.
shagster01
New member
Consent is given by not wearing a DNR bracelet.
Again I ask, since letting people die on a hospice ward is ok, should we then use that as a rule on all medical care wards?
Either it's the rule all the time, or it isn't in your black and white world, right?
Be that as it may, it's already been granted (let us suppose) that a woman's actual consent doesn't matter in at least some circumstances. That means that the general rule: "A woman's actual consent always matters" does not hold. If her actual consent at least sometimes does not matter (when not present), then is it really so far of a leap to say: "Well, in this case, even though she can consent, it still doesn't matter for x, y and z reasons"? If her consent is irrelevent in one case, there's no a priori reason why her consent can't be irrelevent in other cases.
In point of fact, a woman's consent, even when present, is irrelevent in other cases. A woman cannot legally consent to possess and use illegal narcotics or to commit suicide or be euthanized. In those cases, her consent is irrelevent. In those cases, who appeals to "the right to privacy" or the supremacy of a woman's autonomy and power to decide for herself to what she does and does not consent?
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:
You're arguing: "Her actual consent isn't present, but who knows, she can decide that for herself when she wakes up." Why can't I say the same thing about a sexual encounter with an unconscious woman? You're applying reasoning to one case that you would never apply to a different set of cases. It's special pleading.
In fact, Elo. and peacemaker had a thread about a man who had a sexual encounter with his wife, who had severe, late stage alzheimers. He was arrested because no actual consent. Why can't I reply, using your same arguments, "but there was implicit, habitual consent"?
Explain the similarity of the two cases?
shagster01
New member
The black and whiteness of your supposed logic.
I also edited my quoted comment above while you were quoting it. By not wearing a DNR bracelet you are consenting to be saved by any means nessesary. By wearing a DNR bracelet you are not consenting. Get it yet?
You're confusing my argument. My dilemma is that one of the following must be true:
1. Either a woman's consent always matters (which leads to the absurd conclusion that I've drawn in the OP).
2. It is not the case that a woman's consent always matters.
That's literally an application of the law of the excluded middle.
Um. No. That's just stupid. Go sit in the corner and think about what you just said. Bad liberal. :nono:
Edit: that may be true in some vague legal sense, i.e., in the sense that consent is legally presumed if a DNR bracelet is not present. In terms of action theory, however, that's just flat wrong. A failure to do x does not necessarily imply actual consent for anything.
shagster01
New member
Stop being stupid. If you don't consent to being saved you wear a DNR band. It's been that way for years.
Just because it punches a huge hole in your dumb made up thread example doesn't mean it's not true. You might think it's stupid, but it's true.
Just give up. You are wasting everyone's time here.
Once again, you are basically just agreeing with me: "Unless you actually opt out, your actual consent doesn't matter. Your consent is implicit (because we, by law, say so)."
Caledvwlch
New member
So does this mean an unconscious person has implicitly consented to me drawing lewd cartoons on her forehead?