Even after I took the time to “recap” the reasons people were upset, she still doesn’t get it.
Well, Blonde I want you to see the fullness of the reactions your repugnant words caused, so I’m posting my first outraged thoughts, and then my thoughts a few minutes later.
This is all I have left to say to you, Blonde
dumbfounded knee jerk
“Then to be blunt, and rude. Get out of this country! You obviously have no use for it’s basic tenets as set forth in the Constitution, do you? The fact that you “have no problem” with this thought, flies in the face of the Constitution. Rather than let people like you infringe upon my Constitutional rights to refuse to have a surgery done to MY BODY, regardless of gender, gravid state or lack therof, etc. I’m just going to ask you to leave, bluntly, heartlessly and coldly. I’m sure I’ll be able to vent my thoughts on this more, once my shock at your sheer thickheaded ignorance wears off. For now, I have nothing more to say to the likes of you. Begone!”
dumbfounded knee jerk/
Calmer voice:
It’s ironic, that the Constitution protects such “potentially destructive to itself” moronecy. Ironic, and somewhat a bitter thing, that I’ll still defend idiots like this, and fight for their rights to hold such an opinion. All bets are off, however, when they start reaching out with their meaty paws, and trying to affect my rights with their stupidity.
What Blonde doesn’t seem to get is that forcing women to undergo c-sections they don’t want is just as much an encroachment on their rights to bodily autonomy as shackling them to a table for the duration of their pregnancies to stop them getting abortions.
Invasions of bodily autonomy cannot be measured in degrees. Like the right to vote, you either have it or you don’t and if one woman’s rights in this area are violated and that violation legally sanctioned no woman in America can truly claim that she has bodily autonomy in the eyes of the law because it might be only a matter of time before a similar fate befalls her. If women don’t have bodily autonomy in the eyes of the law then what legal basis is there for objecting to the forced imprisonment of pregnant women who may have abortions?
It’s not just one gender’s bodily autonomy that’s at stake. What about when a hospital gets it into their head to take a relative of a person that needs an organ donation to court to MAKE that family member donate “because it can save a life”? There’s a saying that fits “Don’t let the camel stick it’s nose in the tent!” (Because the rest of the camel will soon follow suit.) Males won’t be immune to the laws that will result from the successful prosecution of this case, no one will be.
I’m with you, Z_C. Setting aside the question of whether a fetus is a “person” at all, I don’t think we can morally justify forcing a medical procedure on one person in order to save the life of another. Otherwise, as you say, we must also accept that others have some sort of right to our non-vital or replaceable organs (a kidney, blood, bone marrow) and should be allowed to take them from us without our consent.
I can’t even justify forcing a medical procedure on a mentally competant adult “for their own good”. People must have the right to refuse treatment, no matter who that treatment might benefit. If they don’t, then the whole medical establishment becomes a bunch of terrifying God-playing mad scientists (whether they want to be this way or not!) rather than a group dedicated to helping others. It’s not helping people to treat their bodies like machines to be tinkered with while ignoring their wishes altogether.
I must disagree with the idea that invasions of bodily autonomy cannot be measured in degrees. The law recognizes, for example, that a pat down search, a full body search, and a strip-search that includes body cavities are all different creatures, and are predicated on different levels of suspicion and custody.
I have no comment on the issue of abortion and women’s rights in the areas of pregnancy. But I did want to correct that sweeping generalization.
To fully articulate what Gomez was saying Invasions of bodily autonomy in reference to accepting or refusing medical treatments cannot be measured in degrees. Better?
I respectfully (even though this IS the pit…) disagree. This isn’t refusing an asprin when you have a headache, or legislation to force you to take an asprin when you have a headache.
The problem is different, a temporary discomfort compared with a potential human life. The method of treatment is different, ingesting a pill compared with surgery.
Right or wrong, how could you possibly not see that there are varying degrees of medical illnesses/complications, and varying degrees to treat them? Bricker used an apt analogy.
You seem to suggest, Garfield, that in only the less serious case does a woman have a right to say no.
And as painful as I am certain a body-cavity search must be, it does not equate with getting strapped down, knocked-out, and having your reproductive organs sliced open against your will.
Ok, let’s go from your reasoning a little. If a person has the right to refuse medical treatment to save their life (pregnant or not) when they have been in a car wreck, based on the creed they follow, than they have the right to refuse medical treatment in any other case too. See?
While I believe in the right to choose, I have a hard time with this one. In this case, I would think that the child’s right to life would outweigh her fear of being cut. I don’t know. I don’t think it’s right to force her, but on the other hand, if the child is able to survive outside of the womb, shouldn’t it have a chance?
I’m terrified of surgery, but if it meant saving the life of my child, I would do it in a heartbeat.
I don’t know. I really don’t. I don’t think there’s any right answer to this.
I wasn’t suggesting anything in regards to this case, I was pointing out that there are differing degrees to medical needs and treatments, and to use the slippery slope argument equating this case with legislating surgery for anything and everything is a logical fallacy.
And I believe most women aren’t “knocked-out” for C-sections.
How is that “going by my reasoning?” I wasn’t making a judgement in this case, I was merely trying to get you to admit that there are varying degrees to medical procedures. Your example makes no sense.
“IF a person has the right to refuse medical treatment to save their life after a car wreck
THEN they have the right to refuse it for anything else?”
No. Does not follow. That’ like saying
IF a person has the right to refuse medical treatment to save their life after a car wreck
THEN they have the right to wear a bright green T-shirt on Thursdays.
May be true, but does not follow. In fact, if true, the OPPOSITE is actually what you’re going for.
IF a person has the right to refuse medical treatment whenever they wish,
THEN a person has the right to refuse medical treatment to save their life (pregnant or not) after a car wreck.
The point I was making is, if a person, any person at all, has the right to refuse medical treatment, even treatment that would save their life, than they have the right to refuse a medical procedure on their body, WHETHER IT WOULD SAVE A LIFE (a baby they carry, or a person in need of one of their organs) OR NOT. It’s their body, if they have any right to refuse treatment at all, than there should be no exceptions made, lest the right be eroded away completely. You all might be interested in reading some of the more recent posts in the thread I linked in the OP.
In respect to this particular case my 2c is that yes, the mother has the right to decide what´s done with her body; but in the other hand she should be held acountable for the death of the baby, she didn´t want to kill the child, but her actions led to that; what would that acount for, legally?
So, Ale you DO realize that you are condemning at least some mothers who have, or who will miscarry?
This is what I mean. A poor working woman finds she is pregnant. She is a single mother, and cannot get child support for whatever reason. She cannot get Welfare, her five years is up. She has no choice but to work in order to eat. Well, she has difficulties in her pregnancy, and the doctor tells her “Stay in bed or your baby WILL die!”. But she can’t, she has to work to feed herself, and her other children. She goes back to work, and miscarries the baby. Should this woman be held criminally accountable for choosing not to follow the doctor’s “advice”? See what a can of worms that opens?
Q.E.D I believe you have been told this before, but here goes. Either contribute something useful to this thread, or don’t post at all. It is not very “intellectual” to only criticize syntax, and rather cowardly to post, but not actually “chime in” with your thoughts on the matter. Either add a perspective, or get out. If you can’t contribute, limit yourself to lurking! Am I making myself clear?
At least Blonde contributed her opinion on this topic, however much I disagree with it.
Why, yes, if a doctor warned her that her actions would ultimately lead to the death of her baby and she still goes on with those activities, I´m more than convinced that she should be criminaly accountable.
If doctors had said, “may”, “there´s a slight chance” or something like that there´s quite a bit of wiggling room. But that´s not the case you´re making here.
Yes, it´s tough shit for a working mother to face the dilema of choosing between working to avoid starvation or quit to save her baby. It´s similar to the dilema between starving or robbing a bank, the former is ilegal, being hungry and needed doesn´t void one of legal accountability.
So, Ale what your saying, in essence, is that a doctor’s word bears the “force of law”? Doctor’s aren’t human, and fallible, and capable of missing vital information? This is what you are saying? What planet do you live on? Go to the other thread, read the accounts of women who have given birth, who have had C-sections, and see what they say.
Educate yourself, be willing to give up your ignorance, or join Blonde in leaving this country since you obviously also have no use for the tenents set forth in the Constitution. (And if you have no use for the Constitution, than you have no reason to be here, and I don’t want you here to rape the Constitution…so go!)