Women's Rights and Their Bodies

[StringJunky]

Depraved heart murder explicitly doesn't require malice, just total indifference to human life.

 

Not making an argument, mind. Just pointing out a fact.

Understood, but I did say "usually".

[MigL]

My bad.

That's what happens when you get your understanding of the law from TV shows like Seinfeld.

I always thought Good Samaritan laws enforced assistance.

( and also Depraved Indifference laws from Law and Order )

 

So its not criminal to watch someone die of a heart attack and not render CPR/first aid ?

Their right to life does not supersede your right to go about your business ?

Seems, at the very least, immoral.

[CharonY]

Oh, I agree on this, for sure... but this is not what I asked. I asked if the woman right on her body is absolute, does she then have the right even on irrational actions.

 

In that case I seem to have misunderstood your point. However, in that context medical necessity. For example, no medical provider will amputate a healthy limb, just because you want to. Thus, the risk for the mother is sufficient reason not perform a late term abortion. This is especially the case as there is a much safer procedure such as a initiating labor or caesarean. So while the right to their body is not violated, it is up to medical professionals to utilize the correct procedures and deny them if they are going to be more harmful than not.

[Delta1212]

My bad.

That's what happens when you get your understanding of the law from TV shows like Seinfeld.

I always thought Good Samaritan laws enforced assistance.

( and also Depraved Indifference laws from Law and Order )

 

So its not criminal to watch someone die of a heart attack and not render CPR/first aid ?

Their right to life does not supersede your right to go about your business ?

Seems, at the very least, immoral.

Frankly, people who don't know what they are doing in emergency situations are often as likely to screw something up as to actually help.

 

A doctor or EMT might have a responsibility to administer CPR. A random person off the street who doesn't know what they're doing could easily kill or seriously hurt someone to no benefit if they were legally required to do it.

[CharonY]

 

So its not criminal to watch someone die of a heart attack and not render CPR/first aid ?

Their right to life does not supersede your right to go about your business ?

Seems, at the very least, immoral.

 

I am pretty sure you do not mean it that way, but the way you phrase it, it appears that you draw an equivalence between the inconvenience of getting with your business with pregnancy. The latter is not only longer but also carries significant health risks up and including severe maternal morbidity in about 1.6% of the cases but also many other syndromes and diseases such as gestational diabetes, thyroid issues, risk of embolism, increased cardiovascular incidence and so on.

Would you think a law is moral if it forces you to help others even at risk for yourself? If so, what level of risk would you find acceptable to be enshrined in law?

[Daecon]

I think you need an example that would directly affect men.

Oops, my bad.

 

Mandatory monthly blood donation?

[MigL]

Certainly not equivalence, CharonY. I was under the ( mistaken ) assumption that personal rights can be suspended in a life or death situation of another person.

 

I was just re-certified in CPR/first aid/ defibrillator this past summer, Delta. Instructors now tell you that anything you do is helpful if a person has no heartbeat, even compressions only, as that person only has approx. 4 min. The professionals will NOT be there in time.

( sorry for the off topic jaunt )

[Delta1212]

Certainly not equivalence, CharonY. I was under the ( mistaken ) assumption that personal rights can be suspended in a life or death situation of another person.

 

I was just re-certified in CPR/first aid/ defibrillator this past summer, Delta. Instructors now tell you that anything you do is helpful if a person has no heartbeat, even compressions only, as that person only has approx. 4 min. The professionals will NOT be there in time.

( sorry for the off topic jaunt )

The problem is that while anyone might be able to help somewhat when intervention is necessary to keep the person alive, someone who doesn't have any training may not be able to determine when it is actually necessary to intervene, and you wind up with people who don't know what they're doing hurting people who didn't need help, or at least who didn't need that specific kind of help.

[Sirona]

Frankly, people who don't know what they are doing in emergency situations are often as likely to screw something up as to actually help.

 

A doctor or EMT might have a responsibility to administer CPR. A random person off the street who doesn't know what they're doing could easily kill or seriously hurt someone to no benefit if they were legally required to do it.

If you're the only person there and you do not know how to perform CPR, then it's much better to just try rather than do nothing because they will die otherwise. Someone who has just had a cardiac arrest for example has the best chance of survival if you perform CPR immediately, rather than waiting for someone qualified. Obviously you would not perform compressions if they are breathing, but if they're not, you can't do much more damage. However, unless you have a Duty of Care or you're a doctor, you are not obligated (In Australia anyway) to help someone. These days CPR training is actually extremely basic and you do not even have to perform mouth-to-mouth; just press down fast and deep in the middle of the chest. Consent is needed in Australia to administer first aid, however, if the person is unconscious then the law will imply consent and it's very unlikely you will be sued if you do what is reasonable to save their life. I am sure the law would be similar in your country.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Sirona

[Prometheus]

In the UK as a nurse, i was under no legal compulsion to provide medical attention unless my profession was somehow obvious. Then if i do provide aid, the quality of that aid must be commensurate to my level of experience.

 

I stress this is my personal opinion: i've already reached the age where i would refuse CPR if i could (maybe get DNAR tattooed on my chest), and i'm a far cry from old - unless someone could slap a defib on me within minutes of the event. There was an interesting study that found doctors were far more likely to not want resuscitation in the event of cardiac arrest, can't find it now, but this link is a start for anyone interested.

 

What? Women's rights? So far off topic...sorry.

[Sirona]

If women are to be socially, politically and economically equal to men then they need to have the right over their own body and since the foetus is apart of the woman's body, this includes the right to decide whether she wants to be a mother or not. If they do not have this choice, then they cannot have the same moral standing as men.

[StringJunky]

If women are to be socially, politically and economically equal to men then they need to have the right over their own body and since the foetus is apart of the woman's body, this includes the right to decide whether she wants to be a mother or not. If they do not have this choice, then they cannot have the same moral standing as men.

Agreed but beyond a certain point a foetus becomes a person and that that right to decide needs to be waived unless it is a medical necessity.

 

Responsible men should have rights over the destiny of their child too. They can have as much invested in them as the mother.

Edited November 11, 2016 by StringJunky

[EdEarl]

I think rights are not absolute. For example, conjoined twins share the responsibility for their body; one cannot commit suicide without murdering the other. One may not stab someone else to watch them die. There are always limits on what a person may do legally. The scenario of a pregnant woman is unique to females, and they have some rights curtailed during the process. She can have a baby and loose some rights temporarily, or not. However, the loss of rights is not limited to gestation; parents must forgo some rights until their children leave the nest, for example parents give up some freedom of mobility because they must care for children.

 

Rights are relative to the current situation as we interact with others; they are not absolute.

Edited November 11, 2016 by EdEarl

[ModernArtist25]

I know of a woman who had abortion 5 times because she doesn't like condoms. Up to this day, she still have sex unprotected. Do you all know if most of the abortions were performed due to medical issues or more of inconvenience for the woman? I am curious.....

[iNow]

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6015a1.htm?s_cid=ss6015a1_w

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

 

Seriously, most of us don't like condoms. I can promise this woman you "know" likes abortions even less and you're unlikely doing justice to her actual truth.

 

She likely makes bad decisions in the moment when sexual urges are strongest. That should not be conflated with the idea that she prefers abortions to condoms.

 

Instead, seems as if you're looking for another way to judge her and impose your own belief system; to feel superior; to find a way to rationalize to yourself your desire to remove her power to decide for herself.

Edited November 12, 2016 by iNow

[ModernArtist25]

Oh no judgments here, we are all not perfect

[Sirona]

I know of a woman who had abortion 5 times because she doesn't like condoms. Up to this day, she still have sex unprotected. Do you all know if most of the abortions were performed due to medical issues or more of inconvenience for the woman? I am curious.....

I do not understand how not liking condoms is correlated with abortion. There are many forms of contraception available for women and I very much doubt a large proportion of women opt for an abortion because it was 'inconvenient' to use protection. Also, from what I understand, condoms are less pleasurable for men than women, so if this is in fact true and not a ploy to portray women who seek abortion as immoral, it seems fairly odd. Contraception is very effective if used correctly, however, it is not a hundred percent accurate and certainly easier emotionally and financially than just 'getting abortions' as you seem to be suggesting. I cannot fathom that many women at all would opt for abortion because they find contraception inconvenient; it is much more likely that the contraception failed, which happens, although not likely.

 

Furthermore, let's just assume that the reason was true; it does not change my stance. I believe a woman either has the right to an abortion or not. I know in some countries it is circumstancial, but I do not see it as immoral or wrong, therefore, I do not see the difference between having none, one or five. Although, I would be concerned if she was having unprotected intercourse with men she did not know well due to the risk of STDs. Surely potentially spreading STDs has a greater impact on society and health than abortions in a country where it is legal and the practices are safe. If you knowingly spread STDs, then you're harming another person, however, a fetus is not a human person.

 

Edit: Get out of my head, iNOW. You beat me to it.

 

Edited November 12, 2016 by Sirona

[ModernArtist25]

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6015a1.htm?s_cid=ss6015a1_w

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

 

She likely makes bad decisions in the moment when sexual urges are strongest. That should not be conflated with the idea that she prefers abortions to condoms.

 

Or maybe abortion is worth it for short term pleasure that unprotected sex provide

Contraception is very effective if used correctly, however, it is not a hundred percent accurate and certainly easier emotionally and financially than just 'getting abortions' as you seem to be suggesting. I cannot fathom that many women at all would opt for abortion because they find contraception inconvenient; it is much more likely that the contraception failed, which happens, although not likely.

 

 

I meant I was curious about the amount of women who want abortion due to medical issue or inconvenience because a baby is just not the right time for them at the moment Edited November 12, 2016 by ModernArtist25

[Sirona]

Oh no judgments here, we are all not perfect

Something I absolutely abhor is when society (not just men) make negative assumptions on a woman's character because she is open about sex. Why does a woman's pleasure need to make her somewhat irresponsible, reckless, self destructive or immoral? Why even use that as your example? It seems to me, at least, that all you were trying to do is draw a connection between 'loose moraled' women and abortion.

 

Perhaps you didn't do it intentionally, but that would alarm me even further because it would mean that it is subconscious.

Or maybe abortion is worth it for short term pleasure that unprotected sex provide

I meant I was curious about the amount of women who want abortion due to medical issue or inconvenience because a baby is just not the right time for them at the moment

Does it matter? Both are very valid reasons.

[StringJunky]

, therefore, I do not see the difference between having none, one or five.

I find this deeply repugnant that you think an ethically diificult and emotionally fraught procedure is ok to be undertaken on the same individual five times?! Executing this procedure merely as means of routine post-coital contraception is not something I could consider in good conscience.

 

Yes, I minused you. I don't think you thought that through and if you have then you are in need of acquiring some empathy.

Edited November 12, 2016 by StringJunky

[Danijel Gorupec]

...is ok to be undertaken on the same individual five times?!

But don't forget that some women are married to rapists, and cannot find their way out of this nightmare. They will sneak out to have an abortion if possible (often not seeking professionals)... maybe to protect their other children from poverty and hunger.... So you cannot judge just by 'number of times' if abortion is acceptable or not.

[StringJunky]

But don't forget that some women are married to rapists, and cannot find their way out of this nightmare. They will sneak out to have an abortion if possible (often not seeking professionals)... maybe to protect their other children from poverty and hunger.... So you cannot judge just by 'number of times' if abortion is acceptable or not.

True, but that wasn't her stance.

[Sirona]

I find this deeply repugnant that you think an ethically diificult and emotionally fraught procedure is ok to be undertaken on the same individual five times?! Executing this procedure merely as means of routine post-coital contraception is not something I could consider in good conscience.

 

Yes, I minused you. I don't think you thought that through and if you have then you are in need of acquiring some empathy.

I stand by my original post; if a woman wants an early term termination then it's because she does not want to be a mother and cannot. I would consider a psychological impact on her health as a valid reason and so does the state of NSW. Obviously it is going to be an emotional decision and impact the individual, but that does not mean they made the wrong choice or that they should only be able to make that choice once. If a woman is unlucky enough to fall pregnant five times, despite not wanting children, then according to the law (not just my opinion) she has the right to seek an early term termination. My point was, if a woman has a valid reason which will impact her health as well as social and economic reasons, then in my state this is perfectly legal; there are no clauses about how many times you can have the procedure performed. Edited November 12, 2016 by Sirona

[StringJunky]

I stand by my original post; if a woman wants an early term termination then it's because she does not want to be a mother and cannot. I would consider a psychological impact on her health as a valid reason and so does the state of NSW. Obviously it is going to be an emotional decision and impact the individual, but that does not mean they made the wrong choice or that they should only be able to make that choice once. If a woman is unlucky enough to fall pregnant five times, despite not wanting children, then according to the law (not just my opinion) she has the right to seek an early term termination. My point was, if a woman has a valid reason which will impact her health as well as social and economic reasons, then in my state this is perfectly legal; there are no clauses about how many times you can have the procedure performed.

I find it rather difficult to visualise a woman becoming unlucky in getting pregnant five times unless she's not compus mentis or intellectually-challenged in some way.

 

I'm expressing an opinion on the bounds that I set to me condoning it that many times without unusual extenuating circumstances. I think such a woman, without such extenuating issues, is setting themselves up for a massive guilt trip later.

[Sirona]

I find it rather difficult to visualise a woman becoming unlucky in getting pregnant five times unless she's not compus mentis or intellectually-challenged in some way.

 

I'm expressing an opinion on the bounds that I set to me condoning it that many times without unusual extenuating circumstances. I think such a woman, without such extenuating issues, is setting themselves up for a massive guilt trip later.

Perhaps so, but it does not change the fact that there is nothing which suggests that a woman has the right to x amount of early term terminations. Your emotional stance on it is not relevant in terms of the legality. You are entitled to your opinion, but I am satisfied with the law in my state. Whether you can visualise the scenario whereby a woman may need multiple terminations is irrelevant to my point.