"Women are Hosts"

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by ElectricFetus, Apr 1, 2017.

  1. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    I'm not familiar with the biblical passages that prohibit terminating pregnancy, for whatever reason.
    On the other hand, I'm familiar with the passage that considers slitting the throat of a ten-year-old son admirable, if you think God told you to, and that considers it fine to chase a young woman and her baby out into the desert, if they annoy the matriarch.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    I imagine the same way the law does. Murdering a cop, for example, is often legally differentiated from killing your neighbor. (BTW I don't claim that killing a fetus is murder.)
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Careful with that one. That argument applies as much to the goose as the gander.

    One can easily argue that (in the consensual case), the woman willingly forfeited sole right to her body when she engaged in an activity that could result in a pregnancy.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    There was no mention of the man forfeiting any rights - his body ceases to be in contention of any kind, the second he withdrew - only that he might be liable for child support.

    If she decides not to proceed with the pregnancy, the man has no obligation: both are freed of any further responsibility (she's undergone the medical procedure; he may have paid all or part of the medical bill).
    If she does carry a baby to term, there is still a choice.
    If she gives it up for adoption, both she and the father are freed of further obligation.
    If she keeps it, she's stuck with 16+ years of motherhood, while he may contribute financially, but never actually has to see the kid.
    Gander still gets off easier. What free ride?
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2017
  8. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    My point was not about men, but about the thread topic directly.

    It can be argued that a woman who engages in (consensual) sex wilfully waives sole rights to her body.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2017
  9. Confused2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    609
    . Hells teeth. I am forced to agree with Bells over this. A woman NEVER waives sole rights to her body - such a thing is unthinkable (to me). Prior to DaveC's post I was going to suggest "In the best interests of all parties." where it may well be in the best interests of one particular party (the fetus) to avoid a life of institutional care by retiring early. My wimpy "In the best interests..." is just way to try to turn a woman's rights into some sort of committee decision when in reality they aren't.
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    It can be argued, but not easily.

    It would be a difficult argument to make in the case of birth control failure of any kind ( "rhythm" methods as prescribed by religious authority, say), coercion short of legal rape (marriage laws or customs that de facto curb refusal, agreement for one kind of sex that turns into another), any pregnancy with an unusual risk of harm or death, etc.

    There would also be the matter of informed consent - "just say no" abstinence prescription would obviously not qualify. The risk of physical harm in pregnancy, also, is seldom covered well in schools or by parents.

    And the matter of whether waving one's rights in an agreement with one person waives them for another - or in this case a random selection from a slough of possible others.

    Not a simple argument.
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    If she knows the consequences of her actions, and chooses to partake anyway, she is taking the risk with foreknowledge. Her rights are not being taken away; she is consenting to waive some of her rights.

    A wizard asks:
    "I can give you a night of pleasure, but in return I may attach to you a creature that you will have to take care of, even to the detriment of your own body/health/wishes.
    Do you accept? Or no?"

    "I accept, acknowledging the commitment that it may require me to consider another's health over my own wishes/health/body."
    "I do not accept. I wish to not be bound by commitment to another."
     
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Like any other action, consequences are often understood but not considered. Oft times, people (both men and women) think that sex is merely recreational, and they ignore the fact that, people being fecund by nature, the act comes with it the risk of conception.

    A very good time to decide you don't want to have a baby, would be prior to engaging in the act that makes them.

    JamesR applied this to men, but it applies even moreso to women, to whom the consequences are significantly greater.
     
  13. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    It can be argued

    But it should be a discussion

    The actions of a woman who engages in consensual sex at a particular moment does NOT form the basis of the claim she has forfeited sole rights to her body at a future time

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    sideshowbob likes this.
  14. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    I would ask back

    Only one night?

    and

    What is this may of which you speak?

    Can you tell me is it a 1% may or a 99% may?

    The more the may the more the nights ya?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Are you suggesting that women who have sex are thereby waiving and forfeiting future rights their bodies?
     
  16. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Yet, your goose/gander comment was aimed at a quibble over men's rights.

    You can argue it all you want, but the only way it would be true is if it were written into law that clearly states: "post-coital bodies become the property of someone other than the original owner."
    Now, if a man were liable to such a legal constraint, what would be the consequences?
     
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    People who engage in sex (men or women) know that there can be consequences.
    What if someone stopped them on the steps and said "Have you considered that you may get pregnant? Are you prepared now to take that responsibility tomorrow?"

    What will their answer be?

    And do they need someone else to ask them that which they can easily ask themselves?

    Are you suggesting that men or women who have sex need not concern themselves with the natural consequences?
     
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    So, it is all right then to say "I choose to willingly engage in this act that, naturally, may lead to someone being dependent for its life on me. But I am under no obligation to take responsibility for my action that led to it. It has no rights anyway."

    A person who has decided to have sex has decided to risk conception. But that imparts no responsibility?
     
  19. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    I'm not telling you what's all right and what isn't all right for any people who may be having sex with each other.
    I'm not even telling you what's all right and not all right for you to try to foist on those people.
    I'm asking a simple question:
    If there were a law clearly stating that people who engage in consensual sex thereby waive autonomy and control of their bodies,
    what would be the consequences for the male partner?
    That's what I was asking you. What responsibility should it impart for each partner? How should that law be worded?
    Of course it has no rights. It cannot make an informed decision.

    I'd better edit faster!
     
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Dave:

    Thus, contraception is a shared responsibility.

    When it comes to the question of abortion, we're already past the point where any care for consequences of sex could make a difference. There's no point crying over spilled milk. The question becomes one of what to do now.

    No. That's not all right.

    Men and women who find themselves in the situation of dealing with an unplanned pregnancy have responsibility to make a decision as to the future, whether or not they want that responsibility. The moral obligation to carefully consider any decision to be made regarding the foetus lies with both parents.

    In practice, though, there's an asymmetry. The woman is the one carrying the child. The man can run away from the whole matter if he is irresponsible. So, while the man can avoid taking positive action, the woman does not have that luxury. She must decide whether to bear the child or not to.

    Moreover, the woman is personally at risk in carrying a child to term and birthing the child, whereas the man is not. Therefore, the woman has a strong claim that her interests should be paramount regarding the pregnancy and birth.

    Of course, once conception has occurred, there is a third "potential person" in the mix - the unborn foetus itself. It has some interests as well, and those interests tend to become more significant as the pregnancy progresses and it comes closer to full personhood. However, in balancing the interests of the woman against those of the foetus, the woman's interests will generally dominate, especially if her health is put at risk by the pregnancy.

    The ultimate decision as to whether the woman bears the child or not must be hers. Nobody else can have the final word on that. Certainly, the man is in no position to force her to decide one way or the other. He cannot make her a slave to his wishes.
     
  21. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Of course not.

    But you are suggesting that sexually active women are pretty much signing away their rights and control to their bodies if they choose to have sex.

    Sorry, but that's kind of twisted and goes beyond even the mere suggestion of some pro-lifer's that women be treated as hosts. You are now delving into ownership and control of the bodies of sexually active women.

    You are arguing that women who have sex must agree to give up any form of autonomy over their own bodies in the future. Because it is the woman's body that has the chance of falling pregnant. It is her bodily autonomy and her rights to her body that will be affected. It is her body that will be affected by those "natural consequences".
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a woman's consent to sex with somebody automatically acting as a consent to pregnancy and gestation of somebody else, inside her, regardless of other circumstances (such as birth control, health issues, etc.)
     
  23. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    The biblical patriarchs had the same idea, only they didn't bother with that formal (often untestable) caveat: "consensual".
    Women's bodies were men's property, and women's purpose on earth was to cater to men's needs and carry men's progeny.
    That's the status quo modern patriarchs are hoping to re-institute, one retrogressive step at a time, first punishing women if they choose female partners, then punishing women for choosing irresponsible male partners, then depriving women of medical facilities that provide contraception and disease prevention, then punishing women who were raped, coerced or drugged into submission.
    They want their slaves back.
     

Share This Page