"Women are Hosts"

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

  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Why is it that you have to twist my words into something that better suits your cause before you can judge it?
    That's not the first time you've done that.

    Why don't you address what I said, instead of what you heard.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member


    Both man and woman know the possible consequences of their action. They choose to take the action anyway. That means they are implicitly accepting the risk and consequences.

    That's what people wearing big boy and girl pants do.

    When exactly did we decide that we are free of consequences?

    "Son, if you take your new car out on this rainy night, you might have an accident,"
    "Thanks. I have decided to drive it anyway."
    :wraps car around pole:
    "I have changed my mind about taking responsibility for my actions. I'd like a do-over please."
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Am I arguing that they engage in an act wilfully and knowingly that would raise the issue of responsibility for another life.

    What did she think was going to happen??

    Surely the time to decide that she didn't want to take responsibility for another life was before she engaged in creating one.

    So this now raises the question:
    They've decided to engage in sex
    despite the risk of creating a baby
    and, if the dice don't fall in their favor
    she can decide after-the-fact, that she doesn't want to take the responsibility - the known consequences of her actions
    but it's OK, because abortion is always an option as retroactive birth-control.

    Again, is this what responsible adults do?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Women are not merely 'hosts'.

    But I guess I'm nether pro-life nor pro-choice.
    Neither makes a compelling case.
    Pro-lifers seem to think that a collection of cells supernaturally has some ineffable essence of personhood.
    Pro-choicers seem to assign no responsibility for the logical consequences of their own actions.
  8. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    I think while I can agree there are two main points of view let me tell you of a patient I (and of course all of the other hospital nurses looked after)

    He was drunk and drove through a red light killing 3 people and he suffered injuries becoming a quadriplegic

    When I first came to the ward he had been there a few years

    He was known as a cantankerous patient

    His care required a nurse was associated to him who MIGHT be able to help other nurses IF he was asleep

    Normally each nurse had 4 patients day shift and 6 night shift

    Now he never spent time in jail or had any other punishment

    The only reason given to me (I was at the time a trainy nurse) as to why he was still alive and not executed for

    3 murders (drunk + car = lethal weapon) was

    ' he a was human and we all make mistakes '

    I still struggle with that assessment but I live with it

    I have no struggle with any female making a choice for abortion regardless of how the conception occurred

    Having unprotected sex is NOT equivalent to a self inflicted injury

    Examples of which are

    the teenage girl who overdoses because her boyfriend doesn't love her

    Why? She wouldn't give him sex

    Thehe patient who shoots himself through the brain and survives eventually leaving hospital to live somewhat independent in a assisted community

    Why did he try suicide?

    He had just killed his wife and son


    Otherwise change some of the other laws

    We are HUMAN

    We make MISTAKES

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    The question then becomes: do we treat unplanned pregnancies (between knowledgeable, consenting adults) as mistakes (i.e. exceptions)?

    Or do we institutionalize the routine commission of such "mistakes", and provide a 'get out of jail free' card?

    In other words: are you suggesting that we should unilaterally find drunk driving killers free of responsibility for their actions?
  10. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Yet, you have not answered any of my questions concerning the respective roles of men and women,
    nor the ones regarding how society ought to be dealing with the problem of unwanted pregnancies.

    And you're choosing to direct all of your comments to adult, independent, healthy women who have unfettered power of decision over their sexual activity.
    I suggest that they may be the minority of those seeking abortion, since that's the demographic most likely to have access to contraception, and influence over their partners.
    You choose not to address the problem of young girls who are coerced, seduced and pressured; nor girls and women who are drugged and/or raped; nor married women who submit to insistent husbands, nor the treatment of girls and women whom pregnancy renders dependent of punitive parents, husbands and charities.
    You choose not to address the problem of danger or detriment to the mother's health, and of babies with genetic birth defects, foetal alcohol syndrome or other prenatal injury that would result in diminished quality and expectancy of life; nor the environmental conditions in which the unwanted child will be raised.
    You choose not to address the actual conditions that prevail in much of America, restricting judgment to those women who engage in sexual activity with the irresponsibility of men.

    And that comes back to my central question: Why put the entire onus on one half of a copulating pair - and why always the same [less powerful] one?
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Correct. I am not addressing the issues of men versus women. I am simply pointing out that you opened the door labeled 'Maybe they should have thought of that beforehand...' and that that is an argument that sheds light on the entire sex/conception issue and the collective responsibilities to the life created.

    Agree. One thing at a time.

    I think the principle of whether a fetus can be seen to have a right to life must be resolved first.

    I think my question of principle must be addressed before any these questions of practive can be addressed.

    How many "people's" rights do we need to consider in any of your scenarios? One? Two? Three?

    That will inform all the other issues you raise, to a greater or lesser extent.
  12. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    As a matter of fact, i did not.

    No, it didn't.

    It doesn't. There is no such thing as a right to life. It's a slogan.
    As to how much and what kind of protection a society is willing to offer the unborn, all the progressive countries have made a determination already.

    +/- 320 million. Principles that are turned into laws have to apply equally to every citizen.

    So far, not even lesser.
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2017
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    The first question being what risk and what consequences.
    Say, the risk of death from an unwanted pregnancy due to condom failure, when a "morning after" pill is easily available, as is an early abortion? That seems like a stretch, morally.

    The risk of having to obtain an abortion? That is a serious risk, with serious consequences.

    The second question being who adjudges, and how, that the seventeen year old girl and her twenty year old boyfriend made an informed choice of their own free will - both of them. One would presume that would be the girl's assessment - she's taking the risk and suffering the majority of the consequences.
    I would first resolve the apparent issue of whether anyone actually sees a first trimester fetus/embryo as having a right to life. Because if - as seems obvious from all evidence outside of the abortion debate - almost nobody does, the discussion of what rights it should be seen to have becomes an abstract one not immediately relevant to legislation.
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2017
  14. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Dup deleted
  15. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    I will leave you to form your own questions and seek answers elsewhere

    I am not forming any questions

    I in a limited way drawings attention to laws which appear to be in some conflict

    Let me elaborate on the patient who shot himself

    I was in the Operating Theatre unit but not in the particular theatre the patient was operated on

    I do know they required hours of surgery to stabilise him and frequent follow-up surgery

    The next time I came the patient was in the ward

    He was receiving full bed care

    In bed 24 hours a day even though unlike the quadraplegic patient he had full function of his limbs

    I (lowest on the totem pole) set about changing that with the result I was given the bay where he was, with 3 other patients, every shift

    It was no problem as the other 3 patents left and were replaced

    By the time I left after my 3 months in the ward he was being assisted out of bed and walking with minimal assistance to the shower

    Before I finished my 3 year training he was as I said out in a minimal assistance village

    My pragmatic approach (an I am sure someone else would have done the same sometime) freed up a much needed hospital bed

    Regardless of my personal feelings towards him (which were fairly neutral anyway) I think I did OK

    Again set aside PERSONAL feelings

    If you think a LAW is wrong act to change the LAW

    Don't act against the PEOPLE who are engaged in the law

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  16. Bells Staff Member

    I like how you place this responsibility on her. Not what 'did they think was going to happen???', but what did "she" think was going to happen.

    In a way you are correct, it is her body after all and thus, it is her choice.

    It is her life that will be affected by this, it is her body and her life that is now at risk and will be permanently affected.

    You are arguing that the moment she has sex, then she forfeits all rights to her body. She owns her body. You do not. She has the right to determine what she does with it. You do not. If she falls pregnant and does not wish to have a baby, it is her body, her life and thus, her right to proceed as she so chooses.

    Would you prefer she goes on to have the baby and then kills it or abandons it or fails to take care of it?

    The responsible adult would weigh their options. A responsible woman would weigh her ability to have the child and care for it. A responsible woman would decide what is best for her.

    He cannot address or acknowledge any of these things, Jeeves. The reason for that is simple. To address any of it would mean addressing that women are human beings with fundamental human rights over their own bodies.

    In a way, it is a means to basically shame women who are sexually active. He may not intend to do it, but that is the end result.
  17. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Here is a social experiment, that is not new, but I would like to see. The idea is to segregate male and female, in terms of our basic instinctive difference, and then extrapolate these to the highest levels of government.

    For example, women are the nurturers of children. If we extrapolate this to the highest level of government, women would be placed in charge of the food supply, medical needs, housing, to name a few. Women would also be in charge of education for females. The women can work together to define the ideal women and then educate each other to reach this ideal.

    The same will be true of the men. Men are the traditional hunters and protectors. The protector aspect extrapolators to the men being in charge of the police and military, like they already are. The idea is to let the best of male and female human instinct rule all the way to the top. This give both male and female career paths that have no ceilings and will be based on how they evolve their extrapolations. There will no reason to bully or be jealous. Rather we can count on each other like a good husband and wife team.
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2017
  18. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Worked okay for the Ojibwa Indians. Wouldn't work in a heterogeneous, urban industrial society.
    Doesn't work in any chritianized society, because of the fundamental disrespect of females embedded in Abrahamic thought-structure.
    Women who presume to behave like men must be punished!!
  19. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    How about this, then?

    "Son, if you have a car accident, one of two things could happen:

    (a) You could have a certain medical procedure performed on you. If this was done, you'd spend 1 week in hospital recuperating from the accident, then you'd go on with your life as normal.

    (b) You could not have the medical procedure. In that case, you will have to live out your life with the consequences of the accident - permanent injury that affects your capacity to live your life as before."

    "Ok, Dad. I'm willing to take the risk of an accident, knowing that if the unexpected happens (which is a small chance, because I'm a careful driver) then I can always have the medical procedure. I'll of course accept that I took a risk in the first place, without which the issue of the medical procedure wouldn't have arisen."

    "I'm sorry Son. You don't get to decide what happens. In fact, I've voted for a law that says that the medical procedure is forbidden under all circumstances. Therefore, if you have an accident, you'll be forced to live with the consequences, even though that might not be your choice, and even though there might be a better alternative available to you."

    "But it's my body, Dad! Shouldn't I get to have a say in what happens to me?"

    "I'm sorry, Son, but we Men know better than you do what's the right thing for you. We made this law to try to teach people to take responsibility properly. That's full responsibility. No wiggling out of the consequences of your actions."

    "I've changed my mind about that law, Dad. I'd like a do-over, please."
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2017
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Surely the time to decide that you don't want to take responsibility for a possible car accident is before you get in the car.

    And yet, people get in cars and drive all the time, despite the risk of permanent injury or death.

    So, you've decided to drive a car
    despite the risk of having a car accident
    and, if the dice don't fall in your favour
    you can decide after-the-fact, that you don't want to accept the full responsibility of your actions - the known consequences
    but it's ok, because expensive medical assistance is always an option to ameliorate or eliminate the consequences.

    To avoid all this expense to society, it might be better just to have a law that says you're not allowed any medical treatment if you have an accident. That will make an example of you, to show people that they need to be responsible for their actions and not rely on "the system" to patch them up after the fact if they have an accident.

    Isn't this what responsible adults should do?

    People are responsible for the effects of their choices.

    Who are you to choose for them, in matters that do not affect you and which intimately concern them and their lives?
  22. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    I see an excellent case for medical insurance there. Car insurance, too.
    Isn't that what adults do?
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    OK, perhaps you weren't the first to open the door, but you did walk through it.

    I simply walked through the same door behind you.

    While the Declaration of Human Rights doesn't apply to to unborn children, it does declare that people have a right to live.

    My argument here is simply about where personhood applies.

Share This Page