Inconsistent Bioethics

[aerynn]

In bioethics class there is one guy who is the go-to person for a conservative opinion. He is pro-life, and honestly, I'm fine with that. He's taken the position that the State's right to protect life trumps the woman's right to autonomy over her own body. I don't agree, but I certainly see the merits

Comments

[anonymous]

I am certainly pro-life (not because of religion, or anything like that.... just because of science, and the actual science of life), and I don't understand his stance. I am assuming this is more of a case of implied consent? The question is, would he object to a rescuer assisting him of he were unconscious? The law is on the side of the emergency personnel. Maybe he's afraid of what liberties could be taken otherwise in other situations? I don't know...
The main point of the foreign laws is to preserve life. Maybe he should explain at what point death occurs. He'll confuse himself more.

-Jen

[aerynn]

Well, we discussed several kinds of implied consent. There is strong implied, weak implied, and then a totally hypothetical kind of implied consent

[leadinglabbie]

Yeah! I'm in a bioethics class, and we don't have a GTC. But if we did, and he said something like that, I would totally agree with you. :)

[scorcerrer]

If his beliefs are religion oriented, he might think of the deceased body as sacred, as much as the unborn child should be protected by those who can. If that is the backing behind his belief in anystance, it could be that he believes in both the right of the mother, the fetus, and the right of the corpse. In the case of the Mother, it directly hurts the rights of the fetus. In the case of the organ donor, it is seen as taking something from the dead to possibly save a life, but not taking from the living to kill a life.