| JWeinCom said: Actually, going to end it here for now, cause I have studying to do. May repost later. |
I did catch the lenghty message you deleted. Just in case you decide to repost, my example of dna-sample to determine fatherhood is how it works in my country. It wasn't a wacky analogy but an example of a situation where to rights overlap and lawmakers can decide to limit another right in a specific situation. There are other examples as well.
My intention also wasn't to cherry pick some of your points. Questions like what about rape victims etc. are of course valid, it's just that we've had these discussions in my country and we've had a well-functioning law and system about it for decades. So I thought I won't bother with those as my point was from the begin with that your analogies were deeply flawed.
|
Whether the fetus has a reasonable chance of life is not a legal distinction. It is a factual distinction, but why does that change the legal analysis? What is the underlying principle? When we have to use our body to preserve another viable life we must? I am undoubtedly a viable human life, but neither of my parents have to use their bodies to keep me alive against my consent. Could we force them to give a blood transfusion? Could we have forced my mother to give me a blood transfusion when I was a minute old? |
This is where I get confused. Legal distinction here is a 24-week old fetus, and it's partly based on factual distinction. Rest of your questions are again suggesting that there can't be a legal difference between a fetus and a born human, even though this is the case in many countries. Maybe in US it isn't possible to make a legal distinction then, I don't know but I find it odd.
Is this really an ongoing debate in US? That if you don't have to donate an organ to somebody, then a mother doesn't have to use her body to grow a baby? To me that's going into extremes, but teh freedom and bodily autonomy, right?
Last edited by KiigelHeart - on 11 May 2022
