Yes, but you did sign a contract agreeing to stay hooked up for nine months. And if you unhook him he will die.
The Supreme Court is the body that authoritatively interprets the Constitution. Did you ever take a civics class?
Wow, paranoid much? [i
Griswold established a right of privacy, and the Roe decision was based on that already established right, but the suggestion that Griswold established privacy just so the Court could later strike down abortion bans is from la la land.
Oops, I missed that in your post for some reason.
I’m not sure what I think about the case you describe. But the arguments in my head for saying I’m not obligated to stick around are not premised just on the fact that he has no right to control what I do to with my body. After all, there are plenty of other contracts I could have signed with him that would be unquestionably valid, and any such contract would give him some degree of control over what I may do with my body. (Again, to reiterate the argument–anything I do, I do with my body. Hence any rule about what I may do is ipso facto a rule about what I may do with my body. That is as much as to say the rule gives someone else control over my body.)
-FrL-
But if you just mean it fails to support the notion that the egg is a person, it does not follow from that that the egg is not a person.
Science fails to support the notion that stealing is wrong, but stealing is wrong.
If “X is a person” is a value judgment, then science can’t say either way. That means that saying “science fails to support it” is not informative. It doesn’t advance the debate.
On the other hand, if “science doesn’t support it” can advance the debate somehow, then “X is a person” is a statement about physical properties of physical objects. In that case, we should be able to drum up some criteria or an experiment or something which would establish scientifically, objectively whether a fetus is a person. Or at least, explain what kind of research program could lead to the establishment of some such criteria.
Nobody can force you to adhere to a contract. People can’t make you sing or play football or carry a fetus or anything else. I’ve seen real estate deals go sour at closing when one party refuses to sign the final papers.
They can sue for damages in civil court, but that is it.
I’m not sure what the relevance of this observation is supposed to be. You can legally compell someone to adhere to a contract (which is, of course, different from “forcing” them to.) I assumed with regard to abortion we were talking about a case of legal compulsion, as well. Is that not the case?
ETA: In other words, isn’t what we’ve been talking about all along is who can sue whom for what and who can get injunctions against whom for what purposes?
I haven’t been talking about strapping people down and forcing them to do things. Have you?
Science can make a comparison between a cluster of cells and a simple non person life form showing that the non person life form is much more complex. Science tells us when the fetus is viable outside the womb which was a part of Roe vs Wade. Believing a fertilized egg has all the rights of a person has no legal standing as a value judgment without some support from science. It has none.
Citing privacy in Griswold is innappropriate in Roe. Privacy in Griswold related to contraception, something that can be privately performed.
It was Eisenstadt v Baird where the chicanery took place.
Right, as I previously pointed out, doctors are prohibited from prescribing medicinal marijuana. Doctors are prohibited from assisted suicide. Doctors are prohibited from removing a kidney for the patient to sell at profit.
If a person accidently shoots themselves in the foot, there is no condidentiality, the doctor is required to report the accident to officials. See, there is no privacy.
So can abortion. You can keep protesting all you want, but the bottom line is that this has already been adjudicated and you’re wrong. You are wrong because the Supreme Court says you’re wrong. The Supreme Court is the authoritative word on this, not you.
Right, one can go to the closet and retrieve a coathanger and perform an abortion. But that doesn’t work so well. It’s better to leave the realm of privacy and hire a second party to perform the proceedure.
No I’m not. Just because a court proclaims something from upon high, does not mean I am wrong. I have given several examples where medical treatment is neither private or confidential.
See… just because a court or you proclaim something, does not make it so.
That’s true, of course, because a later court can come to a different conclusion. If you want to change the laws to something you like better (such as…?), what steps are you taking to encourage a constitutional amendment and/or get a like-minded president into office (so he can appoint like-minded justices) as well as like-minded senators (who can confirm said justices)?
Until that happens, the current situation is as “so” as such things get.
Yes, if you apply for and receive any government assistance for your child, they require you to ‘cooperate’ with their efforts to get the father to pay for it. This usually amounts to just filling out some paperwork with the name of the father (if not on the birth certificate) and the last known contact info for him.
As far as the debate itself… I agree that while the father is more than welcome to give his input, how much weight it holds and the final decision is ultimately up to the woman. If men were able to just say “I never wanted to be a father and she went through with it anyway” and be free of any legal or financial obligation, there wouldn’t be much incentive for many of them to practice any sort of safe sex.