3 ms·
We do not, in general, recognize that ordinary people have a legal non-emergency duty to save others. Assuming that a foetus is a child, why should the mother
by tomjen3 5y ago
We do not, in general, recognize that ordinary people have a legal non-emergency duty to save others.
Assuming that a foetus is a child, why should the mother have a legal obligation to keep it in her body? If it existed outside her, but required a kidney transplant to live, would she also be legally obligated to give it one? As far as I am aware that procedure is at lot less dangerous/damaging to a womans body than a pregnancy.
I can't see a logical argument against abortion that doesn't require any person to give up a kidney that a stranger need.
- beaner 5y agoI think the kidney example is a little too technical for a good metaphor. A parent does have an obligation to feed and keep healthy a child that cannot care for itself. There is such a concept as criminal negligence. For example, parents have been charged with manslaughter after they provided an insufficient diet for their child. [0] > why should the mother have a legal obligation to keep it in her body? I'm not sure that she does. She could theoretically take it out and raise it outside of her, but that would be quite bizarre and greatly increases the risk of criminal negligence and improper care. Babies are forced out early all the time, when the doctors recommend it if the baby is late. [0] https://www.news-journalonline.com/zz/news/20191121/vegan-florida-parents-charged-in-death-of-malnourished-18-month-old-son https://www.news-journalonline.com/zz/news/20191121/vegan-fl...
- josephcsible 5y agoThere's a difference between not taking action that will save someone, and taking action that will intentionally kill someone. Also, parents have a duty of care towards their own children that doesn't exist between random strangers.