3 ms·
Hardly anyone defend’s Roe’s original reasoning anymore, because it makes no sense. The government doesn't have the right to force one person to risk their lif
by skhunted 3y ago
Hardly anyone defend’s Roe’s original reasoning anymore, because it makes no sense.
The government doesn't have the right to force one person to risk their life for another. In this sense one can reasonably argue that one has a constitutional right to an abortion.
- dctoedt 3y ago> The government doesn't have the right to force one person to risk their life for another. I guess you haven't served in the military?
- skhunted 3y agoServing in the military in time of war is not the same thing as "forcing someone to risk their life for another" as I meant it. I'll be more precise. The government does not have a right to force me to directly use my body or parts of it to save your life. Thus is the essence that some lawyers have argued and reasoned.
- rayiner 3y ago> The government does not have a right to force me to directly use my body or parts of it to save your life. Thus is the essence that some lawyers have argued and reasoned. According to whom? And even if you believe that, why does that mean the constitution bakes in that belief?
- JamesBarney 3y agoI'm pro-choice but arguing the government doesn't have the right to limit medical procedures doesn't seem obvious to me.
- skhunted 3y agoI didn’t claim this. My claim (later clarified) is that the government doesn’t have a right to force me to use my body to save another person’s life.
- JamesBarney 3y agoYou're right it doesn't but they can regulate what operations a surgeon can perform and what drugs can be prescribed which is de-facto regulating whether or not an abortion can be performed.