Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Boogieman
I am making an appeal to the inherent, natural rights that both parties in the dispute have claim to. They don’t derive these from society, so really, society has nothing to say in the matter of any importance. The society could be China, which places less value on the lives of children, or some society that places greater value on them, and the argument would still be exactly the same. Morality and justice don’t change depending on the standards or prevailing attitudes of the populace.

When discussing what American law should be regarding this issue, it's important to consider the broader application of our society's traditional respect for the bodily integrity rights of its citizens. All I'm saying is that, in other areas of American law, the interest of protecting innocent life is routinely subjugated to other important interests, out of respect for personal liberty. A rape exception to an abortion ban is more than justifiable, in my opinion, when you take this into account.

Now, if you wish to make the case that a raped woman has an obligation to save the embryo forcibly implanted in her womb anyway, you have to realize that there will be inevitable consequences to personal liberty generally, when the logic behind that argument is applied to other issues. I would expect that a country with such a law would be very close to mandating blood, marrow, and organ donation. After all, in a society where the protection of innocent life is the preeminent state interest, how could it be any other way?

265 posted on 08/22/2012 12:17:04 AM PDT by BearArms
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies ]


To: BearArms

“When discussing what American law should be regarding this issue, it’s important to consider the broader application of our society’s traditional respect for the bodily integrity rights of its citizens. All I’m saying is that, in other areas of American law, the interest of protecting innocent life is routinely subjugated to other important interests, out of respect for personal liberty.”

Yes, but the reason that is true in other areas, is that in those areas, there is either no direct conflict between the rights of the two parties, or there is no conflict that can’t be resolved by a compromise amenable to both parties. For example, in the example of organ donations, etc, that you keep bringing up, there is no conflict at all. As I said before, the person needing the transplant’s right to life isn’t interfered with in the least if they do not receive a new kidney, since they will simply continue to live out their natural lifespan unimpeded. Not providing someone with the means to extend their life is simply not equivalent to depriving them of their life.

Another case that that is much more germaine to this situation would be Good Samaritan laws. Under those laws, you can be forced to provide assistance to another person to help preserve their life or well-being, even if that inconveniences you or requires use of your resources that the other person would normally have no lawful claim to. The reason those laws are just is because in this conflict, the harm caused by obligating the Samaritan to try to help is usually quite minimal, while the harm caused to the party in distress if the Samaritan is not obligated to help can be extreme, to the point of death. Therefore, the proper resolution of the conflict is to say that the rights of the party in distress temporarily take precedence over the rights of the Samaritan.

Now, this doesn’t mean you must drive around looking for people to help; the laws only come into play when a situation arises that creates the conflict that it addresses. That is why your hypothetical “forced organ donation” scenario is ridiculous. There is no actual conflict between parties that would create a need for such a law to resolve the conflict. If I forcibly removed your kidney, then I would be infringing on your right to life, but simply not providing you with my kidney does no such thing.

“Now, if you wish to make the case that a raped woman has an obligation to save the embryo forcibly implanted in her womb anyway...”

No, I wouldn’t make that case, since we are not going to charge her with a crime in the case of a miscarriage. She doesn’t have to save the child, she simply has to refrain from killing it. Exactly like we expect everyone else in society to refrain from killing each other without just cause.

“After all, in a society where the protection of innocent life is the preeminent state interest, how could it be any other way?”

The state interest doesn’t even enter into the equation, as I said before. We could live in a state of anarchy, and the just thing to do would not change. When Cain killed Abel, for example, it was not murder because the state said Abel’s life should be protected, since there was no state. It was murder because Abel had an inherent right to life, which Cain deprived him of unjustly.


269 posted on 08/22/2012 6:39:42 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson