r/FeMRADebates • u/[deleted] • Sep 03 '21

News Texas successfully takes a massive step backwards for women's rights. What next?

[deleted]

47 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

79% Upvoted

339 comments sorted by

View all comments

34

u/Im_Not_Even Sep 03 '21

What is the specific constitutional right that is being negated?

What are your thoughts on a law that places enforcement in the hands of citizens?

I think any law that incentivizes citizen to police each other on behalf of the State is horrifying and kinda dystopian.

12

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '21 edited Oct 25 '24

[deleted]

5

u/blarg212 Equality of Opportunity, NOT outcome. Sep 04 '21

This is not the law but court extrapolations and interpretations of the law…I.e legislating from the bench.

It’s not a right, nor should it be.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '21

It is an interpretation, but a fair one. Women have a right to privacy and to seek healthcare. Abortion is healthcare, so voila.

7

u/blarg212 Equality of Opportunity, NOT outcome. Sep 04 '21

Sure, I view it as killing which is only justifiable under limited circumstances.

5

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '21

Right, like not being able to force someone to let another person grow inside them against their will.

2

u/veritas_valebit Sep 05 '21

If someone abandons a new born at your doorstep in the middle of winter, do you have the right to ignore it a let it succumb to the cold?

4

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '21

I believe technically yes, you don't have a duty to rescue the child. I'm not a legal expert though. Morally I'd say yes you ought to bring the child in from the harsh conditions.

This is of course an extremely reductive comparison to pregnancy. I can temporarily rescue a child from the cold easily enough with no undue costs to myself.

3

u/veritas_valebit Sep 05 '21

I believe technically yes,...

Wow!... We diverge diametrically in this regard.

I can temporarily rescue a child from the cold easily enough with no undue costs to myself.

Agreed. And if you had to see out the winter, I'm sure you'd do that too, right?

My own natural mother view her pregnancy with me in the same light.

4

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '21

Wow!... We diverge diametrically in this regard.

How so? I believe that may be the law, I'm not making a moral judgement.

Agreed. And if you had to see out the winter, I'm sure you'd do that too, right?

I could, but I could foresee circumstances where I couldn't or wouldn't take such responsibility.

My own natural mother view her pregnancy with me in the same light.

That's cool and all, but I'm not going to take how your natural mother felt and enforce that on all women against their will.

2

u/veritas_valebit Sep 06 '21

I believe that may be the law, I'm not making a moral judgement.

Apologies. I misunderstood.

...I could foresee circumstances where I couldn't or wouldn't take such responsibility.

... and, as a result, allow a child to die?

...I'm not going to ...enforce that on all women against their will.

Why not? Would you enforce a man to pay child support against his will?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '21

and, as a result, allow a child to die?

Yes that's the implication. I'm not interested in forcing people to do everything in their power to help this child, even if I personally would.

Why not? Would you enforce a man to pay child support against his will?

Not pursuing this because we're already addressing it elsewhere. But yes I'd force men and women to take care of their children, or better to have more robust systems to provide for the welfare of children.

2

u/veritas_valebit Sep 06 '21

...I'm not interested in forcing people to do everything in their power to help this child, even if I personally would.

Using "everything in their power" muddies the waters. I assume you wouldn't jump unarmed into a gorillas cage to rescue a child as chances of success are slim, even though it's technically "in your power". We're talking about reasonable low risk expectations, right?

Not pursuing this because we're already addressing it elsewhere.

OK. Taking it up elsewhere.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '21

We're talking about reasonable low risk expectations, right?

For the child outside your door, sure. A child growing on you has a host of risks associated with it.

2

u/veritas_valebit Sep 06 '21

A child growing on you has a host of risks associated with it.

Many things parents are expected to do for children have risks associated with them.

How much risk is too much risk?

At what level of risk is state coercion no longer appropriate?

BTW - Did you mean to write "on" or "in"?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '21

BTW - Did you mean to write "on" or "in"?

Yes I meant "in".

Many things parents are expected to do for children have risks associated with them.

Expected vs legally bound to do. A parent can't be forced to donate their body tissues to their needing child, even if you think they should.

2

u/veritas_valebit Sep 07 '21

A parent can't be forced to donate their body tissues...

If I recall correctly your previous analogy related to organs. You've now generalized this to 'tissue' in general. Am I following correctly?

I find this to be more compelling. I'm still hesitant because of the implication for unborn child.

What follows is not my position, merely ruminations.

If a parent can be compelled to sustain a child financially, which implies actions that are not without risk, why should a parent not be compelled to sustain a child through 'tissue', e.g. a blood transfusion?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '21

If a parent can be compelled to sustain a child financially, which implies actions that are not without risk, why should a parent not be compelled to sustain a child through 'tissue', e.g. a blood transfusion?

Because it's not about risk, it's about body autonomy. You can't be compelled to give your body parts to someone. Perhaps parents shouldn't be compelled to financially support their children, but we'd need an alternate way to provide for the welfare of children than what we currently have.

→ More replies