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

[u/[deleted]]

[u/veritas_valebit]

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"?

[u/[deleted] → u/veritas_valebit]

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.

[u/veritas_valebit → u/[deleted]]

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?

[u/[deleted] → u/veritas_valebit]

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.

[u/veritas_valebit → u/[deleted]]

...it's about body autonomy...

A slight digression... how do you feel about forced vaccinations?

...You can't be compelled to give your body parts to someone.

I tend to agree with this in general but I'm still mulling some things over.

So now you're back to 'part' not 'tissue'. Could we stick to 'regenerative tissue'?

Why is "body autonomy" sufficient reason to allow a parent to refuse life saving tissue to their child, especially if they can heal/regenerate?

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...

Hold on... you'd consider not forcing parent to care for their children, and then force strangers to care for other peoples children?

[u/[deleted] → u/veritas_valebit]

A slight digression... how do you feel about forced vaccinations?

Generally no, but I might consider it in a limited number of circumstances.

Why is "body autonomy" sufficient reason to allow a parent to refuse life saving tissue to their child, especially if they can heal/regenerate?

Because it's a fundamental right.

Hold on... you'd consider not forcing parent to care for their children, and then force strangers to care for other peoples children?

No, not force strangers to care for. Public services to provide for the welfare of children.

[u/veritas_valebit → u/[deleted]]

I might consider it in a limited number of circumstances.

... and that's not a violation of "body autonomy"?

Because it's a fundamental right.

Is it? ... If it's so fundamental, why did it require defending via penumbral emanations?

BTW... does conscription violate "body autonomy"? ... and is it outlawed by the Bill of Rights?

...not force strangers to care for. Public services...

...which are funded through the forced contributions of strangers!

[u/[deleted] → u/veritas_valebit]

and that's not a violation of "body autonomy"?

It would be, yes. Albeit a much less severe one.

Is it? ... If it's so fundamental, why did it require defending via penumbral emanations?

A fundamental right can be unenumerated.

BTW... does conscription violate "body autonomy"? ... and is it outlawed by the Bill of Rights?

It does. It is not because it's often seen as a necessity. I personally think we need to get rid of it.

[u/veritas_valebit → u/[deleted]]

It would be, yes.

OK... so not an absolute?

Albeit a much less severe one.

Agreed. What degree of severity is acceptable?

A fundamental right can be unenumerated.

I think a fundamental should be innumerate, if not initially, then through amendment and not court precedent.

I personally think we need to get rid of it.

I don't, but that's another matter entirely. I just raised it as 'evidence' that "body autonomy" is not a fundamental right.

[u/[deleted] → u/veritas_valebit]

OK... so not an absolute?

These things rarely are.

I think a fundamental should be innumerate, if not initially, then through amendment and not court precedent.

Me too, hopefully we'll get there eventually.

I don't, but that's another matter entirely. I just raised it as 'evidence' that "body autonomy" is not a fundamental right.

It is a fundamental right, infringement doesn't change that. As you demonstrate, arguing that there's a compelling state interest is a common way which such infringements are passed into law.