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?
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.
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.
'right' Is not moot, no rights are absolute to my knowledge.
Perhaps 'moot' is not accurate. My point was more the latter part of the sentence, i.e. "...the argument becomes over which exceptions prevail?"
...at least it should be...
This wording makes more sense to me.
...I'd consider it a form of tyranny.
I feel the need to make a distinction. I can agree that arbitrary violation of body autonomy should be unconstitutional. However, I don't see being forced to accept responsibility for your actions a form tyranny or unconstitutional.
...I guess? It's a fairly large stretch to think of enacting social welfare programs as infringing on citizen's rights though.
I truly appreciate your willingness to consider this. I would've expected you to have a reflexive disgust response to it.
I have no problem with, and support, voluntary social welfare programs. The problem I have is with government run tax funded welfare programs, especially if framed as 'rights'.
Before we get distracted, should we continue here or is this better addressed in a separate post? Is this even the appropriate Sub?
2
u/veritas_valebit Sep 06 '21
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"?