- Joined
- Mar 27, 2019
Maybe you're just being cheeky, here. I don't know, I'm not used to it.
The point of my statement was "if you put them in conflict with each other, of course they'd be in direct conflict with each other".
I'm not the one that invoked the law as-is for the sake of an argument, in the first place. I'm not accepting legal injustice (Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey are judicial abominations not least of all because they're legislation from the bench, after all), but I'm not the one trying to say "none of this science talk matters because the law says that you can't be compelled to donate your organs, meaning we have to allow abortions and their facilities" while there are actual verdicts on bodily autonomy re: the abortion question specifically.
Again, if you're going to argue that the law you're referring to is unjust in this very context, you won't get anywhere by continuing to argue from the law that doesn't actually acknowledge your aforementioned logic. This is why I've only ever used the law as an indication of already acknowledged morality.
This makes no sense. The point of Planned Parenthood v. Casey was to revise judicially established guidelines for abortion restrictions. It applies regardless.
But they clearly aren't. Shimp was a county court case, meaning that there were zero constitutional questions involved in a dispute over organ donation, meaning that it was literally just a matter of whether the state's law permits the coercion of organ donation and nothing else, and meaning that it's actually the narrower precedent.
Of course, they're not even in the same ballpark, conceptually-- an organ donation conflict between two people that naturally aren't responsible for each other and pregnancy are two completely different contexts. There's no "bigger picture", and there's nothing being ignored.
I'm arguing that the conflict of rights is ultimately unnecessary to understanding what the state thinks of either-- I'm not concerned with how the law is decided, for the purposes of my argument. In other words, you don't even need to refer to specifically the conflict in Roe or Casey in order to understand what the state thinks of bodily autonomy or right to life. You understand inference-- you tried to extrapolate the result of the conflict you continue to uphold as necessary from a county court case involving an organ donation conflict between two people not responsible for each other.
Sure. I was talking about execution and enforcement of law, though. Law is just about only as good as it's applied. For example, a law that bans bees from being brought into city limits is all but worthless, regardless of its intent, if it's never enforced.
You're making an argument for what the law ought to be by appealing to specially selected segments of the law as-is. You initially framed this as what the law is by attempting to invalidate the science discussion with said argument, despite the legal process as-is not acknowledging your logic while also having direct answers. Initially, you didn't contend with that reality.
