- 14 May 2022 00:09
#15227290
This is an argument from ignorance and can be dismissed.
There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in...
wat0n wrote:No. It's not my fault if you don't understand what sufficiency is in logic.
It all depends on the remaining stock of blood available for transfusion, doesn't it? It's also possible that the child may need several blood transfusions, as it could happen after a serious accident. The kid may have enough compatible blood in stock for the first few transfusions and then would die.
Furthermore, expedited screening could be an option under some emergency.
So you agree that your entire argument can be dismissed?
I don't think there's been a case where that was tested. Instead, JWs were ignored and the hospital used available stock, which was sufficient for treating the children.
I'm referring to religious objections to blood donations.
I provided you with a situation where there's a conflict between two rights and you claimed one would trump the other, without providing evidence to that effect. The lack of case law does not make your case, at all - that is an argument from ignorance.
And then there's the case when one is responsible for grievously harming another person and if bodily autonomy would save the injurer from homicide charges should the injured person die. It seems extremely unlikely, because the law is explicit that should the injured die the person responsible for the injuries would be guilty of some form of homicide. If you were right, then bodily autonomy would be a valid defense for homicide under some circumstances, yet supporting this obviously requires case law. I'll be happy for you to provide case law where bodily autonomy has been used as a defense for a homicide charge under these circumstances, sounds extremely unlikely this would fly be it before a judge or a jury.
At best for your claims, it's unclear what would happen in any of these situations yet that also logically means that a fetus' personhood is important when it comes to assessing abortion because we do not need to look for this sort of case law if fetuses are not persons, yet a can of worms suddenly opens if fetuses are in fact persons - do parents have parental obligations towards fetuses? If a pregnant woman decides to have an abortion and gets it, is she responsible for grievously harming and then killing the fetus at least by negligence?
Hence deciding whether fetuses are persons or not is important to the discussion, and it is also important if an overturning of Roe v Wade will also overturn the precedent set in that ruling that fetuses are not persons under the Constitution. It is precisely because the SCOTUS held that fetuses are not persons under the Constitution that the Court found a reason to forbid states from banning abortion outright. And yes, this is mentioned in the ruling too:
This is an argument from ignorance and can be dismissed.
There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in...