Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2019 0:23:57 GMT
I figured, but anyone can use the bodily autonomy phrase to try to justify either side since it’s ambiguous. I don't think it is, for reasons I outlined above. That doesn't work for me because it shifts the focus from the general principle to one specific result of that principle. My motivation in crafting the rule was not to allow abortions. Rather my motivation was to enforce bodily autonomy for people. That this would allow abortions is a side effect, not the purpose of the rule. If that is your purpose than I can assure it will be misinterpreted by many and can even be seen as an anti-abortion argument for the reason I said. It's also kind of shady to say you support the right to have an abortion yet write out a law that only indirectly implies the allowance of it based on one's interpretation of the phrase. Almost like it was intentionally wrote for others to find that loop hole from how it's written. Why not just make laws that directly state what is allowed/not allowed?
|
|