This post has been de-listed
It is no longer included in search results and normal feeds (front page, hot posts, subreddit posts, etc). It remains visible only via the author's post history.
It's commonly understood that if you do something illegal that harms another person, you have a legal obligation to pay some amount to that person to make up for what you did. For example, if you hit someone with your car, you might have to pay their medical bills (or at least part of their medical bills). If you recklessly drive and hit someone's mailbox, you might have to pay to get it replaced, etc. My question is about the philosophical and legal limits of this concept.
Let's say you shoot someone and they need an organ because of your actions. Let's say the person will die unless he gets an organ and there are no organs available for him. Morally, it feels intuitive that you should give up your organ to save him. But legally, it feels intuitive that his organ shouldn't be taken from him by force if he doesn't want to donate it.
I don't know much about the law, but my assumption is that, legally, he would not be required to give up his organ. What is the legal concept that overrides his duty to offer restitution (in the way of organ donation) to his victim?
My question came about because of a conversation I had about abortion.
My argument was essentially as follows:
P1. If pregnancy or birth causes serious or substantial bodily injury, then women should have the right to terminate pregnancy (get an abortion) as a form of self-defense.
P2. Pregnancy or birth causes serious or substantial bodily injury.
C. Therefore, women should have the right to terminate pregnancy (get an abortion) as a form of self-defense.
My argument is that pregnancy can be considered to be substantially injurious to women such that they should have the right to get an abortion as a form of self-defense. However, my interlocutor believes that the concept of restitution (or something akin to it) should be applied to women and their fetuses because women are responsible for the fetus' dependence (by having consensual sex).
I think the same legal concept might apply in the organ donation case and the pregnancy case, but I'm trying to nail down what it is.
Thanks for any help :)
Subreddit
Post Details
- Posted
- 1 year ago
- Reddit URL
- View post on reddit.com
- External URL
- reddit.com/r/PoliticalPh...