By name, no. It’s a popular term which I think maps pretty well to a large and significant subset of “privacy” law under the Supreme Court’s 5th (as applies to the federal government) and 14th (as applies to the States) Amendment “due process” jurisprudence.
> What's the justification for the drugs laws then?
Arguably, none. The only case which has reached the Supreme Court in which I ama aware of the relevant Constitutional argument was kind-of considered against the Controlled Substances Act used it as an argument in the lower courts for Constitutional avoidance (a doctrine under which the courts read ambiguity in laws to favor an interpretation which does not violate the Constitution), and the Court refused to apply it because the law was not ambiguously crafted so as to permit the reading preferred, even if it was Cobstitutionally necessary; because invalidity of the law itself was not argued at the lower court, the Supreme Court declined to consider it for the first time on appeal. United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (2001).
That would cover forced conception/abortions, but how does it cover the right to an abortion?
It's not like becoming pregnant is "being forced to give birth";
if it is the distinction is meaningless since not allowing <x> is forcing you to not do <x>, and forcing you to do <x> is disallowing you to not do <x>.
Becomming pregnant is not being forced to give birth but being forced to carrying pregnancy to term and giving birth is being forced to give birth.
But you are right. This distinction is meaningless by itself.
What actually has meaning is if what we are forcing/forbidding you to do with your body puts your health and life at risk for some other benefit, for example for benefit of a single new other human.
Forcing someone to carry pregnancy to term to save the life of this new human is like forcing someone to giva a kidney to save some other person's life.
But it's a little different - I'm not responsible for someone needing a kidney, but a person who becomes pregnant is (in most cases) responsible for that. That doesn't mean anyone should be "forced to carrying pregnancy to term", but it also doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished for not doing so.
Being punished for not doing something is the same as being forced to do this.
And being responsible for getting pregnant shouldn't be automatically punished with being forced to risk your health and life for benefit of human that is not you. Unless pregnancy is a crime there should be no punishment at all. Let alone the corporal punisment.
> And being responsible for getting pregnant shouldn't be automatically punished with being forced to risk your health and life for benefit of human that is not you.
Why not? Those are the stakes of sex and we all know it going in. I'm a man, but I know that if I accidentally get a woman pregnant one of the consequences will be being forced to monetarily support the resulting child. She knows going in that pregnancy is a potential consequence. Neither of us is "innocent" here, we both took a gamble and lost. The question is, if one believes that a fetus is a person with a right to life, do we not also believe that those who knowingly engaged in its creation have a responsibility towards it?
> Unless pregnancy is a crime there should be no punishment at all. Let alone the corporal punisment.
Having children is not a crime, yet we routinely force people to be responsible for their children. One could say that the crime is being irresponsible, but then one could just as easily say the same about terminating a pregnancy.
if you decide to for example continually give blood to another person to keep them alive, you are allowed at any point to revoke your consent for this procedure even if it makes the other person die.
it doesnt matter that the women entered the pregnancy knowing the consequences, she is allowed to revoke the babies privilege to use her body whenever she wants.
By name, no. It’s a popular term which I think maps pretty well to a large and significant subset of “privacy” law under the Supreme Court’s 5th (as applies to the federal government) and 14th (as applies to the States) Amendment “due process” jurisprudence.
> What's the justification for the drugs laws then?
Arguably, none. The only case which has reached the Supreme Court in which I ama aware of the relevant Constitutional argument was kind-of considered against the Controlled Substances Act used it as an argument in the lower courts for Constitutional avoidance (a doctrine under which the courts read ambiguity in laws to favor an interpretation which does not violate the Constitution), and the Court refused to apply it because the law was not ambiguously crafted so as to permit the reading preferred, even if it was Cobstitutionally necessary; because invalidity of the law itself was not argued at the lower court, the Supreme Court declined to consider it for the first time on appeal. United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (2001).