“Your honour, legal precedent establishes that that embryo is a person under the law. And rape laws permit me as self defence to remove another person from my reproductive system by whatever force is necessary. If the embryo couldn’t survive being removed from my uterus then it, a living autonomous being, shouldn’t have chosen to rape me in the first place.”
This is the sort of logic that might work against a hyper-intelligent AI judge. Unfortunately in the real world, judges are people with ideology who bring that ideology to work with them.
However, judges are required to judge the law as written, not as they wish it to be. I’m sure this argument would work against any judge who is decent at their job.
Has someone castle doctrine’d an unwanted pregnancy yet?
“Your honour, legal precedent establishes that that embryo is a person under the law. And rape laws permit me as self defence to remove another person from my reproductive system by whatever force is necessary. If the embryo couldn’t survive being removed from my uterus then it, a living autonomous being, shouldn’t have chosen to rape me in the first place.”
This is the sort of logic that might work against a hyper-intelligent AI judge. Unfortunately in the real world, judges are people with ideology who bring that ideology to work with them.
However, judges are required to judge the law as written, not as they wish it to be. I’m sure this argument would work against any judge who is decent at their job.
Considering how many laws written to fuck non-christians in the arse have been turned against the god botherers it’s worth a shot.