You didn't answer it, because you don't want to show the hypocrisy of your argument. My question is clear. Should there be laws that mandates parents to donate body parts to their children in need of a transplant? If you choose not to do so, have you murdered your child? Should this matter be presented to public and not just IRS that doesn't picket outside hospital?
You went over why you think Roe is a bad case. I never said I agree with you.
When you assume things you make an ass of yourself. Don't assume to know what my thoughts or motivations are. I wrote why I didn't answer you the first time and that was why. A law to mandate that parents give their body parts when their children are in need of a transplant shows a total lack of understanding of genetics. Children have both sets of DNA -- one from each parent. A single parent may not be a match for any given organ, plus there are registries available. Parents may also need those organs so they can work to make the money that pays for the child's care, so not donating does not imply neglect or abuse. Some organs one cannot live without. A parent cannot donate his/her heart/brain/liver/etc and still live. It would be suicide, and would leave the child without a parent.
Your question is a non-sequitur, and to answer "No" (as I do), is not an example of hypocrisy but of logical thinking and a knowledge of reality. I'll add that if a parent refuses to donate an organ to their child (for whatever reason), it is not a case of the active taking of a human life. There is no intention of ending the human life. In the case of abortion there is an active deliberate taking of a human life. If you refuse to give your child your liver you are not trying to kill your child, but if you skin your child alive or chop it to pieces (as abortion does), then you are actively and deliberately murdering your child. BIG DIFFERENCE.
On Roe, did you mean you never said you DIDN'T agree with me?
