Legal Obligations

Due to legal obligation, the defendant is judged to be obliged to pay attention to the plaintiff (in this case, the assumption has been decided), the court shall judge whether the defendant breached the obligation or not. This includes, first of all, determining how the defendant should behave in this situation, and how much the court should pay attention. This standard is not a criterion of defendants themselves, it is a normal rational citizen.

Why not treat political obligations and Parek's "civic obligation" but obligations to comply with the law as legal obligations? The answer is that different legal obligations have different jobs. For many legal philosophers, the statement that a person has a legal obligation to execute X is only a descriptive assertion, a statement of social facts. The fact that a person has a legal obligation to execute X can only be justified if he has a moral obligation, that is, a political obligation to comply with the law. The value of this distinction is to allow people to think that even if she does not comply with the political obligations of authoritative authorities, people can be subject to legal obligations. Assuming that the administration is tyranny, incompetence, or very unjustifiable, only Hobbes will assume the moral obligation to follow by the person under his command

Being a political obligation is to have a moral responsibility to comply with the law and support the system of the political group. Indeed, I believe that political obligations are a wider range of obligations, followed by strict legal obligations. Two can be divided. For example, I may have a legal obligation to pay tax with serious corruption, but this is not necessarily a moral obligation. Therefore, the most difficult question is how we actually have political and legal obligations. Is it due to childbirth or agreement? Or have you already created 'natural responsibility' from a reasonably fair system? But what is "rational"? If so, what are the conditions under which we can "free" these obligations?

However, as a matter of course I will take the following explanation. There are legal communities where members are legal entities with (legal) claims and legal entities with (legal) obligations. In such a system, if someone dismisses the legal obligation of the recipient, the corporation has the right to invoke legal instances to enforce that right. The main problem is whether there is a legal right for the fetus (or embryo, concept, fertilized egg) to survive, ie whether there is a conflict between the fetus and the self-determination power of pregnant women (autonomy principle) . Is the fetus a corporation?