Apple

For example, emotionally, I genuinely think less of someone who buys into stupid conspiracies about organ donation. I think that morally, if you are unwilling (unwilling, not medically unable) to donate organs, you should not be an organ candidate. I don’t think you should be able to say ‘If I’m dead I want all of my organs to rot, even if they could save lives. But I also want to benefit from other people’s sacrifice.’ Fuck you.

But I do not believe it would be ethical (or practical) to legislate that. I think it would be a horrible ethical violation and medical coercion. I recognize that, even as I’m disgusted by people who would let someone die when saving lives would cost them nothing.

The law is often regarded as having a unique relationship with society: law can change society, and society can change law. This power needs to be wielded with responsibility.

You demonstrate a fantastic point about how the law doesn't just exist to further society's protection as a whole, but also the individual person within a society.

Even the most horrible person deserves protection under the law.

Databases like Westlaw have tags as to the specific principles and specialities of law that apply to a particular case. I've been told it's so that you can search the databases for cases to back up specific arguments you're making.

You'll need to know whether there's precedent deviating based on factors like whether the parties involved are husband and wife, or extraordinary settings (such as the high seas shown here). You want to find sources as close to your current case's situation as possible, as these factors can make a big difference.

That leads to some cases having tags that can look like something you'd find on AO3.

Every day I think about how my family and friends rejoiced when I announced I was going. How they beamed because they knew I'd be happier doing this.