tzor wrote:RobbyPants wrote:Why? How are they different? If it's a fully viable human at conception, how is it not reckless to put them at risk? Does this have something to do with intent? What's the difference?
The basic arugment has to do with the conflict between fundamentally differing rights. The strongest case involves the direct threat to the mother. This is a case where the "right" to life is pitted against the "right" to life. Really you could argue both ways here, but I can see the argument where the right of the monther trumps the right of the child.
The next level of comlpexity is a rarer case, the case where the right to life of the child is in conflict with the right to life of the child. This is a tremendously crappy situation as the doctor makes the arbitrary decision of which fetus lives and which ones does not. (Note when there is not a threat to life, in other words the culling is just becuse the mother wants less babies and not that there is a good chance both will die, the argument is different.)
One also needs to consider long term viability as well.
One also needs to remember that dead pre-born babies don't count. (And yes that include brain dead pre-born babies.)
This all seems like a non-sequitur from what I asked. My question was why are fetuses babies when it comes to abortion but not procreation. Nevertheless, it looks like you sort of covered that below...
tzor wrote:RobbyPants wrote:tzor wrote:The notion that life begin at conception does not make every woman who fails to implant an ambryo a murderer. Homey ain't playing that game.
Whoa! Who's strawmanning, now? Either they're humans or not. Even still, it takes
two to make a baby.
Here you get to intent and ability. Here is an example: a man driving a car has a heart attack. The car jumps the divder has a head on collision killing the other driver. Is that person a murderer? Or was that other person not human and thus we can ignore the problem? (Or perhaps such binary either or questions are STUPID?)
Most women who somehow conceive and fail to implant are not committing murder. They lack both intent and even knoweledge. (It's not like every embryo once conceived sends a text message to the mother.) They may not even be aware.
The case is complicated for a woman who takes the morning after pill. There is some form of slight intent but the actual knowledge is not there. There is even the question of whether the embryo would have implanted without the morning after pill so there is the question of whether the pill was the direct cause of the failure to implant. (I'd call that "reasonable doubt.")
But once you have implanted the embryo and it becomes a fetus, it's hard to avoid intent and knoeledge.
Well, it looks like Kaelik already covered it, but I'll answer since it was directed at me.
The difference between heart-attack guy crashing a car and woman failing to implant is that heart-attack guy didn't choose to engage in a reckless action (unless he somehow knew the heart-attack was imminent). Since we already know about the high rate of failure-to-implant, the woman
does know she's engaging in a reckless action (if we consider the pre-implanted fetus a human with rights).
A better analogy for heart-attack-guy would be someone who gets drunk and then chooses to drive. Sure, his
intention is to get home (like the woman's intention is to make a baby, not kill one), but they both know the risks.
The point is, if pre-implanted fetuses are humans capable of being killed, then that risk is predictable. Period. And no, I
don't think we should consider parents who procreate murderers any more than I think we should consider pre-implanted fetuses humans with rights.
That's the whole point! Life at conception carries bizarre logical consequences.
Also, why do you keep insisting only the woman would be a murderer in these cases? It takes two people to make babies.
