Ah, the abortion debate again. Is it that time of year?
1. Deliberately killing an innocent person is wrong and is called murder.
2. A foetus is a person from the time of conception.
3. Therefore, killing a foetus is murder.
This argument can be attacked on a number of grounds. Often, the right-to-choose argument is based on attacking point 2. For example, one can argue about what is a person, and about when personhood starts and whether a foetus fits either criterion. It is also possible to query assumption 1. Is it really always wrong to kill an innocent person? What if other interests are at stake (e.g. the mother's various interests)? In that case, you have to balance two lives, not just worry about one.
Tell me why (human) life is of all importance to you, Bowser.
If I buy a lottery ticket, I'm a potential lottery winner. That doesn't mean I have the right to claim the money before the draw happens. You're making an argument that more or less precisely parallels the lottery situation.
And, as Beer w/straw asked, how far back are you going to go with your "potential person" thing? Is a potential conception something that nobody should be allowed to interfere with, thus making contraception wrong? Is a woman evil when she menstruates without fertilising her ovum, because she has foregone the creation of a potential person (often deliberately)? Is a man evil when he masterbates and loses some of his precious sperm, which are alive and which are all potential people, given the appropriate circumstances?
Suppose you are a judge sentencing this woman for the two murders (just the murders, not any other associated crimes). Would you be inclined to give her equal sentences for shooting your friend and for aborting her foetus? Say 25 years to life for each? Because according to you the foetal murder is "no different that eliminating a fully developed individual."
This isn't what you really think, is it?
In fact, on the basis of "potential", it could be argued that killing the foetus is the more significant crime of the two, because who knows what sort of person the foetus may have been? That foetus could have gone on to cure cancer or invent a warp drive or something, for all we know. And your friend? Well, if he hasn't done either of those things yet, it seems unlikely. So, how about 25 years for killing your friend and the death penalty for the abortion?
But wait! You can't support the death penalty, because "a life ... is of all importance". Even the life of a mass murderer like this woman.
Here's the argument:
1. Deliberately killing an innocent person is wrong and is called murder.
2. A foetus is a person from the time of conception.
3. Therefore, killing a foetus is murder.
This argument can be attacked on a number of grounds. Often, the right-to-choose argument is based on attacking point 2. For example, one can argue about what is a person, and about when personhood starts and whether a foetus fits either criterion. It is also possible to query assumption 1. Is it really always wrong to kill an innocent person? What if other interests are at stake (e.g. the mother's various interests)? In that case, you have to balance two lives, not just worry about one.
You did not reply to Bells' question above, and I think that's important for you to answer: what alternative do you propose?Bowser said:
Do you think all life is important, or only human life? Do you eat meat, for example? If so, is that ok because it isn't human life? And if so, what makes human life special? Consciousness? No, because non-human animals are conscious. Intelligence perhaps? Then maybe we need to ask whether a human foetus has the requisite intelligence. Or some other reason.
Tell me why (human) life is of all importance to you, Bowser.
One of the most dangerous things a woman can do for her own health is to get pregnant, statistically speaking.
Is it really the same? Would you consider the death of a close friend to be equivalent to aborting a 3-week old foetus? Morally? Emotionally? What if somebody shot your best friend? Would that be morally equivalent to a woman aborting her pregnancy?
A potential person is not a person.
If I buy a lottery ticket, I'm a potential lottery winner. That doesn't mean I have the right to claim the money before the draw happens. You're making an argument that more or less precisely parallels the lottery situation.
And, as Beer w/straw asked, how far back are you going to go with your "potential person" thing? Is a potential conception something that nobody should be allowed to interfere with, thus making contraception wrong? Is a woman evil when she menstruates without fertilising her ovum, because she has foregone the creation of a potential person (often deliberately)? Is a man evil when he masterbates and loses some of his precious sperm, which are alive and which are all potential people, given the appropriate circumstances?
Approximately one in every three conceptions ends in early spontaneous abortion, so you could say that a fertilised egg is viable on conception in about two-thirds of cases. Fertilisation itself is actually quite rare in any given act of sexual intercourse, so viable sperm and viable ovum don't necessarily produce a viable foetus.
So, take a random woman who is pregnant. Let's say she is 3 weeks pregnant. One morning, she goes to the abortion clinic and has an abortion. The next day, while attempting to hold up a convenience store at gunpoint she shoots your best friend.
Suppose you are a judge sentencing this woman for the two murders (just the murders, not any other associated crimes). Would you be inclined to give her equal sentences for shooting your friend and for aborting her foetus? Say 25 years to life for each? Because according to you the foetal murder is "no different that eliminating a fully developed individual."
This isn't what you really think, is it?
In fact, on the basis of "potential", it could be argued that killing the foetus is the more significant crime of the two, because who knows what sort of person the foetus may have been? That foetus could have gone on to cure cancer or invent a warp drive or something, for all we know. And your friend? Well, if he hasn't done either of those things yet, it seems unlikely. So, how about 25 years for killing your friend and the death penalty for the abortion?
But wait! You can't support the death penalty, because "a life ... is of all importance". Even the life of a mass murderer like this woman.
), but the FBI define mass murder as at least 4 kills with no cooling off period, so your hypothetical woman is only a double murderer.
