A 'life (personhood) begins at conception' querry.

[blackout]

If a person has a medical condition
that has caused them to lose control of their vehicle,
and on two or three seperate occasions
their car killed innocent persons,
though through no irresponsibility/fault of their own,
but because their condition
unexpectedly rendered their vehicle a serious threat to others' safety,
WHO would suggest
that they should still be allowed to drive on the open road?
Where more lives might very well be lost.
(as we now know, in light of their medical history)

Now, and I ask this very seriously,
why is it okay for a woman
whose body (vehicle)
has on two or three seperate occaisons
(or more)
killed innocent persons
though through no irresponsibility/fault of her own,
to continue (driving) having sex on the open road?
(ie. without tied tubes, vascectomy, 2 forms of BC etc)
Where more lives might very well be lost.
(as we now know, in light of their medical history)

At what point do repeat "accidents" become manslaughter?
In what way is it responsible to continue risking innocent human lives,
once you KNOW your medical condition results repeatedly in vehicle malfunction,
with high potential of killing yet more innocent passengers?
What makes the loss of innocent lives in the womb
any different than the loss of innocent lives out on the road?

Why is one repeat tragedy punishable by law,
and the other encouraged by the medical field
and the religious alike?

Why is there such an unfathomable double standard?

Innocent persons are innocent persons, right?

 

[Alceste]

If a person has a medical condition
that caused them to lose control of their vehicle,
and on two or three seperate occasions
their car killed innocent persons,
though through no irresponsibility/fault of their own,
but because their condition
unexpectedly rendered them no control of the vehicle,
WHO would suggest
that they should still be allowed to drive on the open road?
Where more lives might very well be lost.
(as we now know, in light of their medical history)

Now, and I ask this very seriously,
why is it okay for a woman
whose body (vehicle)
has on two or three seperate occaisons
(or more)
killed innocent persons
though through no irresponsibility/fault of her own,
to continue (driving) having sex on the open road?
(ie. without tied tubes, vascectomy, 2 forms of BC etc)
Where more lives might very well be lost.
(as we now know, in light of their medical history)

At what point do repeat "accidents" become manslaughter?
In what way is it responsible to continue risking innocent human lives,
once you KNOW your medical condition results repeatedly in vehicle malfunction,
with high potential of killing yet more innocent passengers?
What makes the loss of innocent lives in the womb
any different than the loss of innocent lives out on the road?

Why is one repeat tragedy punishable by law,
and the other encouraged by the medical field
and the religious alike?

Why is there such an unfathomable double standard?

Innocent persons are innocent persons, right?

This entire line of reasoning presupposes that a fertilized egg is - like the victims of car accidents - a living person, with all the rights and qualities we associate with personhood.

If you're going to make this unwarranted presupposition to begin with, there's no point trying to have a nuanced ethical discussion of the issues surrounding abortion, is there?

Might as well legislate that all sexually active men who are not planning to have a baby get vasectomies if we want to effectively eliminate abortion.

 

[blackout]

Here's another version,

If my vehicle malfunctions,
endangering every innocent person
who might find their way in my path,
do I not have a moral RESPONSIBILITY to get my vehicle FIXED?!
To ensure that no more innocent lives, innocent persons are lost, or injured
as a result.

Yes. Fixed is a double entendre.

 

[blackout]

This entire line of reasoning presupposes that a fertilized egg is - like the victims of car accidents - a living person, with all the rights and qualities we associate with personhood.

If you're going to make this unwarranted presupposition to begin with, there's no point trying to have a nuanced ethical discussion of the issues surrounding abortion, is there?

Might as well legislate that all sexually active men who are not planning to have a baby get vasectomies if we want to effectively eliminate abortion.

I see your point,
but I don't really want to take it out that far here.
At least not yet.

I really want to understand how the difference
between the deaths of innocent persons in each scenerio is rationalized.
And we KNOW there is a difference,
because EVERYONE'S actions (and attitudes) reflect that difference--
the religious and non-religious alike.

 

[Majikthise]

Well...
We have a perfectly healthy daughter who is 15 now.
My wife misscarried about 5 months into our second child.
A couple of years later she was pregers again and our son was born perfectly healthy.
Having kids is just a roll of the dice.

I got a vasectomy BTW, not because we didn't want any more kids, but for financial reasons. I got it done because there was much less chance of medical problems than if she did it.

 

[blackout]

Or how about this,

If you have naturally terrible aim,
and a shaky arm,
do you think you should be taking part in a knife throwing act?

If you kill one, two, three persons
as a result of your inability to properly hit your INTENDED target,
do you think you should continue?
Do you think said knife thrower should go to jail?
If so, after which offence?
The first? the second? the third?

At what point does "tragic accident"
upgrade to willful manslaughter.

 

[Majikthise]

I don't believe any of that applies to having children. Though older people attempting to give birth does lead to greater chances of birth defects.

 

[blackout]

I don't believe any of that applies to having children. Though older people attempting to give birth does lead to greater chances of birth defects.

But why not?

It is your understanding that personhood begins at conception?
If so, is the 'personhood' of those in the womb EQUAL in every way
to persons/personhood outside the womb?
Should both personhoods be defended by law with equal measure and reason?

If it is not your understanding that personhood begins at conception,
or that personhood in the womb is not of equal consideration
of personhood outside the womb,
then there is no contradiction, and thus, no querry.

 

[Majikthise]

But why not?

It is your understanding that personhood begins at conception?
If so, is the 'personhood' of those in the womb EQUAL in every way
to persons/personhood outside the womb?
Should both personhoods be defended by law with equal measure and reason?

If it is not your understanding that personhood begins at conception,
or that personhood in the womb is not of equal consideration
of personhood outside the womb,
then there is no contradiction, and thus, no querry.

You got me.

 

[whygodwhy]

If you think that life begins at conception, then things like Mirena that keep eggs from implanting, but not fertilizing, would be murder... Is that your point, I'm confused.

 

[blackout]

You got me.

Too bad, I've got my eye on the organist... :flirt:

 

[Majikthise]

Sorry , but after many years of use, the organ can't play as well as it used to.

 

[blackout]

If you think that life begins at conception, then things like Mirena that keep eggs from implanting, but not fertilizing, would be murder... Is that your point, I'm confused.

No. My point is that women who tend to repeat miscarry,
will try again and again to get pregnant.
Often resulting in .... more miscarrages.


Yet the very same churches/individuals who condemn abortion as murder,
do not condemn this as willful manslaughter.
Or neglectful manslaughter... I'm not a lawyer.
They do not even frown upon it.
They often encourage it.

Why don't they encourage these women
to use birth control,
and adopt?

Everyone has their cross to bear after all.


And certainly with all of the unwanted unaborted children in need of adoption....

(this thread is about lack of moral consistancy, and WHY that is)

 

[Majikthise]

No. My point is that women who tend to repeat miscarry,
will try again and again to get pregnant.
Often resulting in .... more miscarrages.


Yet the very same churches/individuals who condemn abortion as murder,
do not condemn this as willful manslaughter.
Or neglectful manslaughter... I'm not a lawyer.
They do not even frown upon it.
They often encourage it.

Well articulated. You just introduced me to something I never considered. You can teach an old dog new tricks.

 

[blackout]

Well articulated. You just introduced me to something I never considered. You can teach an old dog new tricks.

Well you can really thank '.9 Penguin'.

He raised the point, in terms of personal experience, in another thread
that I read just this morning.

I had never thoughtfully considered the idea mySelf before either.

I mulled over it a bit today, and the result was this thread.

 

[blackout]

I would truly appreciate some responses
from life/personhood begins at conception proponents.

 

[blackout]

I'm going to try another analogy/comparison.
Perhaps this one will be more clear.

You own an amusement park ride,
and you offer free seats to any children
who happen to pass by.

You want to have a good time with them,
but, the seat construction does not properly support them.
There have been three deaths so far
as a result of support failure.
And each one on a separate occasion.

Do you think the ride should be shut down?
Should you be allowed to invite more children in/on?
Should someone intervene and force the shutdown of the ride?
Should youhave been charged with negligent manslaughter
after the second accidental death? the third? the fourth?


Sure your intention was that everyone be happy.
But you are putting these innocent children
in a high risk death/injury situation every single time
you let another one on board.
And three children have died all ready.

What would make it morally acceptable
to keep attempting to put other children on this ride.

What is the ride owner's culpability in all of this?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

On the other hand, there is Scott Peterson.

Liminality is difficult. We should wrestle with it rather than coax easy definitions that serve our preferences.​

 

[blackout]

Ahh. Definitions. not decisions.

Yes, we all to one extent or another
choose our definitions
to support our decisions,
and as well make our decisions
to fit and fill our definitions.

But in the face of total and complete inconsistency of definition,
how many act as if there are these easy decisions.
These moral "musts" and "must not's".
Easily drawn lines,
of black on white,
in people's minds.

I agree, we should not limit our considerations.
if that is what you meant.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I agree, we should not limit our considerations.
if that is what you meant.

No, I meant we should consider, with the bias always being in deference to life.