- 27 Aug 2020 15:02
#15115990
Do you think the penalty for killing inside the womb should be less than killing outside the womb?
I mean when the killing took place without the woman's permission. Some other person came along and caused the fetus to die.
This question is mostly directed at pro-choicers.
And to further clarify for the sake of argument here, the fetus is at the furthest along stage of development where you think it is still okay for the woman to exercise her choice (if she so chooses).
Also suppose for the sake of argument here that a hypothetical situation exists where the fetus was killed, but the woman's body was otherwise not affected in any way (I don't want us to get distracted from the primary issue at hand).
Or, if you want to look at it another way, the perpetrator will already be punished separately for however his actions [directly] affected the woman. For example, maybe a man sucker punches a woman really hard in the belly. How much more should the punishment be if the woman happened to be pregnant at the time and it resulted in the fetus dying? That is the question.
The critical question I am trying to pull out from pro-choicers is how much do you think the value of an unborn life is worth?
I am trying to shed some light on the hypocrisy that it is so bad when the baby dies and the woman did want it, but pro-choicers try to make it out to be no big deal if the woman wanted to get rid of it.
Maybe this question might be a little too abstract for some, so let me try to outline a concrete example that could illustrate this philosophical issue:
Man #1 sneaks into an incubator room and kills an ultra-premature baby. The baby was born at only 22 weeks gestation (that's considered before "viability"). The doctors were not sure whether the baby was going to be able to pull through and make it.
Man #2 causes the baby to die while it is still growing inside its mother, 22 weeks into the pregnancy, same age.
Should the first man be punished more than the second man in this situation?
Would it be any different if the woman gave her permission?
To help focus on the point, maybe for the sake of hypothetical argument we can imagine there is advanced futuristic medical technology involved. With the push of a button, someone else can just make that fetus vaporize. The woman doesn't feel a thing. Ever see that Star Trek episode "Mirror, Mirror" (1967) ? They get trapped in an evil alternate universe. There's this piece of technology in Kirk's quarters with a viewing screen. At the press of a button Kirk's mistress could make anyone onboard the ship disappear.
I mean when the killing took place without the woman's permission. Some other person came along and caused the fetus to die.
This question is mostly directed at pro-choicers.
And to further clarify for the sake of argument here, the fetus is at the furthest along stage of development where you think it is still okay for the woman to exercise her choice (if she so chooses).
Also suppose for the sake of argument here that a hypothetical situation exists where the fetus was killed, but the woman's body was otherwise not affected in any way (I don't want us to get distracted from the primary issue at hand).
Or, if you want to look at it another way, the perpetrator will already be punished separately for however his actions [directly] affected the woman. For example, maybe a man sucker punches a woman really hard in the belly. How much more should the punishment be if the woman happened to be pregnant at the time and it resulted in the fetus dying? That is the question.
The critical question I am trying to pull out from pro-choicers is how much do you think the value of an unborn life is worth?
I am trying to shed some light on the hypocrisy that it is so bad when the baby dies and the woman did want it, but pro-choicers try to make it out to be no big deal if the woman wanted to get rid of it.
Maybe this question might be a little too abstract for some, so let me try to outline a concrete example that could illustrate this philosophical issue:
Man #1 sneaks into an incubator room and kills an ultra-premature baby. The baby was born at only 22 weeks gestation (that's considered before "viability"). The doctors were not sure whether the baby was going to be able to pull through and make it.
Man #2 causes the baby to die while it is still growing inside its mother, 22 weeks into the pregnancy, same age.
Should the first man be punished more than the second man in this situation?
Would it be any different if the woman gave her permission?
To help focus on the point, maybe for the sake of hypothetical argument we can imagine there is advanced futuristic medical technology involved. With the push of a button, someone else can just make that fetus vaporize. The woman doesn't feel a thing. Ever see that Star Trek episode "Mirror, Mirror" (1967) ? They get trapped in an evil alternate universe. There's this piece of technology in Kirk's quarters with a viewing screen. At the press of a button Kirk's mistress could make anyone onboard the ship disappear.