I told Rosa I was going to stay out of this one, but I need to procrastinate on some stuff, and this is as good a way to do it as any. :)
You're question, as I understand it, is how a pro-choice person can put limits on when an abortion can be performed (legally). To be honest, I'm surprised that this is an issue.
In your post you mention euthanizing animals. Yes. We do that. But we don't allow people to just kill pets randomly. That falls under "animal cruelty".
The law differentiates between killing a man to protect your country, killing a man to protect your home, killing a man to protect yourself, and killing a man because it was convenient. Those situations are long-held legal traditions and have volumes of precedent by which to judge individual situations as they arise. The reason and circumstances set the tone for the approval or disapproval of the action.
If a person is attacked in their home, I fully support their right to defend themselves with lethal force. However, if a person actively and purposefully invites people into their home, persuades them into a boxing match, and then shoots them, it's a whole different story.
This is the point in Shvarts' case. She claimed to have repeatedly and intentionally created human life explicitly for the purpose of destroying that life.
That crosses the line and removes any moral ambiguity that there may be, and I have little-to-no problem with the law reflecting that.
I get what you're saying, and you definitely bring up some good points. I certainly see a paralell between, say, killing in self-defense and aborting a fetus in a medical emergency where the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. However, if someone is opposed to, say, abortion blithely used as a form of birth control, but is okay with it if i.e. the mother is 16 or the father is an asshole or something, then I do raise an eyebrow. My thinking is, if someone feels that abortion is morally wrong in a given set of circumstances, then doesn't that mean that they feel it is an unacceptable killing? And if that is the case, why condone abortion in instances where they'd condemn killing a newborn?
You're question, as I understand it, is how a pro-choice person can put limits on when an abortion can be performed (legally). To be honest, I'm surprised that this is an issue.
In your post you mention euthanizing animals. Yes. We do that. But we don't allow people to just kill pets randomly. That falls under "animal cruelty".
The law differentiates between killing a man to protect your country, killing a man to protect your home, killing a man to protect yourself, and killing a man because it was convenient. Those situations are long-held legal traditions and have volumes of precedent by which to judge individual situations as they arise. The reason and circumstances set the tone for the approval or disapproval of the action.
If a person is attacked in their home, I fully support their right to defend themselves with lethal force. However, if a person actively and purposefully invites people into their home, persuades them into a boxing match, and then shoots them, it's a whole different story.
This is the point in Shvarts' case. She claimed to have repeatedly and intentionally created human life explicitly for the purpose of destroying that life.
That crosses the line and removes any moral ambiguity that there may be, and I have little-to-no problem with the law reflecting that.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment