First of all there is no guarantee that smoking will in fact harm the baby. Not being a perfect parent is not aggression.
Wrong again. Abortion is murder. As such people who commit murder should be held accountable for their actions.
It is very simple. If you agree to take a person under your care then you are obligated to at the least not do any harm to the person under your care. The baby is under the woman’s care and so she has obligations. I know you Library Libertarians hate the idea of individual accountability but it is in fact one of the building blocks of human society.
Oh, but we can’t let that weaselling stand. Nicotine moves through the bloodstream and into the fetus. So it will have some effect. Ergo, it is an aggression.
Either be consistent or admit that your argument is flawed. One or the other.
Wrong again.
Then not eating healthy foods or smoking is aggressing against the fetus.
It’s YOUR argument. You don’t get to ignore the logical consequence just because YOU don’t like them, coward.
What person is there before the spem and egg met, Herr Hegel? Please explain that to us.
Then the woman is OBLIGATED to not smoke, drink, or eat anything unhealthy!
You just don’t know when to shut up, do you?
But what if the mothers actions lead to the baby being seriously deformed? According to you the mother has aggressed against the child.
Et tu Brute? lol
Everything the mother does could potentially have an adverse effect on the baby but that doesn’t make it aggression. Just because one persons actions might have some impact on another person does not make it aggression.
I did not say that smoking or eating unhealthy foods was aggression nor is it the logical consequence of my arguement. You are the one claiming that it is aggression.
But the mothers actions are directly harming the child, the mother is not being passive in this.
No, what I said was that intentionally trying to harm the baby by engaging in certain activities would be aggression against the baby. In this instance the intent is very important.
And there are things which will have a known negative impact, such as smoking, drinking, drug use, etc.
Either be consistent or admit that your argument is flawed. One or the other. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
It logically follows from your stance re: abortion. Either be consistent or admit that your argument is flawed. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
But as I’ve said before it’s ridiculous to decide legality based on intent.
What your essentially saying is it’s ok for the mother to smoke as long as she isn’t doing it to harm the baby. Well no matter why she does it she is harming the baby, causing it serious harm.The nature of the act isn’t changed.
According to you its perfectly acceptable that the mother engages in a huge number of activities all of which combined could result in the death of the child, yet these activites are ok so long as the mother doesn’t intend to harm the baby.
We don’t really know that this is in fact true. What we do know is that in some cases after certain exposures some babies may be harmed by certain activities, that is not sufficient in an individual case to establish aggression.
It does not logically follow from the arguement.
For the sake of the argument let’s assume it is true.
Then what?
Intent matters a great deal. Let’s say I hit you in the face with my shoulder in a crowded elevator, it matters a great deal if I was trying to hit you in the face or whether we just bumped into each other.
This can’t actually be proved in an individual case.
Yes, that is correct because the issue is harm to the baby. So first you have to show in an individual case that a certain activity has caused harm and then you have to show the act was intended to cause harm. That would be the criteria for determining aggression against the baby.
I answered this in another comment but you have to show that the baby is harmed and that the act was intended to harm the baby in order to establish aggression against the baby.