I’ve shown that it does. Either be consistent or admit that your argument is flawed. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
In terms of morality, yes it does matter, however it’s ridiculous to establish legality based on intent. No matter what the intent is, the act is the same.The baby comes out crippled for life, because of the mothers purposeful actions.
Ok but assume it can, then what?
Let’s say there’s a patient who is unconscious, the doctor gives him a drug that he thinks will save him, and it ends up killing him, should the doctor not be held responsible?
You haven’t shown anything. You made the claim that it was aggression not me.
Ok, the doctor is responsible for the care of the person and as long as the doctor is acting in good faith then the direct intentional actions of the doctor on the patient are acceptable. There is no requirement the doctor be perfect. I am not sure your example exactly fits the situation.
Like I said the intent matters. If the mother is intentionally trying to harm the child and and does harm the child conclusively with a particular action then she should be held accontable. This is of course no different than any other action when one person assaults another.
But I have. I showed how your view about abortion logically leads to a woman having to eat right, not smoke, etc. while pregnant, or she should be executed. After all: causing damage to the fetus (which has rights) is wrong!
Either be consistent or admit that your argument is flawed. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
I don’t get how you think intent somehow transforms the act, the mother is still taking a life, I accept that and see it as immoral but within her rights as a self owner, perhaps you should do the same.
No but the fact is he killed the patient, the fact that he was acting in good faith doesn’t matter, as a result of his actions the patient is dead. Likewise, because of the mother smoking, drinking and snorting the baby may be seriously damaged, it doesn’t matter whether the mother smoked with the intention of helping the baby or with the intention of killing it, it is what it is.
What if mom intentionally drinks and smokes?
Strawman.
Do you have any arguments that don’t rely on lies, strawmen, or other fallacies?
in b4 “Do you have any arguments that don’t rely on allowing people to kill babies.”
No baby is being killed.
Do you have anything that doesn’t rely on emotive pleas?
“in b4”
Sorry if my sarcasm wasn’t more clear.
Because the patient died as a result of something the doctor did does not make it murder. Murder requires intent, that is why intent matters. I think I have been pretty clear on the criteria to determine if the woman’s action constitute murder or assault. There has to be actual proveable harm and she has to have intended to cause harm. There is a big difference between someone intentionally trying to harm you and someone accidentally harming you with regard to the remedy and your rights related to an appropriate response.
You have not shown anything close to that. What you have said is that if a woman is obligated to not harm the baby then she has to abstain from certain activities that you think might harm the baby. I have specifically stated that the mother is not allowed to take actions that harm the baby with the intent to do so. So if a woman smokes and no harm comes to the baby then obviously isn’t an aggression towards the baby and even if the smoking did cause harm if there was no intent to do so there is still no aggression.
But I have. It’s not my fault that you’re too intellectually dishonest to admit to it.
Ok, so the whole argument that a baby does not have rights until it has developed the capacity for critical thought is just a development argument. You are in essence arguing that the baby is not a human until it has developed the frontal lobe or whatever. I could argue that a baby is not a human until the lungs have developed or until the brain has fully developed at age 25.
I would argue all lifeforms capable of developing the capacity for critical thought have rights, and I would argue that humans become a lifeform once the fertilized egg attaches to the wall, since at that point the fertilized egg will grow unless killed.
Regardless, I can see why the debate on abortion is such a difficult debate.
Right, the debate on when rights are gained is wholly irrelevant to the debate on abortion. Either way, the child does not have a right to use the mothers body for housing.
Sure it does, it is its house.
So now people can be houses?
Interesting.
Good job! You’ve dehumanized the woman!
You mean the house is a woman?