I suspect that, for the most part, you are correct. On the other hand, intent does seem to matter in some ways. If I am driving at night and run you over I might be only charged with manslaughter, but if I see you far in advance and decide to run you over because I don’t like you, I will probably be charged with murder and face larger penalties.
No, you have violated their rights and their family is entitled to restitution. You’re confusing morals with rights.
I’m not so much confusing them as I am talking about both. I view rights as a subset of morals. I believe it is always immoral to violate someones rights, but just because an action doesn’t violate someone’s individual rights doesn’t mean that it is moral.
Of course intent matters because under some circumstances it would be impossible to determine fault if the intent of the individuals involved was not known. If two people are getting into an elevator and bump into each other and one then trips and falls and is injured then the intentions of the other individual involved matter a great deal. If there was no mal intentions on either party then quite possibly there is no fault. However, if the other party was trying to hurt the other person then this matters a great deal.
So I can sacrifice 100 children to save the earth, and as long as I really believe this, it’s ok?
You still intended to kill the babies.
Suppose you’re on a jog along a cliff side and unintentionally trip over a plant and slam into a jogger going the other way. They lose their ballance and tumble off the edge of the cliff.
Are you responsible for murder?
Edit: Hmm… Perhapse I’m conflating the argument. Were you talking about prosecuting unintentional actions? or just actions that were intended to be done reguardless of intentions?
The point is intent matters in determining what liablity a person may have for their actions. It may not always matter but it certainly does matter.
Abortion is more like pushing someone off of your cliff, just because it is inconvenient for you to have them there. Just like an abortion, you figure they will most likely die, but hey, you just wanted them off of your property.
No, it’s not. It’s like removing a trespasser.
Exactly! They were trespassing on your property and you came across them at a cliff, and so you decide to push them off the cliff to get them off your property! You are getting it now!
False. You really need to learn to not use false analogies.
Disagree? Show how it’s valid. You posit that it is valid; you prove it.
Way to shift the burden of proof! Go back and take an argumentative writing class and come back when you are done.
Pot. Kettle. Black. Go back and take an argumentative writing class and come back when you’re done.
They are tresspassing on your property, syphoning off your food intake, and wont leave, and the only way to get them to leave is to push them off the cliff.
Push.
I don’t see how. But when you say “the fetus IS invited in”, you’re making an error - the fetus doesn’t exist at the time the supposed “invitation” is issued; you can’t make an agreement with a non-existent entity.
Ok, after having discussions about “rights”, I have now changed my stance. Rights really do not exist until one can claim that they own themselves.
So, as repulsive as abortion is to me, that does not make it immoral.
How so? A trespasser chooses to cross a property line; a baby exercises no such choice and, also unlike the trespasser, does not have the option of withdrawing. The only reason the baby is in the womb is because of the conscious decision of the mother. If she doesn’t want babies, she shouldn’t engage in baby-making, or she should get her tubes tied.
You can take comfort in the fact that the pro-choice demographic is in irreversible decline.
Notice that it’s like. It’s not precisely the same.
Further, that the woman decided to have sex is not the same as deciding to be pregnant. Please think.
If she decided to participate in fellatio or cunnilingus that distinction could be drawn. A nubile female engaged in sexual intercourse is consenting to an act which she knows could very well result in a living being inside her.