For me it's not whether or not a fetus counts as a person, it's about the fact that the fetus has the potential to grow into a person. Even if a fetus isn't a person, I think that the Scott Peterson ruling is still good. (You kill a pregnant woman, you get two counts of murder) Because you denied that woman the right to decide the outcome of the fetus' potential.
However, by choosing to keep a baby and choosing to do things like drinking and smoking is making a choice to willfully endanger that child. As for selling them the stuff, well, that's why I avoid register work. I would feel horrible if I used a gun that was later used to shoot up a school, and so similarly I don't want to sell the booze that could injure a potential child.
I don't think the sports analogy really works, because fetal alcohol is much more akin to say, beating a child braindead with a pipe than it is to watching your child break a bone playing football.
Abortion is one thing. It is choosing to end the life of a thing that, if you have the procedure, will never become more than it is. Abortion is very permanent. Alcohol and cigarettes, however, does not wilfully end the life of the fetus once and for all. Rather, it harms the fetus and may potentially deform it to the point of severe handicap, mental retardation, or even a vegetative state.
You say, "I think that if we're pro-choice (I am, but I don't know if you are), we keep our noses out of other people's choices except when there's willful malice or overt neglect." But choosing to drink even a small amount of alcohol can damage a fetus irrevocably. No, you may not be able to refuse to sell a pregnant woman booze or cigs because it would make the store look bad, but that doesn't mean that it should be okay to turn a blind eye to what may happen.
There is a huge difference between abortion and drinking while pregnant. The pro-choice defense doesn't work. Abortion leaves no fetus to harm; drinking and smoking takes away the health
( ... )
Comments 2
(The comment has been removed)
Even if a fetus isn't a person, I think that the Scott Peterson ruling is still good. (You kill a pregnant woman, you get two counts of murder) Because you denied that woman the right to decide the outcome of the fetus' potential.
However, by choosing to keep a baby and choosing to do things like drinking and smoking is making a choice to willfully endanger that child. As for selling them the stuff, well, that's why I avoid register work. I would feel horrible if I used a gun that was later used to shoot up a school, and so similarly I don't want to sell the booze that could injure a potential child.
I don't think the sports analogy really works, because fetal alcohol is much more akin to say, beating a child braindead with a pipe than it is to watching your child break a bone playing football.
Reply
You say, "I think that if we're pro-choice (I am, but I don't know if you are), we keep our noses out of other people's choices except when there's willful malice or overt neglect." But choosing to drink even a small amount of alcohol can damage a fetus irrevocably. No, you may not be able to refuse to sell a pregnant woman booze or cigs because it would make the store look bad, but that doesn't mean that it should be okay to turn a blind eye to what may happen.
There is a huge difference between abortion and drinking while pregnant. The pro-choice defense doesn't work. Abortion leaves no fetus to harm; drinking and smoking takes away the health ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment