Quote:
Quote by: ryanatau  I don't think this is a valid argument. Abortion is intentional. While driving (even recklessly), the mother would not have the intention of killing the baby. The consequences might be the same, but to judge moral issues by only consequence (or by only intentions for that matter) I think would be a mistake.
I still say this is a wedge issue because it is an axiomatic, and arbitrary, proposition to decide when human life begins. What age should people be allowed to drink alcohol? When should people be allowed to drive? Its hard to say because they evoke a vague reference. The classic example of when a man should be considered bald is another. We know when a man is bald and we know when a man is not bald but we do not know when a man becomes bald (how few hairs are required?). Thus we can all agree that after birth killing a baby is murder and before conception it doesn't matter. However, when in between conception and birth it counts as murder is difficult to answer. We can create thought experiments but they don't necessarily solve the underlying issue.
So what we are left with is deciding based on social norms and through pragmatic considerations. But this does not mean it is right. And it is not at all clear that there is a specific time when a being turns into a human. So again, we have to find other way to judge the issues. Ways that are not necessarily right. |
The first solution that enters my mind is that we do not have an age requirement on anything. By that, I mean people take tests to determine their level of responsibility in an area, and in succession, are granted the permission to engage in that activity (within reason, there would be an age requirement to take the test). However, this could very easily be considered taking away freedom. I'm really not sure.