I think if you agree that abortion is murder, which follows from the substance argument, then the mother is not, with all due respect to Etz, a mere accessory, but obviously the primary responsible agent in most cases.

Abortion would amount to contract killing. Indeed, since the abortionist is only performing the act because she hired him, she's substantially worse than him on a per-act basis.

I don't understand what these so called extinuating circumstances are supposed to be that get her out of it.

Stess? 'I was really heartbroken so I hired a hitman to kill my ex-girlfriend.' No, that doesn't work.

Ignorance? 'I didn't know that the hitman I hired was going to kill my exgirlfriend. I just give him money and told him to do somthing about her.' or 'I didn't know my exgirlfriend was a person, so I hired at hitman to like just smash her like a bad ming vase.' No, that doesn't seem to work.

Last edited by iwpoe (4/04/2016 2:41 am)

iwpoe wrote:

I think if you agree that abortion is murder, which follows from the substance argument, then the mother is not, with all due respect to Etz, a mere accessory, but obviously the primary responsible agent in most cases.

Abortion would amount to contract killing. Indeed, since the abortionist is only performing the act because she hired him, she's substantially worse than him on a per-act basis.

I don't understand what these so called extinuating circumstances are supposed to be that get her out of it.

Stess? 'I was really heartbroken so I hired a hitman to kill my ex-girlfriend.' No, that doesn't work.

Ignorance? 'I didn't know that the hitman I hired was going to kill my exgirlfriend. I just give him money and told him to do somthing about her.' or 'I didn't know my egirlfriend was a person, so I hired at hitman to like just smash her like a bad ming vase.' No, that doesn't see to work.

I think I concede the point if we indeed view the fetus as a person. I should repeat though, that I don't hold that position, as the fetus in actua has no more faculties of intellection than an animal.
 

Etzelnik wrote:

I think I concede the point if we indeed view the fetus as a person. I should repeat though, that I don't hold that position, as the fetus in actua has no more faculties of intellection than an animal.

Well, as you know about me and the pater familias, I'm hardly sympathetic to the substantial view because I basically think that's the wrong level for ethics, but I'll take the Catholic consensus while I'm here, and it's hard for me to see how mothers don't ultimately deserve punishment on the view.

I'm also inclined to think that, if the substance argument is correct, then mothers are at least in principle guilty of some form of negligent manslaughter.

DanielCC wrote:

iwpoe wrote:

[ I'm hardly sympathetic to the substantial view because I basically think that's the wrong level for ethics...

What do you mean with that last part?
 

I don't want to go there at the moment. I don't wish to defend publicly repugnant conclusions. Etz knows because we've discussed it before.