Hoff: >Incidentally, if the line between being an individual >with rights and being a lump of cells is not a millisecond >after fertilization, when is it? This is the quintessential >question of the abortion debate. On the above, we agree. I simply find it absurd to believe this: A: Laboratory technician holds two dishes in his/her hands. Tech dumps dishes in the trash, turns out the lights and goes home. B: Laboratory technician holds two dishes in his/her hands. Tech intentionally dumps dishes together, then in the trash, turns out the lights and goes home. In "A", technician arrives home safely and happily. In "B", technician is intercepted, tried and convicted of murder and never makes it home. While I recognize that otherwise reasonable people come to the conclusion that the above scenario is proper, I frankly think they've lost their minds. JB
I think your example is a bit of a red herring. The embryo in your example was never viable in that state, so the death of those cells could only be blamed on the inaction of the technician. Under our law, this is not a crime. It would be like you being arrested for the death of a starved homeless person in your neighborhood because you didn't give him food money as you passed him on the way to work. Ridiculous. This is very different than the active removal of a viable embryo or fetus from a uterus, where it would have developed into an adult if left alone.
I agree that the example given was absurd, but that is exactly the point. Where is the line drawn? As Turok stated, otherwise rational people sometimes make the absurd decision. I say allow these people to relocate to an absurd state that has absurd state governement.
Hoff: >I think your example is a bit of a red herring. >The embryo in your example was never viable >in that state, Hmmm ... I'm really confused here -- I didn't think "viability" was on the table. I thought we were discussing whether protectable life began at conception. If it does, there's no red herring in my example at all. The technician *intentionally*(that word was in there for a reason) fertilized the egg -- creating an embryo, and then killed it (by throwing it in the trash). According to the fervent "right to lifer's", that's murder. >... Under our law, this is not a crime. Obviously, we weren't discussing what's legal "under our law" -- abortion is currently legal after all. I was presenting what the 'what ifs' might be if the law proposed by RP was to be passed and enforced. >This is very different than the active removal of a >viable embryo or fetus from a uterus, where it would >have developed into an adult if left alone. Nope -- if one believes (and it is legally defined) that protectable life begins at conception, it matters a whit where the conception takes place. Life is life after all. JB
You are being purposely obtuse in ignoring the clear example I gave regarding the difference between causing harm through inaction and actively causing injury.
No, you keep missing the very intentional word "intentional". In my example, the technician actively (and intentionally) caused harm. There is no "inaction" in intentionally creating an embryo and then intentionally destroying it. JB