Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurn, son of Mogh
Sure, but legislating "morality" and government trying to be all things to all people leads to this sort of inconsistency.
Seems to me like the reading of what a fetus is is the actual inconsistency. If it's not a human being then it's not a human being and you shouldnt be convicted of murder for destroying it. Similarly, if it is a human being then it is one, and anyone who is involved in abortion is also involved in murder.
That's actually a massive problem with the law, not just on the abortion issue. Language and definitions are interpreted by supposed expert judges who are no less fallible in applying inconsistent reasoning than anyone else.
It could also be that the inconsistency is from the precedent for murdering an unborn baby going back farther than the precedent for womens abortion rights. The law needs some mechanism for adapting to changing moral opinions.
Last edited by Do0rDoNot; 01-08-2019 at 03:46 PM.