3 ms·
You sound a bit like one of the engineers you sometimes argue with here. The kind of engineer that wants some area of law to be a black and white rules based sy
by harryh 10y ago
You sound a bit like one of the engineers you sometimes argue with here. The kind of engineer that wants some area of law to be a black and white rules based system where everything is decided based on a perfectly clean application of logic.
But you know that's not how society works. And it's not how the law works either. There are tremendous grey areas in which rules try to balance competing interests in a way that ends up being, more or less, fair. This balance is based on ideas of messy humans and the culture we've built up over thousands of years. It's not cognitive dissonance when we end up with a rule that is bases on more than the precise scientific inputs. It's just the way our law and culture works.
- rayiner 10y agoI'm not saying we shouldn't balance peoples' interests. I'm questioning the background assumptions against which we're doing that balancing. I think "fetuses aren't people because they haven't been born" is a weak assumption. Don't get me wrong: I think the interests of the mother outweigh the interests of the fetus. Not because fetuses aren't people, but because killing people or allowing them to die is something we do all the time to serve various societal interests.