3 ms·

You don't know the circumstances, though. I can imagine dozens of scenarios where someone would be forced or feel forced to wait this long, or experience a chan

You don't know the circumstances, though. I can imagine dozens of scenarios where someone would be forced or feel forced to wait this long, or experience a change in their life that makes them rethink carrying the fetus to term. The victims here are the two people who are standing trial, and no amount of, "Welllllll buuuuut, it was pretty late... soooo..." changes the fact that two women will needlessly have their lives and reputations destroyed.

rcoveson 4y ago
But if the same entity had been located outside the woman when it was killed, then it would be another victim, right? What detail about it being in utero makes it an ethical non-entity? The shared blood supply? The fact that it doesn't breath air? 28 weeks isn't even considered a "previably delivery". At that mark it's just called premature. In your ethical system, when does it gain the ability to be a victim?
Someone 4y ago
IMO, the aborted child is the main victim. In all likelihood, it was healthier than the average child born at 28 weeks, and most of those survive. Yes, there may be mitigating circumstances, and that should affect the severity of any punishment, but from the info I read here, it looks looks highly likely (1) these women are guilty, and because of that it IMO is good that the government tried to find out whether they were. (1) one way they wouldn’t be guilty is if they neither knew nor suspected she was pregnant for over 20 weeks.
- washbrain 4y ago
  > In all likelihood, it was healthier than the average child born at 28 weeks How do you know that about this case? "Statistically speaking" only works when talking about groups, not individuals.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    I think what they're trying to say is that some fraction of early births are because of something wrong with the fetus or maternal environment, and so there's a selection effect where those who are born early are less healthy than those carried to full term. That is, you probably expect a random child removed at 28 weeks to survive a greater fraction of the time than those spontaneously born at 28 weeks (which already survive at a very high rate).

rcoveson 4y ago

But if the same entity had been located outside the woman when it was killed, then it would be another victim, right? What detail about it being in utero makes it an ethical non-entity? The shared blood supply? The fact that it doesn't breath air? 28 weeks isn't even considered a "previably delivery". At that mark it's just called premature. In your ethical system, when does it gain the ability to be a victim?

Someone 4y ago

IMO, the aborted child is the main victim. In all likelihood, it was healthier than the average child born at 28 weeks, and most of those survive. Yes, there may be mitigating circumstances, and that should affect the severity of any punishment, but from the info I read here, it looks looks highly likely (1) these women are guilty, and because of that it IMO is good that the government tried to find out whether they were. (1) one way they wouldn’t be guilty is if they neither knew nor suspected she was pregnant for over 20 weeks.

washbrain 4y ago
> In all likelihood, it was healthier than the average child born at 28 weeks How do you know that about this case? "Statistically speaking" only works when talking about groups, not individuals.
- mlyle 4y ago
  I think what they're trying to say is that some fraction of early births are because of something wrong with the fetus or maternal environment, and so there's a selection effect where those who are born early are less healthy than those carried to full term. That is, you probably expect a random child removed at 28 weeks to survive a greater fraction of the time than those spontaneously born at 28 weeks (which already survive at a very high rate).