Thanks for your response. However, it still seems to be incomplete in two respects:
1. "If the intent of the user of anything is to destroy the human conceptus, and if that conceptus has indeed been destroyed as a result of the intent, then he who harbored the intent and who executed or was complicit in the execution of the conceptus, has committed murder."
Since RU-486 is a morning after pill, there can be no other motive to use it than to terminate any prospective embryo in development. So I don't understand why you won't simply equate this with first degree murder, given your premises.
2. "The answer is obvious. While women who drink and smoke while pregnant are acting foolishly, if their intent is not to destroy the conceptus, then we cannot claim they committed murder. What they have done is perhaps analogous to forming a habit of backing their cars out of their garages without first checking to see if their children are
behind the cars."
You have claimed to know what is murder and what is not, so a bit more inquiry is called for here. We recognize types of murder ranging from reckless disregard for life, to manslaughter, to 2nd degree and then premeditated murder, with various possibilities of extenuating circumstances or diminished capacity at the different levels.
If a person knows that tobacco smoke, even second hand, and alcohol as well, can cause fetal death and miscarriage, as most people are now aware from public health notices to that effect, I don't see why given your philosophy, we should not try these people for manslaughter at the very least. Manslaughter does not require the direct intention to do harm, merely the knowledge that harm might be done, and not even that in all cases.
Yours,
Chaz |
