• berrytopylus [she/her,they/them]
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    I think there's an obvious unavoidable difference here however in that conception (outside of assault and other things) is a known and directly caused outcome of intercourse. This isn't a person across the street that you had no impact on, but one whose reliance on you was generated by you.

    Of course, this particular problem isn't even a major point for many anti abortion people because they also refuse to provide birth control/condoms/etc that would prevent this direct cause but assuming a hypothetical person with rational and consistent moral beliefs on abortion by itself, they could easily hold a distinction between the two scenarios.

    Ironically such a principled stance could end up where removing the 6 year old (assuming it occured through no fault of your own) is fine but abortion would not be.

    • ElGosso [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      This isn’t a person across the street that you had no impact on, but one whose reliance on you was generated by you.

      By this reasoning if an EMT saves your life then they're obligated to give you a kidney if you need it

      • berrytopylus [she/her,they/them]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Not really because your need of a kidney doesn't exist because of them. However it would create an interesting situation where if you crash into someone, you would be obligated to donate your organs to them.

          • SerLava [he/him]
            ·
            edit-2
            3 years ago

            But that's a lot different from "you wouldn't need the kidney if they didn't steal your kidney"

            Most legal remedies involve someone losing some right due to their actions, so that another person can have their rights restored