[quote="OraLabora, post:18, topic:45307"]
I am truly sorry if my statement offended you, but I have made no such comparison. You inferred "serial killer" from my statement, which was very specific: a mentally-handicapped, adult attacker. Could be a serial killer, could be an institutionalized person who escaped with the mental capacity of a 4-year old or it could be an adult with any one of the numerous mental disorders that can reduce or eliminate culpability from a moral point of view.
I do feel your loss, not as a mother but as a father. My wife and I also lost a baby but not due to ectopic pregnancy. We do, however have 3 healthy boys (now all in their teens and beyond).
I am trying to understand the logic without allowing emotion to cloud the issue.
No, no, I very much appreciate your apology, but you didn't offend me! I'm saying the diffrence between the two is obvious, and I when we overthink it, we make it harder than it is!
A child inside his mother-- whether in the womb or the tube or wherever-- is incapable of intentionally inflicting harm on the mother. The child is ENTIRELY dependent upon the mother to sustain his life-- he has no independence whatsoever. The child, should he perish, is subsequently labeled an "immaculata", meaning, clean.
An attacker-- whether Ted Bundy or the mentally handicapped adult, is NOT dependent upon his/her victim for life. The attacker, no matter how mentally handicapped, is not without sin, not without culpability. The attack is INTENTIONAL.
This is an especially interesting topic because my daughter is adopted. Her biological father IS the attacker you describe-- limited mental functioning, and yet, has physcially harmed many people (although has not killed them). There is quite a difference between this person, and my innocent baby.
Sometimes we need only have our hypothetical arguments become reality, for clarity to settle in!