glassjester
Well-known member
More on the self-defense objection: If the attacker could be stopped without killing him, this must be done. If the attacker is already subdued, killing him is definitely immoral.
Abortion///cont.
- Thread starter quip
- Start date
Deliberate or not, if indeed death occurs in the course of defending yourself, an exception to the moral rule stands.
I agree that it's deliberate, deliberately done in the commission of her right to do so. If exceptions are warranted, is not the woman in question not in the morally superlative position to, say save her life by ending the life of the unborn. Thus, this may not be construed as an "morally illicit" killing.
Same with abortion. Though it's generally medically impractical to do so..the moral and pragmatic implications of which may be saved for later.
glassjester
Well-known member
If the rule is "deliberate killing of a human being is immoral," then a non-deliberate killing does not represent an exception.
Then are you arguing that the indirect killing of the unborn is morally licit, if done only in the defense of the mother's life?
glassjester
Well-known member
Similarly, the defense must be in proportion to the threat, right?
If a little child threatens to slap me, I can't kill him "in self defense."
What I'm saying is that if death occurs by way of defending yourself, there lies a moral exception.
Right now I'm arguing exception and the woman's moral position via the exception.
It is in proportion. Incipient life relies upon the mother's body, the only recourse is to remove it - with its death inevitably ensuing.
glassjester
Well-known member
Alright, I agree.
I don't think it follows that because killing in self-defense is permissible, killing an unborn child is permissible.
Make the connection.
glassjester
Well-known member
In proportion to what threat?
If you agree to the moral exception then you must likewise agree that the woman retains the morally superlative position within the pregnancy scenario...by logical necessity.
Therefore, the right-to-life of the fetus may never be equal to the right-to-life of born individuals...by way of the same logical necessity.
glassjester
Well-known member
I cannot agree.
The exception for self-defense exists because of the threatening actions of the attacker. What threatening actions are being committed by the unborn that would warrant killing, in proportion?
None, at least for "elective" abortions. But you must agree that the mother is in the moral superior position to make the call..hence a clear contradiction to the claim of equal rights-to-life.
What remains is mere morally subjective opinion.
glassjester
Well-known member
I don't see that at all.
Make what call? The call to deliberately kill a human being? Why does she get to do that? No one else does.
In defense of her life. You agree that it would be moral for the woman to make a call to abort in an effort to save her life?
Matter of fact, under such circumstances her choice is a necessity:
1. She may abort.
or
2. refuse to abort and take her chances with both possibly dying.
glassjester
Well-known member
Alright, didn't we talk about this a few pages back?
If a pathology is present in the pregnant woman (ie, cancer, ectopic pregnancy, high blood pressure), then of course it is morally permissible to treat the pathology.
This may result in the unintentional death of the unborn.
Pregnancy itself, however, is not a pathology. It should not be "treated" (via abortion) independently of the actual pathology.
glassjester
Well-known member
Still, the unintentional death of the unborn (as described above) does not change the moral status of deliberate killing.
A valid moral objection, yes...though one that in no way may supersede the mother's.
glassjester
Well-known member
What's the mother's objection?
glassjester
Well-known member
Why not?
Valid moral objections outweigh personal moral opinions in literally all other scenarios.