You're pitting one subjective moral opinion against another's whilst assuming an (as of yet, unestablished) equal moral playing field.
Abortion///cont.
- Thread starter quip
- Start date
You're pitting one subjective moral opinion against another's whilst assuming an (as of yet, unestablished) equal moral playing field.
glassjester
Well-known member
glassjester
Well-known member
You still haven't explained why mother "needs" to kill the baby. What's the purpose?
One subsist within and by the other.
We've already established that the mother retains the morally superior position of the two by the exception illustration.
glassjester
Well-known member
Uh... no. You did not establish that. You asserted it.
She's of no need of a "need" to abort the fetus to be morally allowed the freedom to its choice.
glassjester
Well-known member
Then you will need to argue that the unborn human being does not have the right to live.
Otherwise deliberately killing the baby is morally impermissible.
She has the necessary moral right to choose an abortion to save her life. By logical extension, circumstances and physical realities of pregnancy she's in the morally superior position; the fetus the inferior.
Nothing changes but the morality of the 'choice' in the case where she elects to abort.
I reiterate: She has the necessary moral right to choose an abortion to save her life. By logical extension, circumstances and physical realities of pregnancy she's in the morally superior position; the fetus the inferior.
Nothing changes but the morality of the 'choice' in the case where she elects to abort.
glassjester
Well-known member
No, that isn't true.
How so?
glassjester
Well-known member
It depends on the pathology.
If the treatment unintentionally kills the child, this is not the woman "choosing an abortion."
It hinges upon nothing of the kind.
She still retains the moral right to abort her fetus to save her life.
glassjester
Well-known member
It's not even the doctor "choosing" the mother's life over that of the baby. It's saving one life, instead of zero lives.
glassjester
Well-known member
There's a gap in your reasoning, here. How did the moral status of unintentionally killing a child become shared with intentionally killing a child?
You might as well argue that if I can kill in self defense, I can kill for any reason I'd like.
Those are fortunate, specific anecdotes.
Though as general rule you cannot justly deny any woman her right to abort for efforts in saving her own life.
glassjester
Well-known member
Again, pregnancy itself is not pathological.
There is no such thing as a "medically necessary abortion."
Abortions don't save lives, they end lives.
Treating a pathology, however, may unintentionally end a person's life. Born, or unborn.
"medically necessary abortion."
A specious misnomer. Pregnancies where the mother's life is at risk are not common but do exist.
She has every right to ameliorate those risk against her life via abortion.
Not under contention.
glassjester
Well-known member
In those cases, what is actually endangering the life of the mother?
I'd assume physical complications. It's irrelevant to the general right.