Abortion///cont.

[glassjester]

I'd assume physical complications. It's irrelevant to the general right.

Let's not assume anything.

And it is relevant.
Because even in the event of complications, it is the pathological complications that are to be treated (ie, high blood pressure). Not the baby. The baby is not a pathology.

 

[glassjester]

Your argument is still identical to giving me permission to murder because I have the right to kill in self-defense. It just doesn't follow.

 

[quip]

Let's not assume anything.

And it is relevant.
Because even in the event of complications, it is the pathological complications that are to be treated (ie, high blood pressure). Not the baby. The baby is not a pathology.

The pregnancy can exacerbate the situation to a fatal degree. Abortion to treat the pathology.

 

[glassjester]

The pregnancy can exacerbate the situation to a fatal degree. Abortion to treat the pathology.

What situation?

 

[quip]

Your argument is still identical to giving me permission to murder because I have the right to kill in self-defense. It just doesn't follow.

Because the unique circumstances of pregnancy are not analogous to your hypothetical.

 

[quip]

What situation?

The health one we were just commenting about.

 

[glassjester]

Because the unique circumstances of pregnancy are not analogous to your hypothetical.

According to your personal opinion.

You're attempting to use morally permissible, unintentional death to permit deliberate killing. It simply does not follow.

 

[glassjester]

The health one we were just commenting about.

High blood pressure? The doctor should treat high blood pressure, then. Not attack the child.

 

[quip]

According to your personal opinion.

You're attempting to use morally permissible, unintentional death to permit deliberate killing. It simply does not follow.

It's not personal opinion but rather biological fact. The scenario you presented is not analogous to pregnancy in any manner.

 

[quip]

High blood pressure? The doctor should treat high blood pressure, then. Not attack the child.

Is that a moral opinion?

If the pregnancy is causing her high blood pressure...she has every right to disagree.

 

[glassjester]

It's not personal opinion but rather biological fact. The scenario you presented is not analogous to pregnancy in any manner.

Why should it be? The biology of the two situations need not be identical.

What is identical is the faulty reasoning in both scenarios.

You excuse deliberate killing because unintentional killing may happen.
It just does not make sense.

 

[glassjester]

Is that a moral opinion?

If the pregnancy is causing her high blood pressure...she has every right to disagree.

I do not agree.

But even if we agreed that abortion is the "treatment" in such a case, it gets you no closer to your conclusion - namely, that intentionally killing an unborn child is morally permissible for any and all reasons.

 

[quip]

Why should it be? The biology of the two situations need not be identical.

If you want to make a cogent argument then yes, the salient facts need similarity.

What is identical is the faulty reasoning in both scenarios.

You excuse deliberate killing because unintentional killing may happen.
It just does not make sense.

Again, the mother retains the necessary moral high-ground. No such excuse nor unintentional killing need apply.

 

[quip]

I do not agree.

But even if we agreed that abortion is the "treatment" in such a case, it gets you no closer to your conclusion - namely, that intentionally killing an unborn child is morally permissible for any and all reasons.

It's your moral assertion against her's.

 

[glassjester]

Again, the mother retains the necessary moral high-ground. No such excuse nor unintentional killing need apply.

You keep saying this...

You're begging the question, man.
You're assuming the greater right of the mother, to prove the greater right of the mother.

 

[quip]

You keep saying this...

You're begging the question, man.
You're assuming the greater right of the mother, to prove the greater right of the mother.

No, I'm illustrating the greater right by her moral capacity to abort to save her life. By logical necessity the fetus is the moral inferior of the pair.

 

[glassjester]

Alright, it's too late at night for me!

See you later, Quip.

 

[glassjester]

No, I'm illustrating the greater right by her moral capacity to abort to save her life. By logical necessity the fetus is the moral inferior of the pair.

You would be right, if the situation was the following:

The doctor can only save either the mother or the child. The mother has the moral right to choose to save her own life and sacrifice the child.

This is not the case.

Doing so would not be morally permissible.

In the event that the mother's life is in danger during pregnancy (for any reason), the doctor's moral obligation is to save every life he can.

Not to save the mother's life, at the cost of the child's.
Not to save the child's life, at the cost of the mother's.

They have an equal right to life.
Why? Because their right to life comes from an equal source - the fact that they are both human.

 

[glassjester]

No, I'm illustrating the greater right by her moral capacity to abort to save her life. By logical necessity the fetus is the moral inferior of the pair.

It's as if you've conveniently forgotten that if the mother dies, the child will die, too.

In the cases where the mother's life is saved, and the child unintentionally dies, the doctor has saved one life, not instead of the other, but instead of losing both.

The mother is not choosing her own life over the child's. She is choosing her own life over choosing her own death. The status of the child's life did not change at all due to the mother's choice to save her own.

 

[quip]

You would be right, if the situation was the following:

The doctor can only save either the mother or the child. The mother has the moral right to choose to save her own life and sacrifice the child.

This is not the case.

This must not be the only case. The mother has the right to ameliorate any risk to her life...death of the fetus ensues not by malice nor even in defense of life but rather by the unique proximity of fetus in relation to it's necessary host. This unavoidable fetus-to-host relationship bears fact that the mother holds the preponderant moral position only within this particular and unique relationship.

Doing so would not be morally permissible.

In the event that the mother's life is in danger during pregnancy (for any reason), the doctor's moral obligation is to save every life he can.

The Doctor's only obligation is to himself by way of his own moral conscious. Ultimately, it's the mother's choice here.

They have an equal right to life.
Why? Because their right to life comes from an equal source - the fact that they are both human.

They simply can't be equal by way of their unique physical relationship...the death scenario simply illustrates the obviousness of such - by necessity - that which the pro-lifer tends to circumvent by appeals to subjective theories of life such as the one you've espoused here.

In legal regard to theories of life:

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. Blackmun. Roe V Wade.