Abortion///cont.

quip

BANNED
Banned
Why not?

Valid moral objections outweigh personal moral opinions in literally all other scenarios.

You're pitting one subjective moral opinion against another's whilst assuming an (as of yet, unestablished) equal moral playing field.
 

quip

BANNED
Banned
Why is the moral playing field not equal?

Both parties are human beings.

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
She need not have a "need" to kill the fetus to be morally allowed the freedom to its choice.

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.
 

quip

BANNED
Banned
Uh... no. You did not establish that. You asserted it.

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.
 

quip

BANNED
Banned
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.

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.
 

quip

BANNED
Banned
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
Nonetheless, she still retains the moral right to abort her fetus to save her life.

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.
 

quip

BANNED
Banned
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.

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
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.

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.
 

quip

BANNED
Banned
Again, pregnancy itself is not pathological.
There is no such thing as a "medically necessary abortion."

"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.

Abortions don't save lives, they end lives.

Treating a pathology, however, may unintentionally end a person's life. Born, or unborn.


Not under contention.
 
Top