RE: Abortion is morally wrong
July 1, 2014 at 9:39 pm
(This post was last modified: July 1, 2014 at 9:43 pm by Dystopia.)
(July 1, 2014 at 9:32 pm)Losty Wrote: Actually studying fundamental rights (in my country) is one of my favorite hobbies.
I may have gone too far by calling you an idiot (though some things you say are just...well, you know), but I don't lose any credibility by insulting you. I am still right about the slippery slope. I am still right about a doctor's obligation to treat patients, and I am still right that your comparison to gay marriage is crap. My calling you an idiot doesn't magically negate facts and make you right. That's not how reality works.
I'm merely defending the right of conscience objection. The slippery slope argument could be used the other way - If we restrict an objection of conscience, this would be a permit for the government to restrict all other objections of conscience, some of them being pretty valid. Why not treat each individual reality as a different case? Just because we say yes to doctor A, it doesn't mean we have to say yes to doctor B if the situation is different (the case of refusing abortion vs blood transfusion) - You are not right about the slippery slope and I'll explain it - The criteria to solve a conflict of rights, in this case objection of conscience V patient's rights is a criteria based on the motto 'Each case is a different case' (this is how it works in my country), therefore allowing objection in a single case DOESN'T allow in anyway an analogy to similar but slightly different situations.
I'll admit my comparison to gay marriage was stupid, and I apologize for it, sometimesmy expression of thoughts doesn't come out so well. That being said, if a doctor considers, like I said, the duty to treat a patient V the duty to not violate the fetus' 'life', what prevails? You can argue a fetus is not a life, your colleagues may think differently.
I stated facts. The fact doctors can object to performing abortions is a constitutional right and it is protected by the law where I live.
I've already justified why the argument of slippery slope won't work here, because of the criteria I mentioned, I don't know how it works in the US, each reality is a reality, but what I said is a fact, objections of conscience are a serious issue and cannot be decided by the slippery slope argument, mainly considering it's fallacious form. If I allow doctor A to refuse treatment, why do I need to allow doctor B? The first doesn't equal allowing the second, this is as simple as it gets. Just because objection to abortion is allowed it doesn't mean we will allow objections of blood transfusions, etc. By the way, if we forbid doctors to use conscience of objection, the number of professionals would decrease. In med school where I live, most students are not OK with the abortion matter.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you