(July 1, 2014 at 8:50 pm)Losty Wrote:(July 1, 2014 at 8:39 pm)blackout94 Wrote: The slippery slope argument won't work here. Abortion is one case, each case is a different case, like I said political convictions or gender are not equal to considering abortion murder. We are talking about the deepest principles some people have. You might think this argument would work and give origin to a huge amount of objections, but it wouldn't happen since the law doesn't allow a doctor to refuse treatment as a general rule, it is allowed if there are justifiable reasons to object treatment.
It does apply.
Using the slippery slope argument is just as valid as saying gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because polygamy, marrying animals and marrying children would come next. It is never a sufficient argument and is mostly used as a fallacy. Each case is a case and should be given appropriate treatment. Comparison alone isn't enough to prove anything. You still haven't justified why doctors should be forced to violate their principles by performing an abortion, you just made comparisons and conjectures, saying that other situations would be unbearably allowed. I'm still waiting for the answer. Isn't the most important principle in a doctor's ethic the right to live? If so, then what's more important, treating a mother to avoid an unwanted child, or avoid killing a fetus (if the doctor considers abortion killing)? You already know the answer.
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