Additionally you would need to show :
- that a foetus was not only a human but also a distinctly so, ie not part of the mother?
- at what point during conception/gestation does that foetus become fully entitled to treatment as a morally autonomus agent in its own right?
From a moral perspective I do not agree with premise 1, you would need to demonstrate why it is objectively always wrong.
Finally (and I understand it isn't the point you are making), if this is true it does rather condemn an Omni god as morally wrong in permitting miscarriages. Yes of course this could be logically defended, but does not seem to be morally serious and leaves morality as arbitrary and so destroys premise 1 of the argument.
- that a foetus was not only a human but also a distinctly so, ie not part of the mother?
- at what point during conception/gestation does that foetus become fully entitled to treatment as a morally autonomus agent in its own right?
From a moral perspective I do not agree with premise 1, you would need to demonstrate why it is objectively always wrong.
Finally (and I understand it isn't the point you are making), if this is true it does rather condemn an Omni god as morally wrong in permitting miscarriages. Yes of course this could be logically defended, but does not seem to be morally serious and leaves morality as arbitrary and so destroys premise 1 of the argument.
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
