New Iowa Law Restricts Abortion To Before Most Women Know They're Pregnant

[Angrboda]

No, it doesn't actually point that out.  It shows that in the trolley problem, for some reason we don't understand, one action is viewed differently from another.  We have no conscious introspection as to the reason why, and no principle derived from ethics seems to point the way to an answer.  We don't know why we have an intuition that one instance has a significant moral distinction to the other.  You're simply trading on our ignorance to make a claim that you cannot justify by an appeal to any moral theory.  Regardless, the case in question does not parallel the one at issue, as you would be equally outraged if instead of killing the fetus, doctors simply removed the fetus and allowed it to die of natural causes.  So you're simply being disingenuous by claiming that the difference lies in the act of terminating the life.  That's not your real sticking point.  And since it isn't, you're once again faced with providing a justification for treating the two cases differently, the case of being forced to give up a lung or a kidney, and that of being forced to carry a non-viable fetus to term.

So do you not think that doctors removing the baby, and letting it die, is killing it?  Do you think it is wrong to intentially harm and kill another without some moral justification?   I don’t think that if a person locked someone in a room and let them die from “natural causes” would be any less murder; do you?

So now, even if the doctors do everything they can to give the newly evicted fetus a chance at life, that amounts to killing it? You're killing me. No, I mean literally, you're killing me. Unless you paypal me the money I need to live on, according to your definition, you're killing me.

Well let's see where we can go with this new definition. Obviously, if you don't give the potential lung recipient your lung, they are going to die of natural causes, too, so you are killing them. Same with the kidney. So, apparently, you think it's okay to "kill" the potential lung recipient, but not to "kill" a fetus. And the lung recipient is a fully born person. You think it's fine to "kill" them, but not the fetus. Your ethics are every bit as inconsistent as they were before. You don't remove an inconsistency in a system by redefining a term. I'd think as an engineer that you would understand this, but apparently not. All you accomplish by redefining the term is to move the inconsistency to another place in the system. Perhaps you might get lucky that way, and your interlocutor not be able to spot where it has moved to, but you will have accomplished nothing. You've swept the problem under the rug, but you haven't gotten rid of the dirt. About all you've shown in attempting to hide the problem this way is that you lack the integrity to face the problem outright.