Simon Moon Wrote:So, you are okay not forcing a woman to be a life support system for her 1 year old child, but you are okay with forcing a woman to be a life support system for her fetus.
Why the different standards?
One case is asking the mother to sacrifice one of her kidneys for the rest of her life
The other merely asks her to carry a child for 9 months
A tiny risk in pregnancy doesn't make it comparable to loosing a kidney
Simon Moon Wrote:She is not 'killing her child', she is ending a pregnancy.
The fetus has every right to continue living, but not at the expense of the bodily autonomy of the mother.
I meant to ask if it was ok for a mother to kill her 1 year old child?
If not then why is it ok to kill her unborn child? To deliberately harm it, to disturb its well being, to inflict pain upon it, to end it's life?
Why should the unborn child suffer the consequences for the mothers irresponsible actions?
BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:I don’t think your ‘argument from pain’ is either strong or sound, because inflicting pain may - in a given situation - be the preferred moral choice
So the argument that inflicting pain is immoral isn't a strong one you say
So bashing some one is ok. Stabbing someone isn't immoral. Shooting someone is fine
Can u see the error in this line of thought...
If your going to reject the claim that inflicting pain is immoral then what is an immoral act? Define it.
