(September 18, 2014 at 12:28 am)answer-is-42 Wrote: I have a fundamental arguement with this position, because it defines for another what is a life worth living.
I agree. Let's leave the questions about "who deserves to live" and "who deserves to die" out of it and focus purely on woman's choice.
(September 18, 2014 at 12:28 am)answer-is-42 Wrote: For example, I am not required to give you my kidney to save your life (my personal autonomy) even if I could live perfectly well with one kidney.
Correct.
(September 18, 2014 at 12:28 am)answer-is-42 Wrote: My counter of course is what if I already agreed to give you my kidney and now you would die without it? Do I have a moral accountability (not a legal one) to you?
Nope.
(September 18, 2014 at 12:28 am)answer-is-42 Wrote: I do believe that she has made a willing choice to engage in a behavior that could lead to pregnancy and there fore has a moral obligation to complete that pregnancy. The key part of all this is CHOICE. Life without sex would suck, but so too would life without cars, however if you choose to drive a car and cause a situation that damages another then you are responsible whether you wanted to be or not. Don't want that risk? Don't drive.
That's where you are wrong - just because action A results in condition B doesn't mean you have a moral obligation to live with B. In fact, if B is an unintentional result, then the moral obligation is to take corrective measures to make it as if B never happened.
If you choose to drive a car and get in an accident where you and another person are hurt and the other person then files a claim in amount of millions of dollars (way beyond the damage done), then you do not have a moral obligation to pay up and live with the consequences. Your moral obligation would be to restore status quo and giving only as much money as is required to do that.
