@Cato. A moral question is not predicated on the incidence of the issue but the intrinsic moral question at hand. If it happens at a rate >0 then addressing it on its merits is worthwhile in a philosophical sense (This is a philosophy forum). I am sure the incidence of being murdere by a blowtorch is low compared to the overall murder rate, but does that
somehow change it's morality?
Next you add conditions I have never specified such as carrying to full term. When did I propose this in this discussion? My only question was regarding a fetus that had been taken to the point of potential viability when the decision for abortion is made. You have made a straw man arguement. Next I would like you to demonstrate when I have ever attributed any motivation to the mother's decision to end her pregnancy. I have neither stated it was well thought out nor have I stated it was willy nilly. You are arguing suppositions that you made not arguement said I have asserted. These are again straw men. I have not asked that women be saved from them selves nor have I asserted a superior conscious. My simple arguement is if a woman wishes to terminate her pregnancy (as is her right based on a bodily autonomy arguement - I may not fully subscribe to this arguement but that is irrelevant as I will grant it for the sake of the discussion) how does that extend to necessarily terminating the fetus (not her body just located within it ) if a means of removal that could potentially allow the fetus to survive is available ? For the trolls out there that symbol is called a question mark, it denotes a question NOT a statement. The question is what MORAL PRINCIPLES justify this action. The most common retorts I have heard are she doesn't want (why should that matter once it is out of her bodily autonomy does not apply), outcomes based (who is going to pay, overcrowding, ect. However outcome based morality leads to slippery slope arguement such as genocide to prevent overcrowding and k already addressed the payer question on multiple occasions) , or special pleading. Finally, as I stated before the incidence of the issue is irrelevant to its morality. It may effect its practicality or ability to legislate but it doesn't change the intrinsic Moral questions In play. This is a thought exercise to see if moral principles are rationally justified.
somehow change it's morality?
Next you add conditions I have never specified such as carrying to full term. When did I propose this in this discussion? My only question was regarding a fetus that had been taken to the point of potential viability when the decision for abortion is made. You have made a straw man arguement. Next I would like you to demonstrate when I have ever attributed any motivation to the mother's decision to end her pregnancy. I have neither stated it was well thought out nor have I stated it was willy nilly. You are arguing suppositions that you made not arguement said I have asserted. These are again straw men. I have not asked that women be saved from them selves nor have I asserted a superior conscious. My simple arguement is if a woman wishes to terminate her pregnancy (as is her right based on a bodily autonomy arguement - I may not fully subscribe to this arguement but that is irrelevant as I will grant it for the sake of the discussion) how does that extend to necessarily terminating the fetus (not her body just located within it ) if a means of removal that could potentially allow the fetus to survive is available ? For the trolls out there that symbol is called a question mark, it denotes a question NOT a statement. The question is what MORAL PRINCIPLES justify this action. The most common retorts I have heard are she doesn't want (why should that matter once it is out of her bodily autonomy does not apply), outcomes based (who is going to pay, overcrowding, ect. However outcome based morality leads to slippery slope arguement such as genocide to prevent overcrowding and k already addressed the payer question on multiple occasions) , or special pleading. Finally, as I stated before the incidence of the issue is irrelevant to its morality. It may effect its practicality or ability to legislate but it doesn't change the intrinsic Moral questions In play. This is a thought exercise to see if moral principles are rationally justified.
