stevestory
Posts: 8330
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
I was kinda curious how sincerely torley believes what he's saying, so I created a fiendishly good disguise Username that they'll never figure out is me (notstevestory) and posted this question:
| Quote | | Moreover, even in the case where the unborn child threatens its mother’s health, there is an important difference between the ac of expelling the child from her body (and thereby killing it) and the act of shooting an innocent zombie or malevolent individual who is endangering her health. In the former case, the mother wills to kill the unborn child by cutting it off from its normal means of life support; whereas in the latter, the mother wills to kill the attacker by cutting him down before he can reach her. I think that’s a morally relevant difference. So I would say that the fact that an unborn child is harming its mother’s health is not a sufficient ground to justify aborting it. |
Ever? Say the fetus is at two months, and developing normally, but causing Hypothetical Disease X, which has no known cure and is 100% lethal to the mother in 2 weeks if an abortion is not performed. Abort, or not?
--but my comment is in moderation so I thought I'd preserve it here. Just in case it somehow...accidentally...disappears.
|
