Can you kill a newborn to avert pain and suffering? To avert financial hardship for yourself or your dependents? To avert food insecurity or the loss of your home? No. These concerns don't justify killing someone.
It's not even comparable...the newborn is not inside the woman and thus does not impose all the things I listed on the woman. Your answer is completely invalid.
When it comes to killing someone, all of society is justified in imposing its will.
Citation?
That's why self-defense claims are scrutinized even in slam-dunk examples. You're demanding the power to kill with impunity. That's a right no citizen has in any other context.
We cannot kill people with impunity. And thus as a society, society is not entitled to force a woman to remain pregnant with an unborn that may not even survive to birth, demanding that she suffer all the risks and sacrifices and pain and losses that the 9 months of pregnancy and the effects on the rest of her life. And the affects on others she loves and is responsible to and for. Remember I kept emphasizing the "others" that are also affected?
Is society responsible for her life? If so, it cannot demand she risk it to preserve the unborn inside her. It is immoral for society to impose that kind of life-changing, possible death, pain and suffering on women. The unborn affects no other people, except maybe the partner, and suffers no pain. So the moral balance is clearly to protect women.
Humanity's goal should be to never deliberately kill innocents.
What are women guilty of? The innocence you refer to is meaningless to me in any philosophical or REAL sense, as the unborn cannot think or act or even form intent. It is an empty "innocence," merely a vacuum. I dont accept that emotionally manipulative arguement.
If both are tied to a ventilator by our fighting for both lives, that's a better outcome than if we murdered one to save the other. If they are sick but alive, that's a better outcome than if one were healthy by murdering the other.
I very much disagree and I tried to spell it out for you. I support quality of life over quantity.
What you describe is dehumanizing to both...just keep their hearts beating, that's all that matters.
As a moral argument, I disagree with that. Esp if the woman's life
and health can be saved by an abortion. There are others in her life that she matters to.
Why doesnt her life, every day, and all those in her life and her obligations to others outweigh the unborn's "potential?"
Life is better than death.
See above. Not everyone agrees with that, for sure. So why should strangers be entitled to force their belief on women that dont agree? The women and their loved ones, dependents, etc that will suffer the consequences of strangers' decisions?
Yes, because quality of life is subjective, and we aren't making the decision about our own lives, but someone else's. If a man's quality of life is too low in his estimation, he is free to take his own life. Looking at another's prospective quality of life, finding it wanting, and killing them without their consent is the business of Nazis and other barbarians.
Do you believe this is a black and white issue?
And you are looking at a woman's prospective future and quality of life and DECIDING FOR HER. IMO that is immoral. The unborn may not even survive until birth and if it does, it may be severely mentally or physically defective. The woman is here, part of society and a chain of loved ones.
Adults do make the difficult decisions about their own lives, their families, even the lives of their children. If they believe they are acting in the best interests of their own and others' lives...why should strangers be more entitled to do so?
I do not see this. Is the child's humanity better preserved by killing it?
It is not preserved. That should be clear. It should not be preserved at the expense of all who and what the woman is as an individual and moral agent and contributes and means to others. That's my moral stance.
