Is lying wrong all the time? I would say no.
Is lying all the time wrong?
I would agree with you that there are instances (I would go so far as to say
many) where lying is not wrong.
Unfortunately, this is another strawman and a false equivalency.
The world does not work this way.
Unfortunately logic and rational reasoning does work this way.
When it is so easy to demonstrate that the reason to hold a position is flawed, then the position that is held based on that flawed reasoning has no basis based on that flawed reasoning.
Another scenario is if there is a good chance the mother will die if she carried the baby, then I would again leave that up to the mother to decide what to do.
Again, this is contrary to the dictum of “killing of innocent human life is wrong” when it becomes less wrong to the point of being permissible.
Out of curiosity; can you describe where is the cut of line for “a good chance the mother will die”…..more than 50%…less….75%…. more?
Who should be the arbitrator of whether the chances are “good” or not…..a legislative body… a medical professional, the person involved?
Real moral decisions are not easy and we won't all agree on the resolution but I do believe that all human life has a right to live.
Yet you’ve partially enumerated situation where you deem it acceptable to circumvent that right to live.
I never said the human life was less innocent or less human life.
True you did not use those words.
However by stating the dictum “killing innocent human life is wrong” and then allowing for circumstances where it is allowed to “kill innocent human life”;
if the dictum is our basis… it follows that in certain circumstances either the life allowed to be “killed” is either less innocent, less human, or it is not “wrong”.
This is why I asked the question (as opposed to putting those words in your mouth) so that you might contemplate that discrepancy and explain it to me.
If we were to abandon the dictum;
all situations would maintain the same amount of “innocence” “human-ness” and degree of “wrong or right”.
If you want a gotcha question then here it is, say gotcha and move on.
I’m merely pointing out the flaw in the basis for your reasoning.
If you view this as a gotcha….. does that mean you concede that there is no defendable reason for discrepancy between the two positions you hold;
i.e. that “killing of innocent human life is wrong” as a basis for denying abortions….
and there are circumstances where “killing of innocent life” should be permitted?
Prolife and Prochoice people must define when an embryo/fetus become a protected entity.
That is precisely what Roe v Wade did….
“The Supreme Court disagreed with Roe’s assertion of an absolute right to terminate
pregnancy in any way and at any time. Instead, it attempted to balance what it regarded as a “fundamental” right to privacy with the state’s “compelling” interests in protecting the health of pregnant persons and the “potentiality of human life.” In doing so, the Court formulated a
timetable based on the notions of trimester and fetal viability (i.e., the “capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb”).”
(
Roe v. Wade | Summary, Origins, Right to Privacy, & Overturning)
No, this is not my stance. I think a mother that was raped should not have an abortion. However, I think that is a case I am willing to leave up to the mother since I have no idea what that would be like. I would hope she would keep the baby.
In other words, you believe that she should have a right to choose, and that you’re opinion is she shouldn’t have an abortion; but you don’t think the law should require the imposition of that opinion, but that it should remain ultimately her decision………correct?
Since you agree that there is no difference in the “innocence” or “human-ness” as result in the instance of rape/incest or consensual sex….
If it’s not about whether the mother became pregnant in an “acceptable/unacceptable” way……
why shouldn’t a mother that was using contraception in order to prevent conception, but becomes pregnant as result of consensual sex afforded the same right?
You want black/white answers so you can get gotcha moments.
It is your declaration of the dictum as the basis for your reasoning that sets up the paradox of not conforming to your black/white rational which generates your self described “gotcha moments”….. I’m merely pointing out the discrepancies in a hope that you (or anyone reading along) might recognize them.
Where do you draw the line on abortion and why?
I’m of the opinion that all sentient persons should have a right to bodily autonomy….
including women; and that no law should restrict that right.
I believe that Roe v Wade essentially got it right with viability outside the womb being a reasonable demarcation point at which an unborn child’s claim becomes compensate to that of the mother.
Why……. because I expect bodily autonomy and don’t think my claim to such should be any different to that of anyone else…including women.
They may not have wanted to get pregnant but most freely chose an activity that lead to the pregnancy. I have said this already but saying I chose to have sex but did not choose to get pregnant is like saying I chose to drink poison but I did not choose to die. One action leads to the next. One possible outcome of sex is a pregnancy no matter if you use contraception or not.
Yet another strawman.
Since drinking poison is not a basic human drive nor anything that rational people do; this is a false equivalency and a nonsensical one to boot.
They may not have wanted to get pregnant but most freely chose an activity that lead to the pregnancy.
One action leads to the next. One possible outcome of sex is a pregnancy no matter if you use contraception or not.
Most people freely choose to drive in a car.
Driving in a car is an activity known to at times result in accidents. (sometimes fatal or permanently disabling)
One action has the potential of leading to the next.
One possible outcome of driving in a car is getting into a serious accident if you use seatbelts and safety bags or not.
Many people die or are permanently disabled as result of a car accident while wearing seatbelts in cars equipped with safety bags and other safety measures…….
They may not have wanted to die or become permanently disabled, but most freely chose an activity that lead to death or permanent disability.
Are you seriously suggesting that they in some way deserved to be killed or permanently disabled since they chose to drive in a car?…..
Because that is essentially what you are saying about becoming pregnant.
www.acog.org
www.kff.org
