06-13-2023, 05:59 PM
(06-13-2023, 05:49 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Let's use an even more precise scenario:
A child will die very soon if they don't get a new kidney.
Their mother is the only suitable match for a transplant.
She is in charge of all medical decisions involving the child.
The mother must decide whether or not to allow the child use her kidney.
Said decision will result in the child's life ending or continuing.
Does the child's right to life supersede the mother's right to autonomy?
Should the mother have the right to make that decision according to her own volition?
Would you support or oppose legislative action that would seek to take the decision away from her?
Michaelsean just answered this above, but I'll expound a bit. You're asserting there is no difference between a death by action and inaction. In one instance the mother is deciding not to take an action to save the child's life. In the other, abortion, she is taking an action to deliberately end the child's life. They are not the same.
If I push you off a cliff and you grab the edge and I don't help you up I caused your death. If I walk by and see you hanging from the edge of a cliff, don't help you and you fall to your death I failed to prevent your death. I trust you see the vast difference between these two choices.
