No, the logics invalidity does that, though you do not seem to like its conclusion either. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 24/08/2012 07:50:37 AM
Specifically, to declaring all women with just cause for abortion legally incompetent, and abortion doctors accomplices to murder. The latter is why a Sheriff candidate from a certain party says it is OK to kill them regardless of the law.
Again you say all, yet I am speaking only of rape victims and only in the context of an exemption from an abortion ban for rape.
*shrugs* OK, declaring RAPE VICTIMS with just cause for abortion legally incompetent to decide that, and abortion doctors accomplices to murder, is just as objectionable. It also leads just as inexorably to justifiably killing doctors to save babies. You keep glossing over that terminal (in several ways) part of your logic.
The moral systems where people are not obliged to accept burdens from a possible being with reasonable doubt it is a being and no way to be sure. In your analogy there is no such reason to doubt the voice is a person in the well, and verifying it is/not is easy. The crux of Roe is that we cannot know the fetal state but manifestly know the womans. Thus the latter has priority and, even did it not, sole discretion to decide the former.
We don't know the woman's, not legislating from on high for all cases, and I do not accept that we can't know the child's, we just aren't currently sure. If it's even a coin flip, even a 50/50 that this is a person, I don't see the moral wiggle room. But again, that's irrelevant because Roland's argument, to which I was replying, places personhood of the fetus as an assumption.
Alright, IF we KNEW a fetus a being (which we cannot now) AND accepted abortions to spare women death or serious injury AND guaranteed adoptive homes, THEN I would oppose other abortions. I brought up Doe because I loathe it stating literally ANYTHING a doctor accepts sufficient psychological health motive.
Counterpoint: Death or serious injury to the mother, unless you concede that exception under "triage."
RE: I have said endlessly that I always consider triage as valid and a seperate matter from elective abortion, which again is what we are discussing. A specific exemption for elective abortion in the case of rape when one already assumes elective abortion is not valid for other cases.
Fair enough then; I honestly could not remember your position there for certain (sorry.)
How does your false dichotomy justify irritation with me? If unwanted pregnancys trauma destroys legal competence, everyone is incompetent to make any serious medical decision for themselves or family. A mother with a critically ill child is competent to decide treatment, but a possible mother too stressed for competence to decide whether to end the pregnancy? 
In terms of letting those with comptence the woman lacks decide, no law requires any doctor perform an abortion, so all doctors may be that other person (Does health exception effectively requires it.) In fact, in terms of competence itself, guess who decides THAT: Doctors.
In terms of letting those with comptence the woman lacks decide, no law requires any doctor perform an abortion, so all doctors may be that other person (Does health exception effectively requires it.) In fact, in terms of competence itself, guess who decides THAT: Doctors.Well the 'confused' sure fits, none of what you say matches my comments save in the loosest sense. If I encounter someone whacked out on LSD asking me to give them a tattoo, I say "NO", because while I'm on shifty moral ground to stand by idly while they give themselves one, I surely have no business doing it for them, and I definitely don't have any business giving one to their unconscious friend because the guy on acid told me to. Disturbed, upset, etc is not 'of unsound mind', nor are rape victims by default of unsound mind, but when we make the justificaiton for an exception predicate don the assumption that their case is different specifically because of the truly overwhelming emotional truama involved I think it's damned illogical not to stop and go "Well, doesn't that sort of invalidate the assumption they are a rational decision maker?"
I don't get your objection to this, and you keep trying to make it all-inclusive of every abortion, but again we are operating entirely in a specific set of assumptions in which rape alone is different and personhood is taken for granted... you don't seem to be able to absorb that and respectfully if you can't I think you need to bow out of this conversation which was aimed at a specific remark from Roland, not you.
As I understand Rolands comments, the position he describes as "middle ground" does not concede fetuses are beings. However, I can discuss it on that basis if we agree there is currently no way to know and the discussion is thus purely hypothetical until/unless that changes.
I disagree psychological trauma great enough to justify abortion is so great it eliminates competence to decide. Trauma can be great enough to justify a serious act without being so great it removes competence to decide them. Again, I can only speculate, but do not believe the trauma of rape-pregnancy any greater than that of ones child being hospitalized with life-threatening illness. Yet we do not tell parents, "sorry, you cannot choose your childs treatment; you are too close, incapable of rationally deciding it." You have gone to the opposite extreme from Doe: Instead of all pyschological stress being sufficient for abortion, none is.
There is no ethical conundrum, because the doctor not only can but must decide whether to perform the abortion whatever the woman wants for whatever reason. The doctor is also more capable of determining her mental state than anyone not medically trained, largely eliminating that concern. That concern is not great in the first place, because the trauma of unwanted pregancy does not automatically make her incompetent any more than the trauma of a gunshot wound or cancer would. Ignoring all that to say her mere desire for abortion makes her legally incompetent to decide on it, and the doctor thus criminal in performing it, is just bad logic.
Again, you are outside the context of this conversation because it *assumes* things you are not ceding. This is not the venue for what you are attempting to discuss. If I say "Let us assume for the sake of argument that the world is a cube" bringing up that it is a sphere or torus or Trapezoid is *not* appropriate. The context is *specifically* an assumption of personhood and whether or not a rape exception is permissible in a situation in which abortion is otherwise banned because we have assumed the fetus is a person entitled to not otherwise be aborted, damn it. Stay in the zone of the conversation or get the hell out of it.
My summary paragraph remains entirely valid with personhood conceded. So does the logical culmination of which you keep stopping short: If a fetus is a being, not only is killing it criminal when no other lives are at risk, but killing the doctor is legal if the only way to save the baby.