Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmr
That is not what I'm saying. What I wrote is that other points of view suffer equally with an incomplete answer, with loopholes, with potentially slippery-slopes and no ironclad defenses against them. So calling me out for those kinds of problems is not a particularly persuasive blow against my point of view.
This doesn't strengthen your view in the slightest. It's almost a form of tu quoque (formal logical fallacy) except you're not quite accusing me of having an incomplete answer. At the root, you're not really addressing the criticism and avoiding criticism by pointing to others.
I also think the ones you pointed to, especially especially honor killings, doesn't exactly strengthen your argument that your position should be considered to be solid. Most people reject honor killings, and so by categorizing your position like that, you're suggesting that your argument is "suffers equally" with something most people find morally grotesque.
Would you find it acceptable if the parents of a 10-year old and their doctor vote to kill the child on the basis of an illness that is non-life threatening? Maybe they tried to raise a DS child, and then after 10 years they're just tired of it and want to give up. Is that still morally acceptable on the basis of a lack of support systems for the parent?
Quote:
I would be much more interested in actual problems with it, not merely the idea that there could be problems if it is extended to other areas.
It *is* an actual problem, at least if you think that reasoning should be consistent. If you don't think the reasoning you use should try to be consistent, then that's a completely different story. Citing an absence of support systems is simply not enough.
Your position would be a lot more consistent if you simply believed that all elective abortions are okay, regardless of the circumstances, so that all this discussion about DS is merely a red herring.