If you are going to try the line “therapeutic practices are okay to do to children without their consent, but not preventative ones,” bear in mind that food is preventative, not therapeutic. It cures nothing. It prevents starvation.
Food, vitamins, vaccines—all preventative. You are going to have a rough time going full anti-vax. But you have to if you (bizarrely) draw your moral line between therapeutic and preventative care.
What’s going on is POSITIONAL GERRYMANDERING: one defines one’s position so specifically that it can’t catch anything else. Pro-abortionists are good at this. They WANT to give a PRINCIPLED exception to killing very young human beings but it always becomes ad hoc.
That is, it becomes either
“X is wrong and Y is a type of X, but Y isn’t wrong because it’s Y,” or
“X is morally permissible and Y is a type of X, but X is wrong because it’s X.”
“X is wrong and Y is a type of X, but Y isn’t wrong because it’s Y,” or
“X is morally permissible and Y is a type of X, but X is wrong because it’s X.”
“Killing innocent human beings is wrong, but killing very young innocent human beings is okay because it is.”
It will start as an attempt at a PRINCIPLE. e.g. “they lack consciousness” but quickly collapses as the principle does, “So killing unconscious people is okay?”
It will start as an attempt at a PRINCIPLE. e.g. “they lack consciousness” but quickly collapses as the principle does, “So killing unconscious people is okay?”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
