Althrun wrote:
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
I believe you proved my point there, kiddo. You can trot out all of the dictionary definitions that support your point of view that you like. None of them will change the fact that in context, your objection has little to nothing to do with morality. Your objection has everything to do with the character of a man, the man in question happening to show a distinct lack there of.
Both of the people involved find themselves in the unfortunate position of being greatly put out by the other's mirror opposite point of view. Think of it like this:
You are tied up on the ground unable to move, in a locked room, unable to call for help and unable to free yourself. I am tied up on the ceiling of the same room, clutching a blade positioned to cause your certain death if I drop it. I would be perfectly able to free myself were I to drop the blade, but this would kill you. it is impossible to free myself without dropping the blade, and it is impossible for you to be freed without me dropping the blade.
In this situation, making a selfish choice would have moral implications because your life is at stake. In the situation the man and woman in Britain find themselves, the selfish decision does not present a moral quandry as the woman's life will continue on, and she will have a great many options at her disposal to sate her desire to be a mother.
Morality never enters the argument in any credible fashion. You, sir, are a ******, and that is all my virtuous nature will allow me to say on the subject.