Ya, that's morally irrelevant. There's no victim and she's doing what she wants with her own body, so it doesn't matter from an ethical point of view. If she's aware that her brother is trying to murder their father and doesn't try to stop this, then that would be immoral but making a decision about her abortion decisions aren't relevant to that.
That was a question for AntiChris; I take it you don't intend to answer the question I asked
you. Such is life. There's no victim? There are two victims, obviously. "Doesn't try to stop this", you call it?!? We're not talking about a sin of omission here. If she does nothing then her brother won't carry out his nefarious plan; she's actively choosing to get an impediment out of his way in order to tip the balance in his calculations and incline him to go through with it. So of course the father is a victim. The other victim is the doctor, whom you propose to put in the position of having to knowingly help cause a murder to take place.
I don't know what you think my position here has to do with my position on that unrelated issue in the other thread, but say what you think the relationship is if you like, but I don't actually see them as being similar matters.
Of course you don't. That's what comes of western culture having transplanted itself into the la-la land where walking away from somebody is considered "imposing" on him and the right to pull your nose out of the way ends at the reach of somebody else's fist.
"A woman's freedom to choose means that she has freedom to choose.", you say. So her freedom matters to you? "She's doing what she wants with her own body", you say. What, you think a woman owns her body? "The entire point is that it doesn't matter what the rationale behind her choice is.", you say. Are you suggesting, in all seriousness, that her uterus
is not just another resource for the state to deploy in whatever manner it sees fit? And right after all that, you say "The doctor does not have the right to impose his own moral choices on the patient and limit care because he does not agree with the rationale behind her choice." So the doctor's freedom evidently doesn't matter to you. You don't treat him as owning his body. Apparently it's up to you (presumably along with the rest of the voters) to determine what his hands will be used for.
So why the difference? What makes a pregnant woman a first-class citizen with real rights, and a doctor a second-class citizen put here as a living tool to serve the choices of the first-class? It appears for all the world that the reason you discriminate against the doctor is your three little words, "has a job", as though to take a job is to surrender to the collective your ownership of your body. You are making it look like in your head, "freedom to choose" means freedom to choose whether or not one has good reasons and the entire point is that it doesn't matter what the rationale behind the choice is, provided one isn't selling anything. But the moment one is selling something, one's freedom vanishes in a puff of hippy disdain for the bourgeoisie, or aristocratic contempt for tradesmen, or hunter-gatherer hostility to farmers, or whatever else it is that makes so many people think the freedom to trade with other consenting adults doesn't count as a real freedom.
In the other thread you were very explicit that your entire point was that
it absolutely does matter what the rationale behind the choice is,
if she's a prostitute. Then she can do anything she bloody well pleases with her own vagina provided her rationale for her choices isn't on society's list of unacceptable rationales.