is abortion correct when it saves the mother?

[Planplan]

I... honestly don't know. But the woman, if she's a good person, will probably choose to sacrifice herself to let the baby live.

So sacrifice is only a good person choice ? What is a good person ?
I can't see a "bad" or "good" choice here, both have drawback.

[troll]
Don't abort and don't let the baby born, this way, he'll become a Schrödinger Baby ! Problem solved !
[/troll]

[russianspy1234]

the issue i have with this question is the same issue i have with many morality questions.  it assumes a dichotomy of moral or immoral (some do have a third neutral option but not most)  the thing is, something can be more moral than something else. a decision can be less immoral than another one, but still be immoral.  so with that in mind, obviously giving up your life to save someone elses is the MORE moral decision.  deciding not to though, is in no way immoral.

[nerd1]

the issue i have with this question is the same issue i have with many morality questions.  it assumes a dichotomy of moral or immoral (some do have a third neutral option but not most)  the thing is, something can be more moral than something else. a decision can be less immoral than another one, but still be immoral.  so with that in mind, obviously giving up your life to save someone elses is the MORE moral decision.  deciding not to though, is in no way immoral.

the reason there can only be one answer to this is simple; if the mother does nothing because she isn't allowed to do something then the baby lives and she dies. unless a specific decision is made, the mother will die.

[OldTrees]

the issue i have with this question is the same issue i have with many morality questions.  it assumes a dichotomy of moral or immoral (some do have a third neutral option but not most)  the thing is, something can be more moral than something else. a decision can be less immoral than another one, but still be immoral.  so with that in mind, obviously giving up your life to save someone elses is the MORE moral decision.  deciding not to though, is in no way immoral.

Immoral is usually used to describe morally impermissible actions.
Moral is usually divided into the broad categories of:
Required: Aka refraining from this action is immoral
Supererogatory: Aka this act is morally praiseworthy
Neutral: Aka permissible actions that are neither required nor praiseworthy

So the 4 major categories are Impermissible, Required, Neutral and Supererogatory. Obviously there will be differences of magnitude between actions within a category. Some complex actions are made by the sum of smaller actions that fit in these categories but the combination tends to also fit as a unit in one of these categories.

Mother's options in this scenario:
1) Die and the ___ will be born.
2) Abort and she will live.

Common categorizations on this topic:
Supererogatory, Neutral
Neutral, Neutral
Required, Immoral

[OldTrees]

the issue i have with this question is the same issue i have with many morality questions.  it assumes a dichotomy of moral or immoral (some do have a third neutral option but not most)  the thing is, something can be more moral than something else. a decision can be less immoral than another one, but still be immoral.  so with that in mind, obviously giving up your life to save someone elses is the MORE moral decision.  deciding not to though, is in no way immoral.

the reason there can only be one answer to this is simple; if the mother does nothing because she isn't allowed to do something then the baby lives and she dies. unless a specific decision is made, the mother will die.

There can be only 1 result. That does not imply that 1 of the 2 options is Immoral. (See chocolate vs vanilla or my previous post)

[nerd1]

the issue i have with this question is the same issue i have with many morality questions.  it assumes a dichotomy of moral or immoral (some do have a third neutral option but not most)  the thing is, something can be more moral than something else. a decision can be less immoral than another one, but still be immoral.  so with that in mind, obviously giving up your life to save someone elses is the MORE moral decision.  deciding not to though, is in no way immoral.

the reason there can only be one answer to this is simple; if the mother does nothing because she isn't allowed to do something then the baby lives and she dies. unless a specific decision is made, the mother will die.

There can be only 1 result. That does not imply that 1 of the 2 options is Immoral. (See chocolate vs vanilla or my previous post)

agreed. This isn't about whether one option is immoral or not, this is about which option would be more moral.

[Nepycros]

What would be immoral is making the choice for the mother, so I honestly cannot contribute to this. The mother's own morality decides this, and it cannot be held against her to want to stay alive. :/

[nerd1]

What would be immoral is making the choice for the mother, so I honestly cannot contribute to this. The mother's own morality decides this, and it cannot be held against her to want to stay alive. :/

Not quite. As the baby cannot make a choice, even though it is a sentient being, you must make a choice for them.

[Nepycros]

What would be immoral is making the choice for the mother, so I honestly cannot contribute to this. The mother's own morality decides this, and it cannot be held against her to want to stay alive. :/

Not quite. As the baby cannot make a choice, even though it is a sentient being, you must make a choice for them.

Ah, so I have the privilege to force the mother to come to term, and give her life? I find that immoral.

[nerd1]

What would be immoral is making the choice for the mother, so I honestly cannot contribute to this. The mother's own morality decides this, and it cannot be held against her to want to stay alive. :/

Not quite. As the baby cannot make a choice, even though it is a sentient being, you must make a choice for them.

Ah, so I have the privilege to force the mother to come to term, and give her life? I find that immoral.

obviously, it is not a privileged, but neither is it immoral, as from you perspective either has the same worth, so while you say which one gets to live, only one would live anyways, so a decision must be made.

[Belthus]

OK, maybe I get what you mean by outside view. If the mother is incapacitated and can't make a choice, the doctor should choose to save the mother's life. I believe that is standard medical ethics. The mother has a more privileged moral status than the fetus. You could imagine an exceptional situation as in Children of Men (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Men), where no one has given birth in decades, and saving the human species would be a higher priority than the mother. But the general rule is that the mother is more important.

[OldTrees]

the issue i have with this question is the same issue i have with many morality questions.  it assumes a dichotomy of moral or immoral (some do have a third neutral option but not most)  the thing is, something can be more moral than something else. a decision can be less immoral than another one, but still be immoral.  so with that in mind, obviously giving up your life to save someone elses is the MORE moral decision.  deciding not to though, is in no way immoral.

the reason there can only be one answer to this is simple; if the mother does nothing because she isn't allowed to do something then the baby lives and she dies. unless a specific decision is made, the mother will die.

There can be only 1 result. That does not imply that 1 of the 2 options is Immoral. (See chocolate vs vanilla or my previous post)

agreed. This isn't about whether one option is immoral or not, this is about which option would be more moral.

The OP (you) asked 2 questions:
1) Is Abortion ethical (Neutral, Required, Supererogatory) or immoral (Impermissible)?
2) Which option should the mother take (aka which option is more moral or are they equal)?

Since the second question is answered almost unanimously (some moral theories would disagree), it is not an interesting question. That leave the interesting and controversial first question.

TLDR: No, it is about which option(s) is/are moral (Neutral, Required, Supererogatory).