is abortion correct when it saves the mother?

[Dm]

So, your the mom, your dying, and you can easily save your life if you just didn't have the baby. So to save your life will come at the cost of an INNOCENT life. That is our dilemma right there.

So you're the fetus, you're killing another person and you will be born without a problem if you are not aborted. So to save your life will come at the cost of an INNOCENT life.

That is our dilemma, right there.

[OldTrees]

So, your the mom, your dying, and you can easily save your life if you just didn't have the baby. So to save your life will come at the cost of an INNOCENT life. That is our dilemma right there.

So you're the fetus, you're killing another person and you will be born without a problem if you are not aborted. So to save your life will come at the cost of an INNOCENT life.

That is our dilemma, right there.

Is it?
1) Is there a significant difference between acting and not acting? One lives if an action takes place. The other lives if the action does not take place.
2) Does the fetus have a choice? Does it have the ability to choose to abort itself? Is inability to choose morally relevant?

[Dm]

Is it?
1) Is there a significant difference between acting and not acting? One lives if an action takes place. The other lives if the action does not take place.
2) Does the fetus have a choice? Does it have the ability to choose to abort itself? Is inability to choose morally relevant?

1) Depends. If you had the chance to act, yes. (Mother.) If you did not have the chance to act, (fetus) it does not matter if there is a difference for you would not act anyway. But IMO, yes, there is a difference. Not acting for the mother is, (in my opinion) the acting of the fetus - Not getting aborted. The lack of action of one leads to an "action" (hypothetical, as we know the fetus did not choose) of the other.
2) No. It does not. But it will be heavily affected by any of the two choices. To abort itself... I'd bring some stuff about spontaneous abortion but it wouldn't make sense. Is inability to choose morally relevant? I think so.

[northcity4]

Is it?
1) Is there a significant difference between acting and not acting? One lives if an action takes place. The other lives if the action does not take place.
2) Does the fetus have a choice? Does it have the ability to choose to abort itself? Is inability to choose morally relevant?

1) Depends. If you had the chance to act, yes. (Mother.) If you did not have the chance to act, (fetus) it does not matter if there is a difference for you would not act anyway. But IMO, yes, there is a difference. Not acting for the mother is, (in my opinion) the acting of the fetus - Not getting aborted. The lack of action of one leads to an "action" (hypothetical, as we know the fetus did not choose) of the other.
2) No. It does not. But it will be heavily affected by any of the two choices. To abort itself... I'd bring some stuff about spontaneous abortion but it wouldn't make sense. Is inability to choose morally relevant? I think so.

Correct, I am glad trees helped you understand what I was trying to say. Is the inability to choose morally relevant? You are correct in that it does matter. For example: you control my actions and make me kill millions of people...It's not my fault, I was forced/manipulated/put in a situation where I had no control.

Also, I think we can all agree the baby is not purposely killing it's mom. Plus, it's the bodies fault in a sense. It chose to have a baby. Why didn't it better prepare? What if this mom has 2 children before hand...shouldn't the body know what is coming by now?

[Dm]

Correct, I am glad trees helped you understand what I was trying to say. Is the inability to choose morally relevant? You are correct in that it does matter. For example: you control my actions and make me kill millions of people...It's not my fault, I was forced/manipulated/put in a situation where I had no control.

Also, I think we can all agree the baby is not purposely killing it's mom. Plus, it's the bodies fault in a sense. It chose to have a baby. Why didn't it better prepare? What if this mom has 2 children before hand...shouldn't the body know what is coming by now?

Well, in a sense, I think that the "body" knowing what is coming by now is another subject. Also, it "chose" to have a baby seems to be pushing it. There are a lot of ways in which you (as a person) did not "choose" to have a baby. We can then assume that, if the mother did not want to have that baby, the body did not choose to have that baby. (Considering the mother has full "control" over her body.)

In that same sense, you can argue that you were forced/manipulated/put in a situation where you had no control. Your body could be prepared for that.  But in the other hand it couldn't. Sure you had no choice, but did the Mother have a choice? Or was it simply by Luck that she ended up having a baby (wanting it or not) and it was not "compatible?"

The body can know. What if it can't prepare?

[northcity4]

I see you point. So let's take 2 scenarios. One where the mother didn't have the choice to be pregnant and the other where she had the decision.

1) raped
2) Married and decided to get pregnant (or just slept with someone)

In situation #2, I think we all agree the woman knew exactly what was going to happen.
in#1...let's talk about this. So you got pregnant out of your own will. Someone else already talked about this situation as waking up one day hooked in a hospital to some kidney thing. The guy next to you is dying and is also hooked to the same machine. You didn't ask to be in this situation, but if you leave, that person will die since he needs that kidney he's sharing. Do you stay or leave? Same scenario, do you kill the baby or do you not?

The best way to answer this is like comparing it to what is 'sin.' By definition sin is doing something bad...and KNOWING it's bad. You don't have the right to murder someone just because your life took a hurdle. Neither do you have the right to let someone die now because you know.

You get raped, pregnant...look sometimes life throws hurdles out us and we just need to get over them. Life isn't a stroll in the park. For you to murder someone just so you can get your normal life back or let someone die...I'll let you guys think about that.

[Dm]

I see you point. So let's take 2 scenarios. One where the mother didn't have the choice to be pregnant and the other where she had the decision.

1) raped
2) Married and decided to get pregnant (or just slept with someone)

In situation #2, I think we all agree the woman knew exactly what was going to happen.
in#1...let's talk about this. So you got pregnant out of your own will. Someone else already talked about this situation as waking up one day hooked in a hospital to some kidney thing. The guy next to you is dying and is also hooked to the same machine. You didn't ask to be in this situation, but if you leave, that person will die since he needs that kidney he's sharing. Do you stay or leave? Same scenario, do you kill the baby or do you not?

The best way to answer this is like comparing it to what is 'sin.' By definition sin is doing something bad...and KNOWING it's bad. You don't have the right to murder someone just because your life took a hurdle. Neither do you have the right to let someone die now because you know.

You get raped, pregnant...look sometimes life throws hurdles out us and we just need to get over them. Life isn't a stroll in the park. For you to murder someone just so you can get your normal life back or let someone die...I'll let you guys think about that.

The point is that the kidney thing is not going to kill you if you continue on with it. This fetus, this child, will kill the mother. That is a fact stated in the OP. In number 2, the mother's body was not "prepared" to have this baby. Either you die or he dies. The child didn't ask to be in this situation (and in number 1, neither did the mother.)

Throwing out some words here (possibly harsh?) - In number 2, the mother basically -should- die. She wanted the baby, and she now will have to die to give birth to it. It's arguable that the mother can just abort and move on with her life to get another child. And then? Can the mother live on knowing that she had to "kill" someone to have another? It is also arguable that the mother compensated killing someone by giving another life into the world. Maybe this child wasn't meant to be. The way or the other, she wanted it, and she should deal with the consequences.

However...

Both in 1 and 2, let us assume that the child was born, and she or he grew up healthily.

By whatever incident, this child discovers that his or her mother didn't go away into a trip, his/her parents are not divorced. He/she was born at the price of his/her mother's life.

I don't know about you, but that's a pretty high reality smack into the face. I don't know how I would react to that. But I can only imagine that any person, would feel in the very least, odd. I would personally be disgusted of myself. The mother would live on knowing she had to abort, kill a child (even though she could have another later, being the aborted one the result of a rape Or not). But she could have another child (but then again, on 2 I agree the child should be born... or maybe not. I lean more to the "Yes, be born" side at the moment.) Now let's go back to our child, now grown up, that just got this revelation. The mother would have to live on knowing she killed another to continue living. She can however find another children.
This child, however, would never find another mom (biological mother.) Can the child live on knowing it killed it's own mother? That his life only exists at the price of another?

It's harsh thinking that the mother can abort the Fetus, the Child, just to get another one (possibly that doesn't need to be aborted) later. But she can get another child. This child, had it been born, would never have another mother. As such, in case 1, I tend more to the "Yes. Abort." Side.

[kimham8a]

I think the inability of the fetus to care whether it lives or dies does matter. Killing plants sounds good to me, but not animals (though I still eat meat, it justs tastes too good).
The total pain felt by the fetus is 0. Whatever the mother gained from the abortion, however small or large, is worth more.

[northcity4]

I see you point. So let's take 2 scenarios. One where the mother didn't have the choice to be pregnant and the other where she had the decision.

1) raped
2) Married and decided to get pregnant (or just slept with someone)

In situation #2, I think we all agree the woman knew exactly what was going to happen.
in#1...let's talk about this. So you got pregnant out of your own will. Someone else already talked about this situation as waking up one day hooked in a hospital to some kidney thing. The guy next to you is dying and is also hooked to the same machine. You didn't ask to be in this situation, but if you leave, that person will die since he needs that kidney he's sharing. Do you stay or leave? Same scenario, do you kill the baby or do you not?

The best way to answer this is like comparing it to what is 'sin.' By definition sin is doing something bad...and KNOWING it's bad. You don't have the right to murder someone just because your life took a hurdle. Neither do you have the right to let someone die now because you know.

You get raped, pregnant...look sometimes life throws hurdles out us and we just need to get over them. Life isn't a stroll in the park. For you to murder someone just so you can get your normal life back or let someone die...I'll let you guys think about that.

The point is that the kidney thing is not going to kill you if you continue on with it. This fetus, this child, will kill the mother. That is a fact stated in the OP. In number 2, the mother's body was not "prepared" to have this baby. Either you die or he dies. The child didn't ask to be in this situation (and in number 1, neither did the mother.)

Throwing out some words here (possibly harsh?) - In number 2, the mother basically -should- die. She wanted the baby, and she now will have to die to give birth to it. It's arguable that the mother can just abort and move on with her life to get another child. And then? Can the mother live on knowing that she had to "kill" someone to have another? It is also arguable that the mother compensated killing someone by giving another life into the world. Maybe this child wasn't meant to be. The way or the other, she wanted it, and she should deal with the consequences.

However...

Both in 1 and 2, let us assume that the child was born, and she or he grew up healthily.

By whatever incident, this child discovers that his or her mother didn't go away into a trip, his/her parents are not divorced. He/she was born at the price of his/her mother's life.

I don't know about you, but that's a pretty high reality smack into the face. I don't know how I would react to that. But I can only imagine that any person, would feel in the very least, odd. I would personally be disgusted of myself. The mother would live on knowing she had to abort, kill a child (even though she could have another later, being the aborted one the result of a rape Or not). But she could have another child (but then again, on 2 I agree the child should be born... or maybe not. I lean more to the "Yes, be born" side at the moment.) Now let's go back to our child, now grown up, that just got this revelation. The mother would have to live on knowing she killed another to continue living. She can however find another children.
This child, however, would never find another mom (biological mother.) Can the child live on knowing it killed it's own mother? That his life only exists at the price of another?

It's harsh thinking that the mother can abort the Fetus, the Child, just to get another one (possibly that doesn't need to be aborted) later. But she can get another child. This child, had it been born, would never have another mother. As such, in case 1, I tend more to the "Yes. Abort." Side.

I disagree. I have talked with kids who grew up and found out earlier that their mom died after their birth. Sure, it's sad, but they life happens and to them they are able to move on. There is a reason it's easier for the child to move on then a mom who aborted her baby. Now yes, the child is the reason your dying, but it's not the child's fault which is one of the main reasons why people are so against abortion. Also, I have yet to meet a married couple who got an abortion due to the child would have killed them. I hear countless stories of the complete opposite: the mother dies because of the child. Never have I heard of a mom who said I got an abortion so I could live longer.

One of your last statements: can the child live knowing it killed the mother? Well, yes. 1) not the child's fault, 2) there are other reasons why birth kills the mom and sometimes it is not the baby. According to http://www.livescience.com/24127-fact-check-walsh-pregnancy-can-kill.html a lot of the pregnancy situations revolve around the mother's illness/medical conditions before hand. Thus this supports my case on the mom not being ready.

In the kidney situation, let's pretend that if you left the man, he would die within that hour...how would you answer that?

Also for rape victims, it still doesn't matter. Again life happens. That's like saying you have the right to steal a car from a dealership because yours got stolen. Imagine yourself debating to get an abortion after being raped to pregnancy. All the while your thinking about I didn't ask for this/I don't deserve this, did you ever consider the babies rights? Let's also not forget that something is morally okay just because the law says so. 

I am feeling you favor abortion in a rape because the woman got something she didn't want. Problem is when something like life comes into the issue, courts take a very interesting turn. If I give you a hamburger, you can say, or if I force it on you, you can throw it away. I give you a baby, then run off. Are you going to throw that baby in the dumpster since you didn't as for it? No, you'll call the police/hospital to help out the baby in the mean time.

I volunteer for an organization call RFKC. After you read about this you'll understand more of what I am about to say: sometimes foster parents don't want to deal with their foster children and leave them with us and they drive off. Great, now I am stuck with a child and have to waste more time making sure they get somewhere safe--->this is like the response we get when someone gets raped.
What if we had a heart change? Hey, I get to be a bigger part of this child's life now. Yes, we have to wait for the police to arrive since there are legal issues, but while we wait for some1 to get the child, maybe that's a blessing.

Also, 'child not meant to be?' Good luck arguing this...you are going to make a lot of rape victim children and kids who lost their mom's during birth very mad. By saying the child was not meant to be is to say they are not worth as much....because the mom most likely had an illness that caused her death. That is screwed up.

[northcity4]

I think the inability of the fetus to care whether it lives or dies does matter. Killing plants sounds good to me, but not animals (though I still eat meat, it justs tastes too good).
The total pain felt by the fetus is 0. Whatever the mother gained from the abortion, however small or large, is worth more.

The only reason the fetus felt nothing is because it's nerves are not full developed, but in reality getting slashed to death is still very painful to what that body feels. Yes, the mom gains life...at the cost of another life. And, it's most likely the mom's fault she had pregnancy problems in the first place.

Example: you are the manager of a store. You sing someone to work for you. You break a store policy and you know you'll get fired if your found out. So you blame one of your signed employees and they take your fall. I think we all agree this is immoral. Sure, you got to keep your job at the cost of someone else losing their job...and the situation was your fault in the first place.

[kimham8a]

I think the inability of the fetus to care whether it lives or dies does matter. Killing plants sounds good to me, but not animals (though I still eat meat, it justs tastes too good).
The total pain felt by the fetus is 0. Whatever the mother gained from the abortion, however small or large, is worth more.

The only reason the fetus felt nothing is because it's nerves are not full developed, but in reality getting slashed to death is still very painful to what that body feels. Yes, the mom gains life...at the cost of another life. And, it's most likely the mom's fault she had pregnancy problems in the first place.

Example: you are the manager of a store. You sing someone to work for you. You break a store policy and you know you'll get fired if your found out. So you blame one of your signed employees and they take your fall. I think we all agree this is immoral. Sure, you got to keep your job at the cost of someone else losing their job...and the situation was your fault in the first place.

You say the fetus felt nothing, but then you go on to say that it's ''very painful''. What do you mean by that?
For your example, it's different from abortion. The employee cares about his job. The fetus doesn't care about anything.

[northcity4]

I think the inability of the fetus to care whether it lives or dies does matter. Killing plants sounds good to me, but not animals (though I still eat meat, it justs tastes too good).
The total pain felt by the fetus is 0. Whatever the mother gained from the abortion, however small or large, is worth more.

The only reason the fetus felt nothing is because it's nerves are not full developed, but in reality getting slashed to death is still very painful to what that body feels. Yes, the mom gains life...at the cost of another life. And, it's most likely the mom's fault she had pregnancy problems in the first place.

Example: you are the manager of a store. You sing someone to work for you. You break a store policy and you know you'll get fired if your found out. So you blame one of your signed employees and they take your fall. I think we all agree this is immoral. Sure, you got to keep your job at the cost of someone else losing their job...and the situation was your fault in the first place.

You say the fetus felt nothing, but then you go on to say that it's ''very painful''. What do you mean by that?
For your example, it's different from abortion. The employee cares about his job. The fetus doesn't care about anything.

Again, your job doesn't take priority over human life. Every professional sports team for the most part says that if you have family matters that really need you attention, then make sure those are dealt with if you need to. They understand your job in life is not the most important thing.

As for pain, pretend you had no nerves. If I hit you constantly with a bat, you would feel nothing (you may feel the vibrations), but as far as pain, not really. Just because you don't have nerves doesn't mean your body is not experiencing pain. It's kind of like when you drug yourself to stop the pain your feeling. You body is still feeling the pain even though your are not. In a way the 'you' is different from the body. That is all I meant.

I was just saying this as an argument against the fetus feels no pain during an abortion. Again, there is reason why this isn't a large issue within the large debate of abortion.

Any ways let's go back to pregnancy problems. It seems everyone is leaning towards abortion only being okay if it kills the mom or unwanted pregnancy. I encourage you to read my last couple of posts and see where this conversation goes.