is abortion correct when it saves the mother?

[northcity4]

Note: I have yet to read the article so please correct me if any of this is addressed inside (I will be reading it tonight).

1) I expected a Rights based discussion (non point system) rather than a Utilitarian based one (point system). Surprising but not problematic.
Mom dies fetus lives: 1 full life + the lives of its offspring
Mom1 survives fetus dies: rest of her life + the lives of her future offspring
Mom2 survives fetus dies: rest of her life + the lives of her future offspring
The exponential growth that starts multiplying earliest has the higher total at any single point. Depends on the mother's plans for future offspring.
Mom1 > fetus > Mom2

Not quite so.

Our equation is more like 1000x-x^2


Notice at first as x is small the numbers go up quickly. But as the mom gets older (increase x), say x=100000, it begins to slow down. So, our exponential growth was fast at first, but is no longer as she is older. The only way your claim would work is if this mom is basically a teen/early 20s.

The other issue is that fertility may not be what we want to use as a 'plus.' Sometimes over population is bad. If in your claim the mom would produce more children, then this could actually be a bad thing.

If producing is good, say e to some x power, of course the mom has a head start, but if we count time left (say 50 yrs for mom and 75 for fetus, then we get this...

mom: y+e^(x), x is a sequence where n:1,2,3..., but mom has a limit now (50 yrs) so our sequence is n:1-50 (y=how many children she has already had)

fetus: e^(x), same as mom, but n:1-70, so the fetus here actually has the potential to even go farther.

Again this only matters if having offspring should give you 'more points' in terms of moral status.

I am arguing that offspring has no bearing on moral status as this would be a genetic fallacy for those who cannot have offspring.
To answer your question about a rights based discussion, the only one I could find through google were arguments from Kant/Utilitarian (which I see you wanted to move away from). Could you give an example where moral rights matters so i have something to feed off of?

[OldTrees]

I am arguing that offspring has no bearing on moral status as this would be a genetic fallacy for those who cannot have offspring.
To answer your question about a rights based discussion, the only one I could find through google were arguments from Kant/Utilitarian (which I see you wanted to move away from). Could you give an example where moral rights matters so i have something to feed off of?

1) You started with production as a metric.
2) I don't remember saying I wanted to move away from Kant. However my memory is not as good as it used to be. Was this from a prior discussion?

We could discuss the moral nature of letting die and the moral nature of draining resources.

[northcity4]

Note: I have yet to read the article so please correct me if any of this is addressed inside (I will be reading it tonight).

1) I expected a Rights based discussion (non point system) rather than a Utilitarian based one (point system). Surprising but not problematic.
Mom dies fetus lives: 1 full life + the lives of its offspring
Mom1 survives fetus dies: rest of her life + the lives of her future offspring
Mom2 survives fetus dies: rest of her life + the lives of her future offspring
The exponential growth that starts multiplying earliest has the higher total at any single point. Depends on the mother's plans for future offspring.
Mom1 > fetus > Mom2

point #1: that is what I meants. (non point system)

We could discuss letting die/draining resources. Although, I still feel like it won't change anything. You can still be guilty for killing something even if you don't directly do it. There was an old mythology story where the king had a son and had to kill him, but didn't have the heart to, so he abandons him in a forest hoping he'll die from hunger eventually (although he doesn't die lol)

[northcity4]

I am arguing that offspring has no bearing on moral status as this would be a genetic fallacy for those who cannot have offspring.
To answer your question about a rights based discussion, the only one I could find through google were arguments from Kant/Utilitarian (which I see you wanted to move away from). Could you give an example where moral rights matters so i have something to feed off of?

1) You started with production as a metric.
2) I don't remember saying I wanted to move away from Kant. However my memory is not as good as it used to be. Was this from a prior discussion?

We could discuss the moral nature of letting die and the moral nature of draining resources.

Production may have been metric, but it's probably best to leave it as a number than a value system.

[OldTrees]

Note: I have yet to read the article so please correct me if any of this is addressed inside (I will be reading it tonight).

1) I expected a Rights based discussion (non point system) rather than a Utilitarian based one (point system). Surprising but not problematic.
Mom dies fetus lives: 1 full life + the lives of its offspring
Mom1 survives fetus dies: rest of her life + the lives of her future offspring
Mom2 survives fetus dies: rest of her life + the lives of her future offspring
The exponential growth that starts multiplying earliest has the higher total at any single point. Depends on the mother's plans for future offspring.
Mom1 > fetus > Mom2

point #1: that is what I meants. (non point system)

We could discuss letting die/draining resources. Although, I still feel like it won't change anything. You can still be guilty for killing something even if you don't directly do it. There was an old mythology story where the king had a son and had to kill him, but didn't have the heart to, so he abandons him in a forest hoping he'll die from hunger eventually (although he doesn't die lol)

There exist people today that will die unless they receive food. By not giving more food than we currently do we let people die. Does this really have the same moral significance as killing those people?

[northcity4]

Note: I have yet to read the article so please correct me if any of this is addressed inside (I will be reading it tonight).

1) I expected a Rights based discussion (non point system) rather than a Utilitarian based one (point system). Surprising but not problematic.
Mom dies fetus lives: 1 full life + the lives of its offspring
Mom1 survives fetus dies: rest of her life + the lives of her future offspring
Mom2 survives fetus dies: rest of her life + the lives of her future offspring
The exponential growth that starts multiplying earliest has the higher total at any single point. Depends on the mother's plans for future offspring.
Mom1 > fetus > Mom2

point #1: that is what I meants. (non point system)

We could discuss letting die/draining resources. Although, I still feel like it won't change anything. You can still be guilty for killing something even if you don't directly do it. There was an old mythology story where the king had a son and had to kill him, but didn't have the heart to, so he abandons him in a forest hoping he'll die from hunger eventually (although he doesn't die lol)

There exist people today that will die unless they receive food. By not giving more food than we currently do we let people die. Does this really have the same moral significance as killing those people?

Trying your best vs doing nothing is what you have stated. Today, in medical care, it's true, a lot of moms will die from birth, but that number is significantly reduced due to the fact we have hospitals with advanced technology.

Now, I am going to assume for a moment you thought of things like government programs when you made your last statement. Like, why not in some countries do the government supply more resources for its people and know if they don't do so they will die? There are other factors that could be the result of this

1) war
2) poor people: did they put themselves in this situation or not? hard to tell
3) maybe government is putting out as much as it can without putting the country in debt

Of course, there is the possiblity government is being selfish and thus would seem immoral.

In the mom's situation for abortion, I don't feel like the draining resource issue matters unless it is to point out that it's the same thing as killing someone.

As far as if it has the same amount of moral significance...yes. Refusal to put your citizens out of a state of lots of deaths is like letting the people slowly die out. Like I have said though, there are factors that do need to be considered.

When I took my very first philosophy class (long ago), we were asked about a situation where there is a famine and there is this poor guy. The poor guy is starving and steals some food from this rich guy, but is caught and arrested. Please not before hand, the poor man had asked several times before and the rich man said no.

Now, did the poor man have the right to steal? no. Plain and simple because when you start to argue that he was dying, that is an appeal to pity=fallacy. The rich man on the other hand...he knowingly knew that this guy was dying and yet refused to help him..even just a little to keep him alive and in the court he argued 'my food, my decision'

What he failed to recognize was the priority of life over rights. This is where people get confused in abortion today. It's not right over life, but in America the government says that. In morals and ethics+logic, much easier to argue life over rights. Since when did your well being override the life of someone else? This leads us to the topic of life vs life (again a metric thing), but I am not sure if this is where we need to go

[northcity4]

For those who don't know why stealing was wrong in this case: appealing to pity only explains WHY he did what he did and that can help reduce his sentence for his crime. What the pity argument fails to do is explain why the poor guy had the RIGHT to steal. Pity=fails to attack the argument and actually goes after the person instead.

Had the poor man explained something like 'there is a law that allows for it in this situation' or 'that bread was mine and I can prove it' then one can argue he had the right.

[OldTrees]

A few details you misunderstand:
1) "Trying your best vs doing nothing is what you have stated." Incorrect.
I stated trying and trying more. The difference between those states of effort is how many people are let die.
Is there a morally significant difference between not donating more to charity and going over there and killing someone?

2) "In the mom's situation for abortion, I don't feel like the draining resource issue matters unless it is to point out that it's the same thing as killing someone."
In the general case of abortion the only downside for the mother is that the fetus drains resources (stored and potential) from the mother. I felt it would be unreasonable to consider only the case listed in the OP.

3) "What he failed to recognize was the priority of life over rights." Does not compute.
If moral rights exists, then there is no priority of a non right over rights. In a rights based morality Life is valued as a direct result of either a positive right to life or a negative right from being killed.

Let us consider a modified trolley problem:
There is a runaway trolley going down the tracks. There is a fork in the tracks. On either track there is 1 person that cannot get off in time. You are close enough to the switch to change the default track from track A to track B. Is switching the track morally permissible or morally impermissible?

[northcity4]

This is why I pointed out the governement issue. There are factors that you are not considering.

Example: should I give to charity knowing that if I don't people could die? I am going to argue: yes, we have a moral obligation to not let innocent people die, but we can'r save everyone. Government is responsible for most of this. The other issue which needs considering is: did these people put themselves in a situation to die or was it outside causes? Isn't it the responsibility of the person in Maine to try to help those he knows around him that are dying? In a way, responsibility is subject to location.

2) Debatable. Some biologists argue the fetus is not draining resources but rather the body is feeding it. The wording of 'draining' implies the fetus is stealing. Secondly, for people who know they may have a baby, even for those unwantingly (rape victims), couldn't they have taken a pill/drug to stop the sperm reaching the egg? Why not go straight to a hospital after this happens...I am sure they could do something.
--->Basically, I am arguing the woman is responsible for anything that happens after pregnancy which means anything that happens is her fault.

3) The rich man infringed upon the poor mans negative rights. When a mom gets an abortion, she infringes on the fetus' rights to life. Also, please clarify how the  existence of moral rights means there is no priority of a non right over rights. Also, what is a non right?

In summary: I am still sticking to my conclusion (until my questions are clarified) that abortion is wrong due to the fact the moms physical rights not over lap the fetus' rights to life. Yes. the mom has rights to life as well, but in this scenario, there is no third party (trolley situation) determining the outcome. Here, the mom doesn't choose her life (which is still debatabley wrong since she is responsible for its life) over the fetus, she chooses to die and save the fetus or save her life and kill the fetus.

In the original trolley example, lifex1 vs life x5 which in this case a moral obligation is based off value system if and only if the entities (life) are the same for both sides. In you scenario, it's 1life vs 1 life so, changing the direction of the tracks...I guess it is permissible, but one asks why? If no other evidence can be found, I find no reason to say it's not permissible.

[OldTrees]

1)

I am going to argue: yes, we have a moral obligation to not let innocent people die, but we can'r save everyone.

• You have now answered the question. The next step is to provide reasons for your assertion.

2) Debatable. Some biologists argue the fetus is not draining resources but rather the body is feeding it. The wording of 'draining' implies the fetus is stealing. Secondly, for people who know they may have a baby, even for those unwantingly (rape victims), couldn't they have taken a pill/drug to stop the sperm reaching the egg? Why not go straight to a hospital after this happens...I am sure they could do something.
--->Basically, I am arguing the woman is responsible for anything that happens after pregnancy which means anything that happens is her fault.

First the implication was not implied. Drain means taking which is what the fetus does. Stealing is much more sophisticated a term.
Secondly those pills don't always work and are usually used because a fetus drains resources if implanted. So in the cases being discussed the fetus does drain resources.

3) The rich man infringed upon the poor mans negative rights. When a mom gets an abortion, she infringes on the fetus' rights to life. Also, please clarify how the  existence of moral rights means there is no priority of a non right over rights. Also, what is a non right?

You have now corrected yourself. Previously you stated that Life had a non rights based value that you were applying in your rights based argument.

In summary: I am still sticking to my conclusion (until my questions are clarified) that abortion is wrong due to the fact the moms physical rights not over lap the fetus' rights to life. Yes. the mom has rights to life as well, but in this scenario, there is no third party (trolley situation) determining the outcome. Here, the mom doesn't choose her life (which is still debatabley wrong since she is responsible for its life) over the fetus, she chooses to die and save the fetus or save her life and kill the fetus.

In the original trolley example, lifex1 vs life x5 which in this case a moral obligation is based off value system if and only if the entities (life) are the same for both sides. In you scenario, it's 1life vs 1 life so, changing the direction of the tracks...I guess it is permissible, but one asks why? If no other evidence can be found, I find no reason to say it's not permissible.

• If you conclusion includes the assertion that abortion is killing the fetus rather then letting the fetus die then you should support that claim as well.

The trolley question was to force you to answer the question you answered in 1. That is to say you consider killing and letting die to have equal moral weight.

Summary: See bullets

[northcity4]

"we have a moral obligation to not let innocent people die, but we can't save everyone."

I really don't know the best way to really give support or make my claim more sophisticated so I do ask those of you reading to ask questions/opposing views/evidence to help understand this topic.

ill start by this: Peter Singer has argued that we have a moral obligation to help those suffering from famine. This moral obligation is rooted in the concept of beneficence, an alleged moral principle. Singer formulates that obligation in the following manner: "if it is in our power to prevent something very bad happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, we ought to do it." from http://www2.webster.edu/~corbetre/philosophy/moral/others/distant.html

Now, the mom in abortion: does she have a moral obligation to the fetus? Yes. If you look at singers definition, you might assume quickly that the answer is no since the 'comparable' is the moms life. The problem is the theory of third parties. Here the mom can prevent the fetus from dying, but at the cost of her own life, so it seems logical to let the fetus die. But as I have argued, letting the fetus die would be murder.

How is letting the fetus die=murder?

Support:
Just because you don't directly kill someone or cause a big problem doesn't mean you could not have easily prevented it.

Example: 9/11. Let's pretend the airport CEO knew he just let hi jackers onto his planes. Is he guilty of the deaths/chaos associated with 9/11? Yes. Sure, he didn't fly the planes in, but he let people in to do the work basically.

Example: You see people walk into a store and knowingly know that it will explode soon. Now, I am sure people will believe you are fake at first, but did you stop there? Did you ask the manager/security to at least check for bombs in specific areas?

situation 1) they listen to you and find the bomb. Good

2) They don't listen and you honestly try your best. Good. You did you absolute best and thus if they still choose not to believe you, the blame shifts from you to the manager/those in charge.

Example: you are raped and are pregnant and don't want to have a baby. Moral obligations are also the refusal to infringe on peoples rights (like positive/negative). That baby has just as much rights as you do. It sucks you got raped, but if you get that abortion, you fulfill an obligation to yourself (keeping yourself alive), which in the above article is not very high on the moral scale, at the cost of someone elses life (very high). The reason this scenario isn't a life for a life example is because there is no third party involved.

Third party=trolley example. Please note that for the permissibility of the third party to choose means that the third party has no alternatives and actually must choose.

Example: If the woman asked for a vote to get an abortion or not as a means of it being morally permissible would not work since the woman actually has to 'kill' the baby herself. If the woman had no choice and a third party had to choose and do it themselves, they are now in the wrong since the situation does not put there decision over the lives of others.

A plausible situation for the third party involving abortion would have to be somewhere like this: God takes you to this place where you must decide to either kill mom, save fetus or kill fetus,save mom. You must make a decision right now or both will die.

These examples are the best way of me giving support at the moment.

[OldTrees]

Singer formulates that obligation in the following manner: "if it is in our power to prevent something very bad happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, we ought to do it." from http://www2.webster.edu/~corbetre/philosophy/moral/others/distant.html

This is the weakest point of your argument currently.
What does the clause "ought to X" imply about the moral character of X and !X?
I ought to be the paragon of benevolence.
I ought to not murder.
Ought implies that the course of action is morally superior to its alternative.
Neutral actions are superior to Impermissible actions.
Moral Obligations are superior to Impermissible actions.
Supererogatory actions are superior to Impermissible actions, Neutral actions and Moral Obligations (though in the X vs X+ manner).
To say one "ought to X" does not imply that "!X" is an impermissible action.

Note1: It is confusing when you switch back and forth between deontology and consequentialism.
Note2: The Airport security has an additional responsibility as a result of the contract they agreed to with the clients. They are a poor example.
Note3: A common way of providing support is the logical argument. Consult mathematical deductive proofs for examples.