is abortion correct when it saves the mother?

[nerd1]

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.

generally, the doctor does this because s/he assumes that the mother has higher moral status, however, in this topi we are assuming that the fetus is sentient thorough all of pregnancy, and has the same moral status.

[Belthus]

generally, the doctor does this because s/he assumes that the mother has higher moral status, however, in this topi we are assuming that the fetus is sentient thorough all of pregnancy, and has the same moral status.

The sentience assumption and the moral status are not the same. I read your assumption about the fetus being sentient, but that doesn't mean it has the same moral status. If you insist on saying that it does, then you have assumed away the most controversial part of the problem.

As I have articulated elsewhere, being a rule-abiding participant in society is what earns you a relatively secure moral status. Those who cannot participate in that way must depend on the protection of those who do. Sentience is "the ability to feel, perceive or be conscious, or to have subjective experiences." Although it is probably necessary, it isn't sufficient. A dog is sentient, but it can only obey a fraction of the rules that exist in a human society. A cow is sentient, and yet most feel justified in treating it as food. We can come up with example after example of sentient beings that cannot be full participants in human society and thus have a lower moral status in human society than those who can be full participants.

[OldTrees]

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.

generally, the doctor does this because s/he assumes that the mother has higher moral status, however, in this topi we are assuming that the fetus is sentient thorough all of pregnancy, and has the same moral status.

False.
Neither assumption is universally agreed upon and the underlined one does not appear in the OP.

[nerd1]

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.

generally, the doctor does this because s/he assumes that the mother has higher moral status, however, in this topi we are assuming that the fetus is sentient thorough all of pregnancy, and has the same moral status.

False.
Neither assumption is universally agreed upon and does not appear in the OP.

I have an ethical question. before asking this, I would like to put down some postulated.
-A child is fully sentient during all stages of pregnancy
-A natural birth is the only possible option
-If the child is born, the woman dies
-If the child is aborted then the woman lives
to sum it up
-only one can live
-if the woman dies, then the child will live, without any birth defects
-The woman knows this
Looking at it from an outside point of view, do you believe it would be ethical for the woman to abort the child to save her own life, or should she have to die and let the child live? why or why not?

Okay, Here are a few edits,
-if the baby is born, It will be cared for
-if the baby is aborted, the mother will be perfectly fine, and there will be no side effects from abortion.
and here is an optional choice to add in your responses:
-whichever one lives will be immortal

the baby is sentient through all of pregnancy, although I would like to retract my previous statement that they both have the same moral value, that is for you to decide.

[OldTrees]

Sorry. I missed that. 

Counterfactual premises are usually not useful. A single cell is not sentient however sentience does emerge during pregnancy. Under some moral theories this transformation is important. Under others the end result is important.

[nerd1]

Sorry. I missed that. 

Counterfactual premises are usually not useful. A single cell is not sentient however sentience does emerge during pregnancy. Under some moral theories this transformation is important. Under others the end result is important.

my view is thus:
-humans are sentient
-at some point in pregnancy the fetus becomes sentient
-as we do not have a clear definition or way of measuring sentience, it is best to "play it safe" and not abort the baby at all, due to the very real risk of killing a sentient being.

[OldTrees]

Sorry. I missed that. 

Counterfactual premises are usually not useful. A single cell is not sentient however sentience does emerge during pregnancy. Under some moral theories this transformation is important. Under others the end result is important.

my view is thus:
-humans are sentient
-at some point in pregnancy the fetus becomes sentient
-as we do not have a clear definition or way of measuring sentience, it is best to "play it safe" and not abort the baby at all, due to the very real risk of killing a sentient being.

Science has advanced to the point that we can identify obviously non sentient and obviously sentient periods of pregnancy. There still is a gray area inbetween.
Some moral theories think the current state of the ___ is morally relevant
Some moral theories think only the final state is relevant
Some moral theories think that sentience is not morally relevant

[ninetyfools]

The woman should survive. The baby should die because if he knows he is immortal, he will get overconfident and arrogant. The woman can also make more babies. In the POV of the husband.... A husband always loves her wife in a good relationship. The husband and child have not spent any time together which means less "love" for the child.

[Elite arbiter]

The woman should survive. The baby should die because if he knows he is immortal, he will get overconfident and arrogant. The woman can also make more babies. In the POV of the husband.... A husband always loves her wife in a good relationship. The husband and child have not spent any time together which means less "love" for the child.

So the baby should die because it will become arrogant 'knowing its immortal', and yet the woman wouldn't? It feels like there's something of a gender bias. Not saying there is, just in the way you refer to the baby being a male and arrogant when the sex of the baby wasn't stated, and also how when you refer to the compassion of the husband you refer to him as "her".


On the larger case, I hold that it is ultimately the woman's choice on this matter, for most of the reasons stated before that it is her life to sacrifice. Not getting into the issue of sentience all the way through, sentience doesn't necessarily grant moral privilege.

And even granting that this child has the moral privilege, it still isn't a necessity under these terms. I will ask a similar question, which should demonstrate the issue I take with the position a mother must die to guarantee the birth of her child.

You see a man who is on the operating table and getting ready for a surgery, but the problem is that there is nothing to transplant for his heart. You can give your heart to save him, and only your type of heart will work. Or you can do nothing, and let him die. Must you save this other person? (Assume the victim isn't conscious and there is no way of communicating with him/her.)

Without taking the third option out, what is your answer, yes or no? And if you answer this question differently from the "Must the mother give her life for the birth of her child?", then what make one answer the choice of the person and the other a forced choice?

[Scaredgirl]

I don't understand this question. You say that:

A child is fully sentient during all stages of pregnancy

.. which is false because during those early stages of pregnancy, the fetus is so underdeveloped that it's not something any rational person would call "fully sentient".

This is like a moral question about a real life situation, but with a special rule that you made up. What is the point of even replying to this?

[ninetyfools]

The woman should survive. The baby should die because if he knows he is immortal, he will get overconfident and arrogant. The woman can also make more babies. In the POV of the husband.... A husband always loves her wife in a good relationship. The husband and child have not spent any time together which means less "love" for the child.

So the baby should die because it will become arrogant 'knowing its immortal', and yet the woman wouldn't? It feels like there's something of a gender bias. Not saying there is, just in the way you refer to the baby being a male and arrogant when the sex of the baby wasn't stated, and also how when you refer to the compassion of the husband you refer to him as "her".


On the larger case, I hold that it is ultimately the woman's choice on this matter, for most of the reasons stated before that it is her life to sacrifice. Not getting into the issue of sentience all the way through, sentience doesn't necessarily grant moral privilege.

And even granting that this child has the moral privilege, it still isn't a necessity under these terms. I will ask a similar question, which should demonstrate the issue I take with the position a mother must die to guarantee the birth of her child.

You see a man who is on the operating table and getting ready for a surgery, but the problem is that there is nothing to transplant for his heart. You can give your heart to save him, and only your type of heart will work. Or you can do nothing, and let him die. Must you save this other person? (Assume the victim isn't conscious and there is no way of communicating with him/her.)

Without taking the third option out, what is your answer, yes or no? And if you answer this question differently from the "Must the mother give her life for the birth of her child?", then what make one answer the choice of the person and the other a forced choice?

Looks like I got pwned.  8)

[nerd1]

I don't understand this question. You say that:

A child is fully sentient during all stages of pregnancy

.. which is false because during those early stages of pregnancy, the fetus is so underdeveloped that it's not something any rational person would call "fully sentient".

This is like a moral question about a real life situation, but with a special rule that you made up. What is the point of even replying to this?

this simplifies things a lot, and we don't need to argue about the "babies are people too" sort of thing. the immortality question is just a hypothetical situation for now, but if our technology develops to the point where humans can become, in essence, immortal, then that question will have worth.