is abortion correct when it saves the mother?

[kimham8a]

In Kant's example person A can do a morally correct action by using the best possible action (which is determined by Utilitarianism).

You say that the flaw of using Utilitarian thinking is that both the killer and victim have equal reasons to be happy with their actions. But this is not true. When the victim kills the other in self-defence, he gains the joy of saving his own life. If the killer kills the other, he only gains the joy of killing someone (which should not be very great for a normal person).

I used the example of the old person because they probably have less life to lose. If I was forced to kill one person between a 30 year old and a 70 year old, I would choose the 70 year old if I knew nothing else about the consequences.

I agree that the value of a person differs. However, I believe we say that the value of all persons are equal because it is too difficult to determine the values of people. Fetuses are not one of those people whose value is too difficult to determine.

It is not okay to let the baby die if there is of no cost to you. But if the baby had an unknown chance of having a bomb under it that would kill just you if you tried to help the baby, it would be considerably more justified to help the baby. This ties in with the original case of the mother aborting when under pressure of life/death to do so.
The other case I believed it was okay to abort was if the mother decides so. This would change the case of the 'front door' example to where the person in the house has reasons to believe that helping the baby would cause more pain to the neighborhood as a whole than would be gained by the baby and the mother to do so (which should be rare and require strong circumstances).

[northcity4]

1) killer can have equal reasons. His reasons may be immoral, but can be the same happiness.
Killer: murder this guy, get 1 million dollars.
Victim:self defense, save my life.

Both people have pretty good reasons.

2) Best action possible again is not relevant to abortion necessarily. You seem to get caught up in thinking of the best outcomes are justification for abortion. I agree though, if the mom gets the abortion, the scenario will turn out better for the mom. However, outcomes do not justify the dominion over someones life all the time. In the case of abortion, outcomes do not give permissiblity for it. You cannot value the life of a fetus based on outcomes because then you start valuing all fetus' at different values. Like in math, example say y=x+x+x+x....the first x isn't different from any of the others, they are all the same. So, if we are going to argue outcomes, you run into a type of mathematical dilemma. What if having the baby will make things better over in this place? So, that fetus got lucky and this one did not? That is foolish thinking.

Killing old person: third party situation and thus can be justified. So, I have no opposition with that sentence.

3) You cannot claim fetus' value is easy to determine without evidence. We are arguing as if it is human. I will save a debate for the other way around in another time, but for right now, please assume fetus is human. I don't see how a human in a mom's womb makes it any less human than a mom.

4) First 2 sentences of the last paragraph: Yes, if there was a bomb, and YOU KNOW there is, then at least try to call for help. The dilemma is when people start assuming and then justifying which is why I don't feel this example works well.

Lastly, again outcomes/circumstances do not decide value in all cases. If you don't agree, please explain. The cases where it does apply may be a war effort in special circumstances.

[OldTrees]

So, you are at home and some guy is banging on your door. You open and see he's dying and asks for help. So, you are saying you can go back inside your house and leave him with no help?

It is permissible for me to go back inside.
I would not go back inside.
I would be disappointed in anyone that would go back inside.
However it is the disappointment at the lack of virtue rather than at the presence of vice.

[northcity4]

I disagree. I still feel there is a moral obligation in that sense. This is a case where the cost is so little to save a life (and convenient) that I don't believe it allows for permissibility. I think we should make a numerical chart to see when it is permissible and when it is not.

Just like in the rich/poor, there are cases when refusing to help no longer is a right.

[northcity4]

What you have just written trees is what one might call 'hard determinism.' Yet, usually this view misunderstood due to negative and positive rights. In the case of the dying man, you have the right to not let people in your home or open it to any unauthorized people, but what about the rights of the dying man?

[OldTrees]

So, you are at home and some guy is banging on your door. You open and see he's dying and asks for help. So, you are saying you can go back inside your house and leave him with no help?

It is permissible for me to go back inside.
I would not go back inside.
I would be disappointed in anyone that would go back inside.
However it is the disappointment at the lack of virtue rather than at the presence of vice.

What you have just written trees is what one might call 'hard determinism.' Yet, usually this view misunderstood due to negative and positive rights. In the case of the dying man, you have the right to not let people in your home or open it to any unauthorized people, but what about the rights of the dying man?

1) No I have not written about hard determinism.

Hard determinism (or metaphysical determinism) is a view on free will which holds that determinism is true, and that it is incompatible with free will, and, therefore, that free will does not exist.

2) I do not believe that people have a positive right to the extension of life. Such a positive right (like most theoretical positive rights) is contradictory given the existence of scarce goods. As such, letting someone die does not infringe upon their rights.
I will yet again remind you that I suspect we have different base premises on this subtopic.

[northcity4]

Actually, people do have a positive right to an extension of life. If you are dying, people around you have an obligation to help you (positive right). Now, as you claimed, this interferes with those people's negative rights. Here is the interesting point: if someone, like a doctor is there, the obligation falls to the doctor. If no doctor around, the obligation falls to those nearest and spreads out from there. Doesn't this infringe on those peoples negative rights? No, if and only if moral obligations do exist.

p1) positive and negative rights do exist.
p2) moral obligations exist (I will support this another time)
p3) Someone is dying outside your door and needs help.
p4) You are the closest person and the only person near the dying man.
Conclusion #1: Because of these follow circumstances, you have the obligation to help this person.
Conclusion #2: Failure to help would infringe on that persons positive rights and therefore impermissible.

[OldTrees]

Actually, people do have a positive right to an extension of life. If you are dying, people around you have an obligation to help you (positive right).

I am going to stop you here. You should review what you wrote in order to remember your error.
Done?
I stated my intuition. You responded by saying "nuh uh" and expecting me to change my mind. That was insulting to either or both of us.

Now, as you claimed, this interferes with those people's negative rights.

I am going to stop you here. You should reread what I wrote.
Done?
Why did you mistakenly assume I referenced negative rights? If something is contradictory it is a result of itself not of something else. So what I did write was that scarcity rendered certain theoretical positive rights contradictory (as in fulfillment of a positive right violating the same positive right)

[northcity4]

No, you claimed it's permissible and that your action only makes you less virtuous, but all things considered, still permissible not to help. I claimed you can stop people from entering your house, I didn't say it was okay not to help people. I think you took my previous posts out of context or misunderstood. Regardless, what I said this last time and now is what matters.

So, you are at home and some guy is banging on your door. You open and see he's dying and asks for help. So, you are saying you can go back inside your house and leave him with no help?

It is permissible for me to go back inside.
I would not go back inside.
I would be disappointed in anyone that would go back inside.
However it is the disappointment at the lack of virtue rather than at the presence of vice.

I am simply claiming that not only is it a lack of virtue, but also impermissible. I am not saying 'nuh-uh,' but rather saying that in the argument of positive/negative rights, it's impermissible. You failed to support your claim that it is permissible. I don't care if you didn't reference negative/positive rights...in logic you don't have to reference something for it to be relevant. In a sense, you supressed evidence that would otherwise alter your conclusion and thus commits a fallacy. Your case on the permissibility at this moment rests on the assumption that it's a lack of virtue and opinions for permissibility.

Your understanding of a man dying outside your door:

p1) There is a man dying outside my door.
Your 'i would' statements are beliefs and do not show relevancy to your argument as they do not support it. Opinions=/=statements
p2) Failing to help the man is a lack of virtue rather than vice (support please)-->I also feel like this is an opinion.
p3) Therefore, permissible. (permissiblity based on all might be opinions...I expected a better argument.)

[OldTrees]

No, you claimed it's permissible and that your action only makes you less virtuous, but all things considered, still permissible not to help. I claimed you can stop people from entering your house, I didn't say it was okay not to help people. I think you took my previous posts out of context or misunderstood. Regardless, what I said this last time and now is what matters.

So, you are at home and some guy is banging on your door. You open and see he's dying and asks for help. So, you are saying you can go back inside your house and leave him with no help?

It is permissible for me to go back inside.
I would not go back inside.
I would be disappointed in anyone that would go back inside.
However it is the disappointment at the lack of virtue rather than at the presence of vice.

I am simply claiming that not only is it a lack of virtue, but also impermissible. I am not saying 'nuh-uh,' but rather saying that in the argument of positive/negative rights, it's impermissible. You failed to support your claim that it is permissible. I don't care if you didn't reference negative/positive rights...in logic you don't have to reference something for it to be relevant. In a sense, you supressed evidence that would otherwise alter your conclusion and thus commits a fallacy. Your case on the permissibility at this moment rests on the assumption that it's a lack of virtue and opinions for permissibility.

Your understanding of a man dying outside your door:

p1) There is a man dying outside my door.
Your 'i would' statements are beliefs and do not show relevancy to your argument as they do not support it. Opinions=/=statements
p2) Failing to help the man is a lack of virtue rather than vice (support please)-->I also feel like this is an opinion.
p3) Therefore, permissible. (permissiblity based on all might be opinions...I expected a better argument.)

1) I stated my belief, not and argument to convince you to believe. (You might have noticed my statements about differing intuitions? This was an explanation not an argument.)
2) You stated an argument to convince me to believe otherwise that depended on inverting the core premise. (It is permissible -> it is not permissible)
3) You did not provide evidence for why I should agree with the inversion of the core premise.
Thus your attempt at persuasion was insulting to either or both of us.

PS: If someone does not agree with the existence of positive rights, then it is a mistake to claim they are evidence.

[northcity4]

1) Not an insult.
2) Positive/Negative rights are universal for all cultures. They vary, but are universal. I don't care if someone doesn't agree with their existence, they do exist whether they like it or not.
3) Quit trying to keep saying your stating your beliefs. This is a philosophical discussion which is why I am trying to 'change your mind' as you put it. Philosophy includes arguments, not opinions or beliefs simply put.
--->as far as I am concerned, I hold the lasting argument that has yet to be taken out. If you do not wish to continue on this thread, then please say so and we can close the abortion thread. I was hoping to continue a debate, but I see that is not the case at this moment.

All we are doing is going back and forth on a situation that really has nothing to do with abortion.

[OldTrees]

1) Not an insult.
2) Positive/Negative rights are universal for all cultures. They vary, but are universal. I don't care if someone doesn't agree with their existence, they do exist whether they like it or not.
3) Quit trying to keep saying your stating your beliefs. This is a philosophical discussion which is why I am trying to 'change your mind' as you put it. Philosophy includes arguments, not opinions or beliefs simply put.
--->as far as I am concerned, I hold the lasting argument that has yet to be taken out. If you do not wish to continue on this thread, then please say so and we can close the abortion thread. I was hoping to continue a debate, but I see that is not the case at this moment.

All we are doing is going back and forth on a situation that really has nothing to do with abortion.

3) Where we shared core premises we were able to discuss since we both considered the core situation to be true. When core premises are not shared then discussion breaks down. (remember "If P then Q", "Not P", Thus no valid conclusion about Q.)
When we shared core premises I put forth arguments to critique and you put forth arguments to critique. Outside of that useful area it is pointless to put forth arguments since the other person does not agree with a core premise. I said as much when I pointed out where our moral intuitions differed too much. You pushed for me to explain myself so I did. Not by putting forth an argument since I knew that would be folly but rather by explaining my belief so you would understand where the differing core premises are.

In case I need to be more blunt: "Our moral intuitions differ on whether letting die is always permissible or only sometimes permissible. This is a core premise we disagree on. Since we disagree on a core premise and both our positions are self-consistent, we will not convince each other. Thus this is the end of what we can build on the topic we were discussing. We concluded that letting die can be permissible and that the permissibility/impermissiblity of abortion depends on whether letting die is always or only sometimes permissible. Honestly this is the most progress I have seen in this thread."

2) Positive Rights are not universal for all cultures that use Deontology. Deontology is not universal for all cultures that use objective morality. Even if they were common beliefs for most people I do not consider "The bandwagon effect" to be valid considering it is a fallacy.

1) You might not intend it as an insult but contradicting a core premise with the intend of persuasion is an approach that insults either or both of our intelligences.