is abortion correct when it saves the mother?

[kimham8a]

I think the main core, or essential thing about this argument, is that if the fetus in a mother is a human or not and if getting an abortion is murder.

But let's assume that a fetus is a person, and that getting an abortion is an equivalent of LETTING DIE, NOT MURDER. I would argue that getting an abortion is letting die, because you never asked for him. It's not murder. It's very different.

There was an analogy I saw in some paper. I'll share it with you.

Imagine that you wake up one day to find yourself in a hospital hooked up to a famous violinist. The violinist is a very famous musician but has a very bad disease. He needed to share kidneys of a certain blood type, and you were the only one that had it. So his fan club decided for his sake to kidnap you and hook you up with him. Your kidneys are constantly being used by both him and you. You can not move around. Now, you have two choices. Either, you stay there, be a good person and let him use your Kidneys. He'll be better after a few months; after that you can go. But what if he still needs your kidneys? After a few years, you can move around, but he constantly has to be around with you. Sharing your kidneys. You never asked for this; you were just being kind.

OR!!! You don't want to stay there for a whole few months just so this random person's life can be saved. You decide to just unhook yourself and be free for the next few months and beyond. After all, YOU NEVER ASKED FOR THIS.

I think you should keep the person alive. Even if you didn't ask for it, it's not like he did either. If the situation were reversed, would you want to die?
But I mostly agree with your conclusion. Women should be allowed to abort in all cases. It's like killing a mouse (which isn't right, but better than forcing a kid to have a mother that doesn't want him.

its a far jump from "should" to "must"

Yes. I say should, not must. You shouldn't be punished for letting the person die. But you I think you should save the person.

[OldTrees]

I think the main core, or essential thing about this argument, is that if the fetus in a mother is a human or not and if getting an abortion is murder.

But let's assume that a fetus is a person, and that getting an abortion is an equivalent of LETTING DIE, NOT MURDER. I would argue that getting an abortion is letting die, because you never asked for him. It's not murder. It's very different.

There was an analogy I saw in some paper. I'll share it with you.

Imagine that you wake up one day to find yourself in a hospital hooked up to a famous violinist. The violinist is a very famous musician but has a very bad disease. He needed to share kidneys of a certain blood type, and you were the only one that had it. So his fan club decided for his sake to kidnap you and hook you up with him. Your kidneys are constantly being used by both him and you. You can not move around. Now, you have two choices. Either, you stay there, be a good person and let him use your Kidneys. He'll be better after a few months; after that you can go. But what if he still needs your kidneys? After a few years, you can move around, but he constantly has to be around with you. Sharing your kidneys. You never asked for this; you were just being kind.

OR!!! You don't want to stay there for a whole few months just so this random person's life can be saved. You decide to just unhook yourself and be free for the next few months and beyond. After all, YOU NEVER ASKED FOR THIS.

I think you should keep the person alive. Even if you didn't ask for it, it's not like he did either. If the situation were reversed, would you want to die?
But I mostly agree with your conclusion. Women should be allowed to abort in all cases. It's like killing a mouse (which isn't right, but better than forcing a kid to have a mother that doesn't want him.

its a far jump from "should" to "must"

Yes. I say should, not must. You shouldn't be punished for letting the person die. But you I think you should save the person.

Agreed.
No one is pro abortion. Some merely feel the pregnancy is a should rather than a must.

[Cheesy111]

The problem I find with the 'parasite' line of reasoning is that the fetus is put into the life or death situation by the mother, assuming a non-rape conception.  She may not have asked for it, but she did cause it.

[russianspy1234]

The problem I find with the 'parasite' line of reasoning is that the fetus is put into the life or death situation by the mother, assuming a non-rape conception.  She may not have asked for it, but she did cause it.

does a person who smokes not have the right to get treatment for lung cancer?
does a person who orders a stake done rare not have the right to get treatment for tapeworm?

[OldTrees]

The problem I find with the 'parasite' line of reasoning is that the fetus is put into the life or death situation by the mother, assuming a non-rape conception.  She may not have asked for it, but she did cause it.

This then gets into the question about whether consent can be revoked or if an initial consent carries for the entire duration. Our laws about rape claim that consent can be revoked once given. If so then consent for use of the womb can be revoked.

[mesaprotector]

The problem I find with the 'parasite' line of reasoning is that the fetus is put into the life or death situation by the mother, assuming a non-rape conception.  She may not have asked for it, but she did cause it.

does a person who smokes not have the right to get treatment for lung cancer?
does a person who orders a stake done rare not have the right to get treatment for tapeworm?

Well, they certainly can and should get treatment, but they should pay for it. It's not like they didn't have any idea there were risks. The same thing applies to most cases of abortion.

As to whether consent can be revoked, OldTrees makes a good point. The only argument I can think of against it is that stopping short of intercourse is not immoral, while there are arguments that the act of terminating a pregnancy is immoral. But that's an issue we're not going to be able to settle.

[OldTrees]

As to whether consent can be revoked, OldTrees makes a good point. The only argument I can think of against it is that stopping short of intercourse is not immoral, while there are arguments that the act of terminating a pregnancy is immoral. But that's an issue we're not going to be able to settle.

I will now offer another model.

While consent can be revoked in the case of sex, consent cannot be revoked in the case of a binding contract. I do not know which model is applicable.

[Cheesy111]

Spoiler for Hidden:

As to whether consent can be revoked, OldTrees makes a good point. The only argument I can think of against it is that stopping short of intercourse is not immoral, while there are arguments that the act of terminating a pregnancy is immoral. But that's an issue we're not going to be able to settle.

I will now offer another model.

While consent can be revoked in the case of sex, consent cannot be revoked in the case of a binding contract. I do not know which model is applicable.

Sex is an act that can be stopped at any time without harm to either party.  A binding contract is generally because stopping would cause harm to one party or another (for example, if the star of a TV series left in the middle of a season, he would be irreplaceable and the remaining movies would suffer).  I see abortion as falling into the second category.

[Jenkar]

Abortion is "correct", imo .
I personally think that categorizing people into sentient beings starts way after birth, this possibly being never. In my opinion, people actually become human beings once they start being able to make their own moral choices, whatever those are.

[memimemi]

I don't like that this is framed as a morality question; isn't it more one of women's rights?

Accepting the (hugely game-changing) assumption that a fetus is sentient from conception on, then both mother and father are automatically in the wrong, for having caused a 9-month prison sentence upon an unwitting, sentient being.  9 months of, essentially, solitary confinement.

Even after as short a time as a few days, the effects of solitary on a sentient human can be devestating.  Hallucinations, self-mutilation, suicidal depression, associative disorders, etc...

So, basically, the OP has put us NOT in a questioning of the morality of abortion, but rather in the sticky spot of deciding whether it's more morally permissible to be a jailor/torturer, or a killer.

Going by some of the highest standards accepted by the bulk of humanity (the Universal declaration of human rights; the Geneva convention), torture is actually LESS approved than killing.  Look at the rules of war - it's fine to kill an enemy combatant, but POWs have basic rights against torture.

With that considered, it's not only morally permissible for the woman to terminate the pregnancy; it's a moral imperative to do so, as quickly as possible.

[OldTrees]

I don't like that this is framed as a morality question; isn't it more one of women's rights?

I don't like that this is framed as a morality question; isn't it a morality question?

Rights are a part of Deontological ethics.
The questions from that perspective are:
1) Does the woman have any relevant rights?
2) Can the organism in the womb have rights?
3) Does the organism in the womb have any relevant rights?
4) Do these rights conflict?
5) Which rights are dominant in this case?

[memimemi]

I don't like that this is framed as a morality question; isn't it more one of women's rights?

I don't like that this is framed as a morality question; isn't it a morality question?

Uh... no?  But, whatever. Please note that this point was incidental, and presented as an opinion, not as an argument.

Please respond, if you will, to the bulk of the argument presented, which works directly from the assumptions put forth in the OP.