is abortion correct when it saves the mother?

[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?

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.

I agree that women's rights need to be discussed when talking about abortion.

However I recognize that Human Rights (including Women's Rights) are topics discussed in ethics and thus are a morality question.

[northcity4]

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


^ this was the  original question asked (please try to stay on topic) and from what I have read the biggest concerns are women's rights with babys inside of them and morality.
Some1 made a comment that a human isn't really human till it can make it's own choices and decide morality.

My thoughts I need help with: 1) Life happens, but is that an excuse? example: you get raped and are pregnant. Or you get born, but into a family where the dad abuses everyone to the point that if hes not gone, ull grow up just like him probably, so can we justify killing him?
2) take the situation literal from the human isnt really human example: put a 2yr old human back inside the mothers womb, can the mom now kill it?
3) law does say if you kill a pregnant women it is considered double homicide

^not arguing, but these are questions/thoughts I need help clarified. Also don't be like that one person who said to my first post "thats just silly, therefore that means nothing," please back up what you say.

Also, can someone please explain in their way what sentient means?

[russianspy1234]

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


^ this was the  original question asked (please try to stay on topic) and from what I have read the biggest concerns are women's rights with babys inside of them and morality.
Some1 made a comment that a human isn't really human till it can make it's own choices and decide morality.

My thoughts I need help with: 1) Life happens, but is that an excuse? example: you get raped and are pregnant. Or you get born, but into a family where the dad abuses everyone to the point that if hes not gone, ull grow up just like him probably, so can we justify killing him?
2) take the situation literal from the human isnt really human example: put a 2yr old human back inside the mothers womb, can the mom now kill it?
3) law does say if you kill a pregnant women it is considered double homicide

^not arguing, but these are questions/thoughts I need help clarified. Also don't be like that one person who said to my first post "thats just silly, therefore that means nothing," please back up what you say.

Also, can someone please explain in their way what sentient means?

as to your first one (and second one as well really) if someone is threatening you life, even if its not on purpose, you have the right to defend yourself and kill them first.  why should pregnant women be denied that right?

[OldTrees]

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

1) Sentience does not necessarily imply moral personhood (the state of having moral rights). [I will assume it does for now]
2) Consent may or may not be revocable. [I will assume consent is not an issue for now]
3)
There is a significant difference between killing a person and letting a person die. Some consider these to be morally equivalent. Others consider letting die to be morally permissible (unfortunate and undesired but permissible). If the child is already a moral person and consent is not being considered, then the issue is between the mother killing the child or the child letting the mother die. In this case they are either equally wrong or the child letting the mother die is the only morally permissible choice.
2)
However this changes when consent is added back into the question. If consent is revocable then this is not a case of killing vs letting die but rather a case of letting die vs letting die. This renders either option morally permissible.
1)
Finally if consent was given and is not revocable then the question of moral personhood rises again. If the child is not yet a person then abortion is not killing despite consent not being revocable. Now it is a question of breaking a contract vs letting yourself die.

I have covered most but not all of the cases above. Depending on your moral premises you will end at different issues.
(letting die vs killing)
(letting die vs letting die)
(breaking a word vs letting yourself die)

[kimham8a]

Children gain sentience at around age 3, not while being an embryo. Sometime around your first memory, anyway.

[Cheesy111]

Children gain sentience at around age 3, not while being an embryo. Sometime around your first memory, anyway.

Sentience/Moral personhood/Soul/Whatever is a complicated concept that is difficult to pinpoint.  I would not say that one's first memory is a marker of this.

[kimham8a]

Children gain sentience at around age 3, not while being an embryo. Sometime around your first memory, anyway.

Sentience/Moral personhood/Soul/Whatever is a complicated concept that is difficult to pinpoint.  I would not say that one's first memory is a marker of this.

It's when you know you exist. Not speaking of souls or moral personhood, just sentience.

[Cheesy111]

Children gain sentience at around age 3, not while being an embryo. Sometime around your first memory, anyway.

Sentience/Moral personhood/Soul/Whatever is a complicated concept that is difficult to pinpoint.  I would not say that one's first memory is a marker of this.

It's when you know you exist. Not speaking of souls or moral personhood, just sentience.

And how do you know that babies/embryos don't know they exist? You don't have to have memories to know that.

[kimham8a]

From the results of scientific experimentation of when they look at a mirror and show signs of recognition, and other such experiments. Or you could just ask them, as most can speak well enough at age 2.

[northcity4]

as to your first one (and second one as well really) if someone is threatening you life, even if its not on purpose, you have the right to defend yourself and kill them first.  why should pregnant women be denied that right?
[/quote]

Not true, you need to make the person aware of it first. Cops don't shoot a criminal right away all the time, if the situation allows it, they ask to put their gun down or let them do some explaining first. If your pregnant and the birth will kill you, the SITUATION allows you to explain to the baby to "stop growing" or ask if it understands what it is doing and see if it will stop...problem though is it's just a fetus and to hold a fetus responsible for your death is messed up. If a little kid kicks me, i don't retaliate and even if they don't care they kicked me and know they did so, I still won't retaliate...why? Not old enough yet to really be held accountable (would not kill them of course, but some appropriate punishment might be used). In the same way, a fetus cannot be held accountable. This is why the experts that are pro-abortion fight over if the fetus is even human. People will feel a lot better if it is not human. Still does this make it right? Forget the whole sentient thing...let's talk human. Can something non-human become human? If that fetus isn't human how does it one day become human? There are no recorded records of something non-human becoming human. If this statement is wrong, plz refer me to a source to prove so otherwise.

Just because you own your body does not mean you own what is inside of you or have the right to do with it as you please all the time---> Again I ask...if you stuck a 2 year old kid in your body, do you really have the right to kill it now? (weird example but worth mentioning)

[russianspy1234]

as to your first one (and second one as well really) if someone is threatening you life, even if its not on purpose, you have the right to defend yourself and kill them first.  why should pregnant women be denied that right?

Not true, you need to make the person aware of it first. Cops don't shoot a criminal right away all the time, if the situation allows it, they ask to put their gun down or let them do some explaining first. If your pregnant and the birth will kill you, the SITUATION allows you to explain to the baby to "stop growing" or ask if it understands what it is doing and see if it will stop...problem though is it's just a fetus and to hold a fetus responsible for your death is messed up. If a little kid kicks me, i don't retaliate and even if they don't care they kicked me and know they did so, I still won't retaliate...why? Not old enough yet to really be held accountable (would not kill them of course, but some appropriate punishment might be used). In the same way, a fetus cannot be held accountable. This is why the experts that are pro-abortion fight over if the fetus is even human. People will feel a lot better if it is not human. Still does this make it right? Forget the whole sentient thing...let's talk human. Can something non-human become human? If that fetus isn't human how does it one day become human? There are no recorded records of something non-human becoming human. If this statement is wrong, plz refer me to a source to prove so otherwise.

Just because you own your body does not mean you own what is inside of you or have the right to do with it as you please all the time---> Again I ask...if you stuck a 2 year old kid in your body, do you really have the right to kill it now? (weird example but worth mentioning)

actually, there is a common pro-abortionpro-choice argument that assets that it doesn't matter if the fetus is human, alive, or sentient.  someone mentioned it earlier in this thread, its called the unconscious violinist.  if someone is threatening your life, even accidentally and they aren't aware of it, you are allowed to act to save your own life.  it's pretty much the most basic human right.

[memimemi]

I agree that women's rights need to be discussed when talking about abortion.

However I recognize that Human Rights (including Women's Rights) are topics discussed in ethics and thus are a morality question.

Well, an ethical question =/= a moral question, but that's not important.  I'd still like it very much if anyone would care to respond to my point that the best (most morally/ethically justified position) is abortion, if we're willing to work from the assumptions given in the OP.