is abortion correct when it saves the mother?

[OldTrees]

I think the inability of the fetus to care whether it lives or dies does matter. Killing plants sounds good to me, but not animals (though I still eat meat, it justs tastes too good).
The total pain felt by the fetus is 0. Whatever the mother gained from the abortion, however small or large, is worth more.

The only reason the fetus felt nothing is because it's nerves are not full developed, but in reality getting slashed to death is still very painful to what that body feels. Yes, the mom gains life...at the cost of another life. And, it's most likely the mom's fault she had pregnancy problems in the first place.

Example: you are the manager of a store. You sing someone to work for you. You break a store policy and you know you'll get fired if your found out. So you blame one of your signed employees and they take your fall. I think we all agree this is immoral. Sure, you got to keep your job at the cost of someone else losing their job...and the situation was your fault in the first place.

You say the fetus felt nothing, but then you go on to say that it's ''very painful''. What do you mean by that?
For your example, it's different from abortion. The employee cares about his job. The fetus doesn't care about anything.

As for pain, pretend you had no nerves. If I hit you constantly with a bat, you would feel nothing (you may feel the vibrations), but as far as pain, not really. Just because you don't have nerves doesn't mean your body is not experiencing pain. It's kind of like when you drug yourself to stop the pain your feeling. You body is still feeling the pain even though your are not. In a way the 'you' is different from the body. That is all I meant.

Pain is a sensation. Damage is an effect. You mean damage despite you saying pain. Utilitarianism uses pain not damage as the metric because it relates to suffering. Damage that is not felt and not known about does not cause suffering.

[kimham8a]

If you were hitting me while I knew about it but was drugged, you would still be causing a lot of mental stress.

[northcity4]

Regardless, it is still unknown if the Fetus feels pain when it is killed. Regardless, just because something cannot feel pain is no reason to kill it. Whether the Fetus screams as it dies or if it does nothing as no bearing on if it is okay to kill it. The main issue is still justifying morals. The thing about morals is that even in the worse situations, morals cannot be defined. From what I have studied morals exist beyond the normal. We type here, some of us, try to justify why it's best to allow abortion, but that still doesn't make something right. I can find out a ton of reasons why if this person was gone from my life the world would get better. Even if this person was dead and the world actually got better, Utilitarianism still does not justify the issue. This form of ethics gives us our choices and the outcomes for our choices.

[OldTrees]

Regardless, it is still unknown if the Fetus feels pain when it is killed. Regardless, just because something cannot feel pain is no reason to kill it. Whether the Fetus screams as it dies or if it does nothing as no bearing on if it is okay to kill it. The main issue is still justifying morals. The thing about morals is that even in the worse situations, morals cannot be defined. From what I have studied morals exist beyond the normal. We type here, some of us, try to justify why it's best to allow abortion, but that still doesn't make something right. I can find out a ton of reasons why if this person was gone from my life the world would get better. Even if this person was dead and the world actually got better, Utilitarianism still does not justify the issue. This form of ethics gives us our choices and the outcomes for our choices.

Science has answered how pain is felt and when the necessary systems are developed.

The rest of your post seems like it can be condensed to:
"We do not know if maximizing happiness/minimizing suffering is the moral thing to do."

[northcity4]

Regardless, it is still unknown if the Fetus feels pain when it is killed. Regardless, just because something cannot feel pain is no reason to kill it. Whether the Fetus screams as it dies or if it does nothing as no bearing on if it is okay to kill it. The main issue is still justifying morals. The thing about morals is that even in the worse situations, morals cannot be defined. From what I have studied morals exist beyond the normal. We type here, some of us, try to justify why it's best to allow abortion, but that still doesn't make something right. I can find out a ton of reasons why if this person was gone from my life the world would get better. Even if this person was dead and the world actually got better, Utilitarianism still does not justify the issue. This form of ethics gives us our choices and the outcomes for our choices.

Science has answered how pain is felt and when the necessary systems are developed.

The rest of your post seems like it can be condensed to:
"We do not know if maximizing happiness/minimizing suffering is the moral thing to do."

In a sense yes. When I studied that form of ethics, it was made very clear in class this doesn't mean it makes it right if it's the best possible situation. The way we learned was Utilitarianism runs your thought process to see the possible outcomes/costs and let you determine. In many cases that is the morally right thing to do, but in cases like this topic, I see it more as showing our possibilities.

I am not familiar if any articles regarding the maximizing happiness/minimizing suffering. The only real example I got was military ethics. Suggestions?

[OldTrees]

Regardless, it is still unknown if the Fetus feels pain when it is killed. Regardless, just because something cannot feel pain is no reason to kill it. Whether the Fetus screams as it dies or if it does nothing as no bearing on if it is okay to kill it. The main issue is still justifying morals. The thing about morals is that even in the worse situations, morals cannot be defined. From what I have studied morals exist beyond the normal. We type here, some of us, try to justify why it's best to allow abortion, but that still doesn't make something right. I can find out a ton of reasons why if this person was gone from my life the world would get better. Even if this person was dead and the world actually got better, Utilitarianism still does not justify the issue. This form of ethics gives us our choices and the outcomes for our choices.

Science has answered how pain is felt and when the necessary systems are developed.

The rest of your post seems like it can be condensed to:
"We do not know if maximizing happiness/minimizing suffering is the moral thing to do."

In a sense yes. When I studied that form of ethics, it was made very clear in class this doesn't mean it makes it right if it's the best possible situation. The way we learned was Utilitarianism runs your thought process to see the possible outcomes/costs and let you determine. In many cases that is the morally right thing to do, but in cases like this topic, I see it more as showing our possibilities.

I am not familiar if any articles regarding the maximizing happiness/minimizing suffering. The only real example I got was military ethics. Suggestions?

That was a poor presentation then.
There are different forms of utilitarianism with slight differences but each has a metric to determine the moral character of the choice. None merely show our possibilities.
Higher/Lower pleasure vs All pleasure is equal.
Act vs Rule utilitarianism.
Average v. total happiness.
etc.

I suggest searching for John Stuart Mill.

[northcity4]

Regardless, it is still unknown if the Fetus feels pain when it is killed. Regardless, just because something cannot feel pain is no reason to kill it. Whether the Fetus screams as it dies or if it does nothing as no bearing on if it is okay to kill it. The main issue is still justifying morals. The thing about morals is that even in the worse situations, morals cannot be defined. From what I have studied morals exist beyond the normal. We type here, some of us, try to justify why it's best to allow abortion, but that still doesn't make something right. I can find out a ton of reasons why if this person was gone from my life the world would get better. Even if this person was dead and the world actually got better, Utilitarianism still does not justify the issue. This form of ethics gives us our choices and the outcomes for our choices.

Science has answered how pain is felt and when the necessary systems are developed.

The rest of your post seems like it can be condensed to:
"We do not know if maximizing happiness/minimizing suffering is the moral thing to do."

In a sense yes. When I studied that form of ethics, it was made very clear in class this doesn't mean it makes it right if it's the best possible situation. The way we learned was Utilitarianism runs your thought process to see the possible outcomes/costs and let you determine. In many cases that is the morally right thing to do, but in cases like this topic, I see it more as showing our possibilities.

I am not familiar if any articles regarding the maximizing happiness/minimizing suffering. The only real example I got was military ethics. Suggestions?

That was a poor presentation then.
There are different forms of utilitarianism with slight differences but each has a metric to determine the moral character of the choice. None merely show our possibilities.
Higher/Lower pleasure vs All pleasure is equal.
Act vs Rule utilitarianism.
Average v. total happiness.
etc.

I suggest searching for John Stuart Mill.

Yes there are different forms and thank you for reminding about the one's you have listed. There is a problem if we are going to use Utilitarianism as are basis of ethics on abortion. 1) If all mothers would actually benefit from abortion to the point it outweighed the Fetus/babies unhappiness, there is the argument where now it is your MORAL DUTY to get that abortion. In reality though, if a mom decides not to get an abortion, are we saying she did a bad thing, even if the above situation was true?

I will re look into those others in the mean time, so please no one put me down for not mentioning those yet. 

[OldTrees]

There is a problem if we are going to use Utilitarianism as are basis of ethics on abortion. 1) If all mothers would actually benefit from abortion to the point it outweighed the Fetus/babies unhappiness, there is the argument where now it is your MORAL DUTY to get that abortion. In reality though, if a mom decides not to get an abortion, are we saying she did a bad thing, even if the above situation was true?

This is a good trait (not necessarily a problem) to highlight.

Utilitarianism says we have a Moral Duty to maximize happiness (via a metric dependent on the subschool of Utilitarianism). In cases where abortion maximizes happiness the mother would have a Moral Duty to abort. The significance of the failure to preform the duty would be proportional to the relative difference in happiness totals.* However when keeping the fetus maximizes happiness then the mother would have a Moral Duty to keep the fetus.

So what is an example of a case where a branch of Utilitarianism would say a Moral Duty to abort exists but where the Mother would keep the fetus? Obviously the total suffering is greater than in the case of the abortion and it is not due to the Mother suffering (she chose to keep it). This means either the child or society is experiencing some suffering greater than the Mother's happiness at having the child. Perhaps we are talking about a severe birth defect that causes continuous suffering. Would we consider it wrong to bring a child into a world where it will suffer merely because one wanted a child?

*Choosing vanilla over chocolate when your favorite flavor is chocolate is a neglection of Moral Duty under utilitarianism but it is not a significant failure.

[northcity4]

There is a problem if we are going to use Utilitarianism as are basis of ethics on abortion. 1) If all mothers would actually benefit from abortion to the point it outweighed the Fetus/babies unhappiness, there is the argument where now it is your MORAL DUTY to get that abortion. In reality though, if a mom decides not to get an abortion, are we saying she did a bad thing, even if the above situation was true?

This is a good trait (not necessarily a problem) to highlight.

Utilitarianism says we have a Moral Duty to maximize happiness (via a metric dependent on the subschool of Utilitarianism). In cases where abortion maximizes happiness the mother would have a Moral Duty to abort. The significance of the failure to preform the duty would be proportional to the relative difference in happiness totals.* However when keeping the fetus maximizes happiness then the mother would have a Moral Duty to keep the fetus.

So what is an example of a case where a branch of Utilitarianism would say a Moral Duty to abort exists but where the Mother would keep the fetus? Obviously the total suffering is greater than in the case of the abortion and it is not due to the Mother suffering (she chose to keep it). This means either the child or society is experiencing some suffering greater than the Mother's happiness at having the child. Perhaps we are talking about a severe birth defect that causes continuous suffering. Would we consider it wrong to bring a child into a world where it will suffer merely because one wanted a child?

*Choosing vanilla over chocolate when your favorite flavor is chocolate is a neglection of Moral Duty under utilitarianism but it is not a significant failure.

To you last question no. Although it may be sad in this case, I still don't feel we have the right to decide the life of someone else.

This exact situation happened on an episode of Closer where they are interrogating a doctor who admits to stopping the kid from waking up due to he would have had extreme suffering to live with the rest of his life. He claims he saved the kid all that trouble in life. Using Utilitarianism, can we honestly say that he maximized happiness by letting the kid die?

I know from the tv show 'The firm' (sorry for using tv shows, but they make some valid points), they showed a scene where the soldiers who were wounded mad at the doctors for saving their life. They kept yelling at the doctor about why she would save them if they are going to live the rest of their life in pain?

These are great scenarios...so what I am asking is do we have the right to let someone die/abort the baby without their permission? In both examples neither person asked to die so we don't know for sure. In the soldier example, wasn't it the right thing to save the person and if they don't want to live, put them under heavy drugs and kill them?

Also, selfishness becomes another problem. Let's pretend the mom had illnesses which is usually the case when she s going to die from having a baby. Isn't that screwed up to kill someone just so you can continue living? If that's true, isn't our military doing the exact opposite?

Again just some ideas.

[OldTrees]

@northcity
Invoking deontology is not an answer to a question about utilitarianism.

However since you seen more in line with deontology let us discuss how it perceives abortion.

Deontology is the ethics composed of Moral Duties and Moral Rights.
Positive Duties are actions that if unfulfilled leave everyone capable of fulfilling them guilt of wrong doing.
Negative Duties are actions that if taken leave the actor guilt of wrong doing.
Positive Rights are like a Positive Duty
Negative Rights are like a Negative Duty (Example: A Negative Right from theft is similar to a Negative duty to not steal)

There are arguments about whether Positive Rights/Positive Duties can exist. Certain theoretical Positive Rights absolutely cannot exist.
(You cannot be entitled to 1/Nth of a scarce resource if there are more than N people)

The deontological discussion on abortion begins with:
What is the characteristic that qualifies a being for Moral Rights? [Moral Personhood]
Is the right to life a Positive Right, a Negative Right or fiction? [Right to Life?]
Then we move into the Violinist example. [The Violinist]

[northcity4]

@northcity
Invoking deontology is not an answer to a question about utilitarianism.

However since you seen more in line with deontology let us discuss how it perceives abortion.

Deontology is the ethics composed of Moral Duties and Moral Rights.
Positive Duties are actions that if unfulfilled leave everyone capable of fulfilling them guilt of wrong doing.
Negative Duties are actions that if taken leave the actor guilt of wrong doing.
Positive Rights are like a Positive Duty
Negative Rights are like a Negative Duty (Example: A Negative Right from theft is similar to a Negative duty to not steal)

There are arguments about whether Positive Rights/Positive Duties can exist. Certain theoretical Positive Rights absolutely cannot exist.
(You cannot be entitled to 1/Nth of a scarce resource if there are more than N people)

The deontological discussion on abortion begins with:
What is the characteristic that qualifies a being for Moral Rights? [Moral Personhood]
Is the right to life a Positive Right, a Negative Right or fiction? [Right to Life?]
Then we move into the Violinist example. [The Violinist]

Let's assume for the moment government granted fetus' human rights. How would you describe the woman's motive for killing the child?

Here is a list I have come up with:
1) Her motives are selfish and therefore her act is immoral.
2) She has an obligation to make sure her child does not suffer in life, but does this allow for someone to decides someones life?
3) She needs to be alive to care for her family. This can be both selfish and caring. Again, just because you care about someone, does that give you the right to control their life?

After some research I also found how to relate the consequences (I forget the name of the material it's called) to this topic.

Example: She wants to keep her child away from suffering...but that can lead to even worse problems (Just like Sethe from Beloved).

1) Abort the baby (Sethe killing her child), problem is later in life you develop a mental illness and become suicidal/a murderer out of guilt for aborting your baby. Now, you have caused a lot of damage in society.
2) Have the baby: a) she dies, and we discuss the points listed above b) lives, but is a single mother. Now, this family will barely be able to support itself and thus experience a lot of suffering. Doesn't the mom have a right to stop her children's suffering? If so, why not kill her children? Stop their suffering, and loosen her suffering? Again, we run into the selfish possibility and if the mom has the right to control someones life, even if they are children.

Parents discuss parenting in this way to me: you are given the job as 'parent' to make sure your child grows up well. Just because they may not be able to handle suffering yet (grow up to be killers cause of this), doesn't mean we 'silence' them. We work with them to help them persevere. Maybe, suffering is what makes us stronger. Maybe it's good to suffer. Again, this is the opposing side to suffering is bad.

Still, we also run into the problem if the fetus again has moral rights. So ASSUMING they DO, how would you answer this? ASSUMING they for sure DO NOT, how would you answer? If we don't know/unproven which is the reality I believe, how do you answer.

[OldTrees]

@northcity
Invoking deontology is not an answer to a question about utilitarianism.

However since you seen more in line with deontology let us discuss how it perceives abortion.

Deontology is the ethics composed of Moral Duties and Moral Rights.
Positive Duties are actions that if unfulfilled leave everyone capable of fulfilling them guilt of wrong doing.
Negative Duties are actions that if taken leave the actor guilt of wrong doing.
Positive Rights are like a Positive Duty
Negative Rights are like a Negative Duty (Example: A Negative Right from theft is similar to a Negative duty to not steal)

There are arguments about whether Positive Rights/Positive Duties can exist. Certain theoretical Positive Rights absolutely cannot exist.
(You cannot be entitled to 1/Nth of a scarce resource if there are more than N people)

The deontological discussion on abortion begins with:
What is the characteristic that qualifies a being for Moral Rights? [Moral Personhood]
Is the right to life a Positive Right, a Negative Right or fiction? [Right to Life?]
Then we move into the Violinist example. [The Violinist]

Let's assume for the moment government granted fetus' human rights. How would you describe the woman's motive for killing the child?

-snip-

After some research I also found how to relate the consequences (I forget the name of the material it's called) to this topic.

-snip-

1) Political rights are irrelevant. We are speaking of Deontology (aka Moral Rights)

2) Please stay still. You cannot keep jumping back and forth between Consequence and Act based ethics. Choose one to discuss. Or we could go to Intent based ethics. Just please have a consistent base.