is abortion correct when it saves the mother?

[northcity4]

1) Consequences are an extension of permissibility. This is not a conflicting idea.
2) You still have not posed a counter theory for permissiblity. The violinist argument is only an example of a situation. Negative/positive rights do not conflict with permissiblity, although, it helps ask the questions about does a fetus have the right to life and other questions.
3) The significance of morals is prominent in all theories. Some do not argue as much (like relativism), but they their statements are critical.

You cannot say you are a relativist and therefore abortion is fine and neither can you say I am deontologist and the situation above on abortion is not fine. There must be an answer and all I am doing is showing how certain theories are mistaken/illogical which is fine.

The question did not ask is abortion...mother [in relativism]? It asked is it correct (should say immoral)...mother [period]. This means multiple theories will conflict and are needed to be discussed together.

Are you going to continue trying to argue why we should do one theory at a time or actually answer the question from where we are?

Last place we are at is the second half of my quote from dec24th 9:53am on the time on it.

[mesaprotector]

Unrelated but fun: Elements analogy to the abortion debate.



Nooo SoFo, stop destroying my nymph babies!

[kimham8a]

Unrelated but fun: Elements analogy to the abortion debate.



Nooo SoFo, stop destroying my nymph babies!

This is why SoFo is immoral.

[eaglgenes101]

The point I think mesaprotector is trying to make is that not everything that can potentially become living deserves to be treated as a life.

[kimham8a]

Mesa was trying to make a point? Never got that impression. o.0

True point made by you, though.

[northcity4]

If it has potential to have life=treated as life, then abortion is wrong even if it saves the mother? Do you have an answer for this.

[kimham8a]

Everything has potential to become life. Even the dirt beneath us can evolve to become more sentient and compassionate than humans today. So I don't think the potential for life has the same amount of right as life.

[Fireleaf]

It is my belief that abortion to save the mother is one of the few cases in which abortion is morally justified. No matter what action is taken in this situation a life will be ended, and I think it is difficult to justify the life of an unborn child as being more valuable than that of a living, breathing woman.

[northcity4]

Everything has potential to become life. Even the dirt beneath us can evolve to become more sentient and compassionate than humans today. So I don't think the potential for life has the same amount of right as life.

First of all, that's a weak argument for how everything has life. Dirt? Secondly, even if this was true, does this then mean abortion is wrong? You are not answering the question. Also, I do ask you re read pages 12-now as we talked about that quite indepth, you can also check the 'are fetus' humans' thread fore more details.

It is my belief that abortion to save the mother is one of the few cases in which abortion is morally justified. No matter what action is taken in this situation a life will be ended, and I think it is difficult to justify the life of an unborn child as being more valuable than that of a living, breathing woman.

To what extent is unborn less valuable than a born life?

Or try answering these instead: 1) Is all born innocent life equal? 2) How is being in the womb a reason to make you less valuable?

Do you have differing opinions in different stages of pregnancy like late-term abortion vs early abortion? If Fetus' presumed human, then I am going to ask my original question.

[Fireleaf]

Note that I did not claim that unborn live was less valuable than born life, only that it was not more valuable.

[Belthus]

To what extent is unborn less valuable than a born life?

Choose two desert islands. Put 1000 fetuses on one and 1000 20 year-old women on another. Which group has the better chance of surviving and prospering?

An adult woman can immediately participate in a functioning society. A fetus requires a huge investment of time and energy before it can do the the same.

An adult woman has years of memories, skills, relationships, etc., which will be destroyed upon her death. The fetus has none of these.

Obviously, the human species needs some fetuses to come to term in order to produce a new generation. However, that is not a problem at this point in time. The problem is that the Earth is becoming overcrowded. So if a woman doesn't want to bring a fetus to term, there is no good reason she should.

[northcity4]

I think you are getting a little off topic. Your arguments of functioning in society/memories/skills/relationships/better off alone than a fetus are actually weak and thus a fallacy is committed. If you were asking me which one to save, that is different since the situation is permissible for me to choose. But if I am a mom wanting to get an abortion, your argument has little bearing on the right to kill a fetus (and for sake of argument, lets assume the fetus human). Please regard permissibility in your responses.

Note that I did not claim that unborn live was less valuable than born life, only that it was not more valuable.

Honestly, I don't see the point in just stating this. I can't really continue from you last post unless you take a stand.

Your last post is like tokenism as you simplify it for life and life when the situation is much more complex.