is abortion correct when it saves the mother?

[Fireleaf]

Assume, just for a moment that unborn life is equally valuable to born life (note that I believe unborn life is not as valuable, but assume this for the sake of the argument).

Then, regardless of whether or not an abortion happens, there will be a loss of life that is equally negative. Therefore since any action has an equally negative outcome, the woman's right to choice should prevail. Nobody can be forced to sacrifice themself for anybody else.

[Belthus]

northcity4, in my view, sustainable ethics is a subset of practices of a sustainable society. Any ethical injunctive that hurts the sustainability of the society that follows it is self-defeating. The 1000 fetuses on a desert island is an extreme example, but it makes the practical problem clear. In reality, the outcomes will be more muddled because societies will adopt some sustainable practices and some unsustainable ones, as well as events beyond their control influencing their ultimate fate.

Clearly, I am coming from an ethical perspective that regards consequences as important, and you are coming from a perspective that disregards consequences. In my view, an ethical injunctive is an idea that exists in the heads of living human beings, and some of those ideas have the potential to be self-extinguishing ideas if put into practice. Or at least moving things in that direction.

Also, you asked about the value of human lives. I gave you an answer. What is your answer? Is the fetus, completely innocent of any wrongdoing, morally superior to its mother, who has undoubtedly committed numerous wrongs in her life? What other things do we owe such infinitely superior beings? Do we also elevate the moral status of other things like rocks and trees, which surely have committed no crimes? You seem to ignore the fact that the fetus cannot do anything at all, just like the rock and the tree, so it deserves no credit for its unblemished "record."

[mesaprotector]

We're not going to come to a consensus about the value of a fetus. That's a different debate, anyway The problem essentially comes down to the debate over killing vs. letting die. Except rather than "kill one, save five?" the question is "kill fetus, save mother?" I see the action as morally permissible but not obligatory.

[northcity4]

northcity4, in my view, sustainable ethics is a subset of practices of a sustainable society. Any ethical injunctive that hurts the sustainability of the society that follows it is self-defeating. The 1000 fetuses on a desert island is an extreme example, but it makes the practical problem clear. In reality, the outcomes will be more muddled because societies will adopt some sustainable practices and some unsustainable ones, as well as events beyond their control influencing their ultimate fate.

Clearly, I am coming from an ethical perspective that regards consequences as important, and you are coming from a perspective that disregards consequences. In my view, an ethical injunctive is an idea that exists in the heads of living human beings, and some of those ideas have the potential to be self-extinguishing ideas if put into practice. Or at least moving things in that direction.

Also, you asked about the value of human lives. I gave you an answer. What is your answer? Is the fetus, completely innocent of any wrongdoing, morally superior to its mother, who has undoubtedly committed numerous wrongs in her life? What other things do we owe such infinitely superior beings? Do we also elevate the moral status of other things like rocks and trees, which surely have committed no crimes? You seem to ignore the fact that the fetus cannot do anything at all, just like the rock and the tree, so it deserves no credit for its unblemished "record."

Belthus my last post wasn't regarding human value in your response. I simply stated that in arguments such as this, some examples are not close enough to use as separate analogies. The differences in response to your example versus this post is that the people have control over saving one or save the other, but the person on your island example is not as risk with his/her own life.

In abortion in the case of which the mom will die should she give birth has her life on the line. Does that simply make it okay to get an abortion? I am arguing 'No' due to the permissiblity which you clearly didn't answer correctly. This is not an 'ethical injunctive that hurts the sustainability of the society that follows it is self-defeating.' Also, what consequences am I disregarding?

Comparing a fetus to a rock is also another fallacy. That's like me saying 1) things that can move barely and think little have little value. 2) Fetus can barely move and think little. conclusion: therefore, fetus is of little value. The problem is your comparison and I do ask you make a much better arguement. Have you studied main reasons why moms die giving birth or the arguments of handicapp people being human? Also, passed 'sins' have no bearing on this ethical issue btw. Let's not forget a life for a life is also not as easy as that. If it was, why not kill people, use their organs to save dying people in hospitals? Permissibility needs to be used

If the fetus is human, it is just as valuable as the mom. We already discussed in much earlier posts why a fetus is just as valuable assuming it human.

If the fetus is not human, then it gets treated like an animal or something non living which even religious people will attest then it's okay to get an abortion at this point. I myself would be okay with it. My only problem is the argument of potentially becoming a human, but I do ask we leave that to the 'are fetus' humans?' thread

[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.

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.

I was responding to your question below to whether something that CAN have life IS treated as life. I was saying no, because ANYTHING can become life, and sentient life at that. Also I was involved in both page-12 of this thread and the, "Are fetuses humans?" thread, so I read them already, though I didn't understand everything due to my lack of educating myself in those matters. But I think I know enough about life to make an opinion.

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

Because your first assumption (the part where you say, "If...treated as life.") is incorrect, your conclusion and demand for an answer are not applicable anymore.

And my personal opinion? Abortion is not wrong, whether the mother is dying because of it or not. Don't ask me to defend this particular stance too hard though; I'm not sure how logically I can find reasons for this. But it's my true opinion.

[northcity4]

The 'if part' is not weak at all. I was also asking if that equation is what whoever said it was. Of course it can be wrong, but I was not arguing it, but rather asking if this is true, then is abortion wrong given certain elements.

Also, defending what you have read and such means nothing. It gets us no where closer to abortion matters being settled.

[memimemi]

northcity4, are you familiar with the concept of moving the goalposts?

[kimham8a]

The 'if part' is not weak at all. I was also asking if that equation is what whoever said it was. Of course it can be wrong, but I was not arguing it, but rather asking if this is true, then is abortion wrong given certain elements.

Also, defending what you have read and such means nothing. It gets us no where closer to abortion matters being settled.

I'm sure you could word, "I was also asking if that equation is what whoever said it was.", a bit better in the future, had a hard time understanding it.

And I'm defending my own opinion on this subject, not what I read... this is getting less related to the actual topic however. So let me state my position clearly. I am pro-choice. I think the mother's choice is more valuable than the fetus's life. Refute this position if you object to it.

[OldTrees]

Refute this position if you object to it.

Assertions require support. A position is either not an assertion (does not require refuting) or is an assertion with no support (a simple contradiction would be sufficient to refute).

More sophisticated refutations are still permissible.

[Belthus]

If the fetus is human, it is just as valuable as the mom. We already discussed in much earlier posts why a fetus is just as valuable assuming it human.

If the fetus is not human, then it gets treated like an animal or something non living which even religious people will attest then it's okay to get an abortion at this point. I myself would be okay with it. My only problem is the argument of potentially becoming a human, but I do ask we leave that to the 'are fetus' humans?' thread

Why should I accept that the fetus being human (or not) matters in determining its value?

Rights and responsibilities go together. A fetus, not being able to bear responsibilities, has no rights. Those who do have rights may wish to give the fetus some protections, but those protections are not as secure as rights.

So as I see it, we have two classes of beings: those who can participate in human society and those who cannot. Those who can participate in society can have a part in creating its rules (or at least giving consent). Those who cannot participate cannot have a part in creating its rules.

The fact that humans are the only consensually recognized participants in human societies at the moment does not, in my mind, rule out that something not human may present itself one day, stake its claim as being able and willing to participate in a human society, and be recognized as such. Perhaps it will be an extraterrestial alien or an intelligent animal. What is important is being able to understand rules, follow them, make binding agreements, etc. - i.e., the behavioral expectations we have of average human adults.

Elsewhere in this forum, I have discussed the case of domesticated animals. They cannot fully participate in human society, but some of them can follow some rules. Domesticated animals have been bred to be useful to humans and easily managed. However, their participation is marginal. They can follow rules, but (as far as we can tell) not fully understand them. They cannot make rules that would work in a human society. Thus, I would say that domesticated animals do not qualify for rights, but their protections may be at a higher level than what we give to wild animals.

So ... why do you define moral status by species?

[russianspy1234]

If the fetus is human, it is just as valuable as the mom. We already discussed in much earlier posts why a fetus is just as valuable assuming it human.

If the fetus is not human, then it gets treated like an animal or something non living which even religious people will attest then it's okay to get an abortion at this point. I myself would be okay with it. My only problem is the argument of potentially becoming a human, but I do ask we leave that to the 'are fetus' humans?' thread

Why should I accept that the fetus being human (or not) matters in determining its value?

Rights and responsibilities go together. A fetus, not being able to bear responsibilities, has no rights. Those who do have rights may wish to give the fetus some protections, but those protections are not as secure as rights.

So as I see it, we have two classes of beings: those who can participate in human society and those who cannot. Those who can participate in society can have a part in creating its rules (or at least giving consent). Those who cannot participate cannot have a part in creating its rules.

The fact that humans are the only consensually recognized participants in human societies at the moment does not, in my mind, rule out that something not human may present itself one day, stake its claim as being able and willing to participate in a human society, and be recognized as such. Perhaps it will be an extraterrestial alien or an intelligent animal. What is important is being able to understand rules, follow them, make binding agreements, etc. - i.e., the behavioral expectations we have of average human adults.

Elsewhere in this forum, I have discussed the case of domesticated animals. They cannot fully participate in human society, but some of them can follow some rules. Domesticated animals have been bred to be useful to humans and easily managed. However, their participation is marginal. They can follow rules, but (as far as we can tell) not fully understand them. They cannot make rules that would work in a human society. Thus, I would say that domesticated animals do not qualify for rights, but their protections may be at a higher level than what we give to wild animals.

So ... why do you define moral status by species?

By your definition, it is ok to go out and kill mentally disabled people.

[northcity4]

If the fetus is human, it is just as valuable as the mom. We already discussed in much earlier posts why a fetus is just as valuable assuming it human.

If the fetus is not human, then it gets treated like an animal or something non living which even religious people will attest then it's okay to get an abortion at this point. I myself would be okay with it. My only problem is the argument of potentially becoming a human, but I do ask we leave that to the 'are fetus' humans?' thread

Why should I accept that the fetus being human (or not) matters in determining its value?

Rights and responsibilities go together. A fetus, not being able to bear responsibilities, has no rights. Those who do have rights may wish to give the fetus some protections, but those protections are not as secure as rights.

So as I see it, we have two classes of beings: those who can participate in human society and those who cannot. Those who can participate in society can have a part in creating its rules (or at least giving consent). Those who cannot participate cannot have a part in creating its rules.

The fact that humans are the only consensually recognized participants in human societies at the moment does not, in my mind, rule out that something not human may present itself one day, stake its claim as being able and willing to participate in a human society, and be recognized as such. Perhaps it will be an extraterrestial alien or an intelligent animal. What is important is being able to understand rules, follow them, make binding agreements, etc. - i.e., the behavioral expectations we have of average human adults.

Elsewhere in this forum, I have discussed the case of domesticated animals. They cannot fully participate in human society, but some of them can follow some rules. Domesticated animals have been bred to be useful to humans and easily managed. However, their participation is marginal. They can follow rules, but (as far as we can tell) not fully understand them. They cannot make rules that would work in a human society. Thus, I would say that domesticated animals do not qualify for rights, but their protections may be at a higher level than what we give to wild animals.

So ... why do you define moral status by species?

Sorry, been a while since i have had the time to reply. Russian you spoke my mind.

Belthus:

Where is your support that rights and responsibilities go together? Also, even if this is true, just because you can't bear responsibility doesn't mean you don't have rights. Again this brings up the subject of mentally ill people.

Kim, I wasn't asking for your position. I was asking for you to actually continue the discussion and reply to peoples posts in regards to this topic. Again telling us your position means nothing if you simply tell us and leave it at that. That's actually not even classified as an argument in philosophy so I honestly don't feel like refuting it. Had you said, abortion is wrong due to these facts would have been different. Beliefs=/=facts