is abortion correct when it saves the mother?

[northcity4]

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

I read your link and I do now...mind explaining it's importance...like are you saying I have been doing that? if so where?

[OldTrees]

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.

That does not follow from his definition.
He has asserted that:
1) Species is not a source of moral status. [Saying X is not a reason to not kill Y is not saying there is no reason to not kill Y.]
2) Rights and Duty are linked. [Saying X does not have a right against us killing it is not saying that we do not have a duty to not kill it.]

However I would like people to address his question "So ... why do you define moral status by species?". I mean are we going to say that it is impermissible to kill brain dead human tissue but permissible to kill a conscious intelligent speaking mouse? Obviously if species is a factor, it cannot be the sole factor.

[russianspy1234]

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.

That does not follow from his definition.
He has asserted that:
1) Species is not a source of moral status. [Saying X is not a reason to not kill Y is not saying there is no reason to not kill Y.]
2) Rights and Duty are linked. [Saying X does not have a right against us killing it is not saying that we do not have a duty to not kill it.]

However I would like people to address his question "So ... why do you define moral status by species?". I mean are we going to say that it is impermissible to kill brain dead human tissue but permissible to kill a conscious intelligent speaking mouse? Obviously if species is a factor, it cannot be the sole factor.

He asserted that "Rights and responsibilities go together. A fetus, not being able to bear responsibilities, has no rights." A severely mentally handicapped person may also not able to bear responsibilities.

In truth, the argument of whether a fetus is a living human or not is moot because it is so difficult to find a definition that doesn't exclude mental vegetables and doesn't include cancerous tumors, so it's best to focus on other aspects of the debate.

[northcity4]

Ya, trees. From his first claim about bearing responsibility, it can be derived that he missed some opposing evidence that needs answered.

Also, to whom does bearing responsibility go to? Born babies bear no responsibility, but they are  human still. I believe this is fallicious arguing belthus which means it needs re worked as well.

Babies cannot understand rules nor do they follow them as well. I almost feel like you wanted to add that your status in society also contributes to your worth...again I am not sure though. (I don't feel like worth should be a factor in abortion if we assume fetus to be human)

[OldTrees]

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.

That does not follow from his definition.
He has asserted that:
1) Species is not a source of moral status. [Saying X is not a reason to not kill Y is not saying there is no reason to not kill Y.]
2) Rights and Duty are linked. [Saying X does not have a right against us killing it is not saying that we do not have a duty to not kill it.]

However I would like people to address his question "So ... why do you define moral status by species?". I mean are we going to say that it is impermissible to kill brain dead human tissue but permissible to kill a conscious intelligent speaking mouse? Obviously if species is a factor, it cannot be the sole factor.

He asserted that "Rights and responsibilities go together. A fetus, not being able to bear responsibilities, has no rights." A severely mentally handicapped person may also not able to bear responsibilities.

In truth, the argument of whether a fetus is a living human or not is moot because it is so difficult to find a definition that doesn't exclude mental vegetables and doesn't include cancerous tumors, so it's best to focus on other aspects of the debate.

I would redirect you to the bracketed section of 2. Just because something does not have a right to not be killed does not imply that we do not have a responsibility/duty to not kill it.

While discussing the origin of moral status is difficult, it is a vital premise in the abortion discussion. If we do not address the common point of disagreement (whether fetuses have moral status) then we are left with either:
If a fetus has moral status then we ought to discuss which moral status trumps, when and why?
or
If a fetus does not have moral status then we ought to check to see if there are moral reason derived from other things (like our duty) that make us ought not kill fetuses?

So which of the three questions are you going to discuss?

@northcity
[Moral status: "Rights", Moral Agency: "Duties"]
I agree that Moral Status and Moral Agency are separate and that something can have Moral Status before having Moral Agency. However the claim that Moral Agency is required for Moral Status still does not necessitate the claim that there does not exist a duty to not infanticide.

[northcity4]

To be honest, let's go with fetus' assumed having status since this is really what I believe needs to be answered.

[OldTrees]

To be honest, let's go with fetus' assumed having status since this is really what I believe needs to be answered.

We have two beings assumed of having moral status (fetus and mother).

We have a situation that
if continued drains resources from the mother and the fetus lives. [In the OP's situation continuing lets the mother die.]
if discontinued the the resources are no longer drained and lets the fetus die. [The mother survives as normal.]

So we have 2 factors of interest:
Draining resources from the mother / Not
Fetus lives, Let mother die / Mother lives, Let fetus die

Some additional questions:
Since the Mother would die in the only case where her resources are being drained, is the draining not a separate moral concern?
Is/when is it permissible to drain resources of another against their will?

[northcity4]

We also need to consider the fetus is not intentionally or aware it is draining resources that are resulting in the death of its host. Like in court, did the accused even know what they were doing? (the answer can vary depending on education/degree/proven mental stability at the time/and liability regardless)

[OldTrees]

We also need to consider the fetus is not intentionally or aware it is draining resources that are resulting in the death of its host. Like in court, did the accused even know what they were doing? (the answer can vary depending on education/degree/proven mental stability at the time/and liability regardless)

1) I don't think we need to discuss resolved questions.
No, a fetus does not know what it is doing (even an adult intelligence would not have sufficient background knowledge) and the draining is a result of non conscious or even non brain controlled actions.

However you have yet to speak on the question you choose (Which moral status trumps, when and why?)
Please begin.

[northcity4]

Fetus assumed human vs mom

Fetus: smaller, can't think complex, can't move, doesn't rarely contribute to society other than a new young life.

Mom: bigger, complex thinking, can move, contributes through work and time to society (mom is not a criminal for this case)

Fetus and mom: both are living, both human DNA, both deserve to live.

If we base moral status point system in terms of size/mental capabilities/contribution to society, we do run into some problems.

Assuming the person was born with/un wantingly given mental disorders and genetically smaller, that's not fair since his/her genes determined that for the most part. As far as contribution to society, I think that's where we need to focus.

Example: President of the USA, people will willingly die for him because his role is much more needed in society than the individual (like body guards taking a bullet). Then again, a fetus has the potential to contribute more.

Ex. Let's say mom contributed 10k points so far to society and probably will do another 20k. The fetus on the other hand may end up doing a million points worth. So, should we define moral status in contribution on immediate contributions or potential? (Although the fetus is unknown and the mom has a 'starting point' to look at and make an educated guess with).

Please remember, I am assuming the mom in general has been what society describes as a 'good person.'

I am not arguing contributions should be used/not used, but want to see where it goes.

Final thought for anti-abortion. Mom dies/fetus lives=mom loses 30-60 years of life in her death, but the fetus gains 70+ Abort baby/save mom: fetus loses 70+ years, mom saves 30-60.

In this view, abortion is wrong since the loss of the baby results in a bigger loss of happiness. The reason we cannot use contributions of the mom is the case we don't know the contributions of the fetus yet.
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/philosophy/docs/staff/bas7/The%20Status%20of%20Moral%20Status.pdf

Also explains why people usually save younger people as opposed to very old people should they have to choose.

[OldTrees]

Note: I have yet to read the article so please correct me if any of this is addressed inside (I will be reading it tonight).

1) I expected a Rights based discussion (non point system) rather than a Utilitarian based one (point system). Surprising but not problematic.
Mom dies fetus lives: 1 full life + the lives of its offspring
Mom1 survives fetus dies: rest of her life + the lives of her future offspring
Mom2 survives fetus dies: rest of her life + the lives of her future offspring
The exponential growth that starts multiplying earliest has the higher total at any single point. Depends on the mother's plans for future offspring.
Mom1 > fetus > Mom2

[northcity4]

Note: I have yet to read the article so please correct me if any of this is addressed inside (I will be reading it tonight).

1) I expected a Rights based discussion (non point system) rather than a Utilitarian based one (point system). Surprising but not problematic.
Mom dies fetus lives: 1 full life + the lives of its offspring
Mom1 survives fetus dies: rest of her life + the lives of her future offspring
Mom2 survives fetus dies: rest of her life + the lives of her future offspring
The exponential growth that starts multiplying earliest has the higher total at any single point. Depends on the mother's plans for future offspring.
Mom1 > fetus > Mom2

Not quite so.

Our equation is more like 1000x-x^2


Notice at first as x is small the numbers go up quickly. But as the mom get solder (increase x), say x=100000, it begins to slow down. So, our exponential growth was fast at first, but is no longer as she is older. The only way your claim would work is if this mom is basically a teen/early 20s.

The other issue is that fertility may not be what we want to use as a 'plus.' Sometimes over population is bad. If in your claim the mom would produce more children, then this could actually be a bad thing.

If producing is god, say e to some x power, of course the mom has a head start, but if we count time left (say 50 yrs for mom and 75 for fetus, then we get this...

mom: y+e^(x), x is a sequence where n:1,2,3..., but mom has a limit now (50 yrs) so our sequence is n:1-50 (y=how many children she has already had)

fetus: e^(x), same as mom, but n:1-70, so the fetus here actually has the potential to even go farther.

Again this only matters if having offspring should give you 'more points' in terms of moral status.

I am arguing that offspring has no bearing on moral status as this would be a genetic fallacy for those who cannot have offspring.
To answer your question about a rights based discussion, the only one I could find through google were arguments from Kant/Utilitarian (which I see you wanted to move away from). Could you give an example where moral rights matters so i have something to feed off of?