is abortion correct when it saves the mother?

[northcity4]

x=definition provided: the power to prevent something very bad without sacrificing comparable moral significance. Should a situation like this come up, it's our moral obligation. So, I ask you redefine your claim. of 'x' since it was defined.

Let's go through your other comments as i don't think you understood me:

1) look, just read through the situation. If you disagree then post a reply like you did in #2

2) I was only referring to the CEO and never singled him out. The point is: he knew they were getting on and refused to stop them and knew the damage that was to happen probably as the word 'terrorist' connotates a lot of meaning. For that reason, this is actually a great example.

3) To suffice, maybe this helps:

P1) Murder is wrong.
p2) from my last post, abortion is murder in any scenario.
 conclusion: abortion is wrong.

So, p1) by definition is correct.

p2) you'll need to consult my last post to attack this should you try to disprove this argument.

[OldTrees]

P2 was the conclusion of your last post. That post included a step

"If we ought to prevent bad things from happening when there is no significant cost, then not preventing such bad things is immoral."

This follows the form of

"If we ought 'X', then 'not X' is morally impermissible."

In my last post I detailed how the word ought is used (to state that one option is morally permissible and morally superior to the other). However these leads to the possibility of the word ought being used to describe a supererogative option as being morally superior to a neutral option. ("One ought to be benevolent beyond the call of duty") This is a contradiction of the form. Since the form of the step is faulty we cannot complete the step without further support.

Summary
P1) If and only if quote 2, then quote 1 has proper form
P2) Not quote 2
P3) Improper form leads to no conclusion
4) Quote 1 does not have proper form
5) Quote 1 leads to no conclusion

[mesaprotector]

P1) Murder is wrong.

If someone is going to kill you, is murdering them wrong?

This follows the form of

"If we ought 'X', then 'not X' is morally impermissible."

Since no system (of morality) can be both consistent and complete, and any worthwhile moral system is consistent, any such system must be incomplete - that is, there must be some action 'X' for which neither 'X' nor 'not X' is morally impermissible.  Not saying this action is abortion, just that northcity's argument doesn't work here. You need to prove that 'X' is morally required, not just morally superior (which is what I feel is meant by "ought").

(Or, just read OldTrees's next-to-last post again.)

[northcity4]

Mesa that is a fallacy. The correct wording should have been killing. Murder by definition is immoral killing. Please correct your claim.

Hopefully, after reading your analysis, this claim helps: we have a moral obligation to prevent very immoral things from happening within our power if the cost is of little comparable moral significance.

1) Obligation to X if and only if moral comparable weigh out.
2) Comparable way out.
3) therefore, obligation to X.

Term 'power' is used since there are still arguments about charity/helping those far away.

Again though, let me say the arguments of moral obligation fail for 2 reasons in abortion:

1) In a 2 person theory (mom and baby), the fetus is not murdering the mom. Still debatable if it's killing her (could be the moms fault i.e. medical conditions before hand). This is why I feel positive and negative rights work best for this topic.

2) There is no third party within a special circumstance to make the decision.

[OldTrees]

1) Obligation to X if and only if moral comparable weigh out.
2) Comparable way out.
3) therefore, obligation to X.

Previously you used
1a) Ought to X if and only if moral comparable weigh out.
This starting premise is fairly self evident however it does not conclude an obligation.
You replaced it with
1b) Obligation to X if and only if moral comparable weigh out.
This starting premise is not self evident however it does conclude an obligation.
Would you provide more support for premise 1b?

@Mesa
In philosophy, unlike in law, Murder usually refers to "killing that is immoral".

[northcity4]

Ill give a small example and well see how u guys agree for 1b:

Please remember that the scale of 'weighing out' actually needs to be less on your part and much more on the others for it to be an obligation

example1: You know your friends are going to get robbed later tonight (tipped off or something). Friends getting robbed..potentially hurt=a lot. Simple phone call to warn them and get them some security=very small.

Choose not to tell them: they get robbed, potentially hurt.

You save the time of a phone call.

For my premise: yes, there needs to be a big weigh out on your friends part+likely hood. Example: don't need to warn your friends they could die from a car accident when they are driving. Responsibility is already enough, but as long as they drive safe, the likely hood is so low it doesn't need attention.

[OldTrees]

Ill give a small example and well see how u guys agree for 1b:

While I see evidence that warning my friends is the ideal behavior (and thus what I would do), I do not see evidence for or against a moral obligation in the specific or general case.

[neuroleptics]

of course, medically. If you say abortion is killing, not saving the mother is murder too.

[northcity4]

No, that is incorrect. By not having abortion, the mom is killing herself, but really doesn't want to. The doctor didn't stab her to death.

scenario one: doctor gives the abortion. Mom allowed=she is guilty

scenario two: No abortion=mom dies. There is no murder going on.

neuro please get your facts straight before making a claim like that. Also, be clear with murder and killing as the two in logic are very different.

@trees. That is my dilemma which is why giving examples is the only way I know how at the moment. To be honest, I also don't have the time to go reading scholarly articles (all very long) regarding moral obligation philosophy.

[OldTrees]

No, that is incorrect. By not having abortion, the mom is killing herself, but really doesn't want to. The doctor didn't stab her to death.

scenario one: doctor gives the abortion. Mom allowed=she is guilty

scenario two: No abortion=mom dies. There is no murder going on.

neuro please get your facts straight before making a claim like that. Also, be clear with murder and killing as the two in logic are very different.

@trees. That is my dilemma which is why giving examples is the only way I know how at the moment. To be honest, I also don't have the time to go reading scholarly articles (all very long) regarding moral obligation philosophy.

Since your foundation is shaky, your conclusion is shaky. You should fix that before criticizing others based upon your shaky assertion.

Letting Die
Since we don't have support for the assertion that "we have a moral obligation to prevent harm" then we do not have support for the assertion "letting die is morally impermissible". This is good news because the majority of people with access to this forum have let people die by not donating more than they currently do. Surely it is not morally impermissible to donate 10% of your income rather than 20% despite not being morally ideal.

P1) More people are allowed to die if we donate 10% rather than 20%.
2) If letting die is morally impermissible then donating 10% would be morally impermissible.
P3) Our moral intuitions find donating 10% to be permissible if not ideal.
4) Letting die must not be inherently impermissible.

Support
P1) Since letting die is not inherently impermissible, refusing to feed another begger is not impermissible.
P2) If it is not impermissible to refuse to feed another begger then it is permissible to prevent the begger from taking your food.
3) So preventing involuntary taking of one's resources is permissible.

Abortion
P1) Cutting of involuntary taking of one's resources is not morally ideal but is morally permissible.
P2) Abortion is cutting of involuntary taking of one's resources.
3) Abortion is not morally ideal but is morally permissible.

[neuroleptics]

No, that is incorrect. By not having abortion, the mom is killing herself, but really doesn't want to. The doctor didn't stab her to death.

scenario one: doctor gives the abortion. Mom allowed=she is guilty

scenario two: No abortion=mom dies. There is no murder going on.

neuro please get your facts straight before making a claim like that. Also, be clear with murder and killing as the two in logic are very different.

@trees. That is my dilemma which is why giving examples is the only way I know how at the moment. To be honest, I also don't have the time to go reading scholarly articles (all very long) regarding moral obligation philosophy.

You are wrong either (in saying i'm wrong).
If i were to explain the whole thing it'll be lengthy.
1st consent needs to be taken and the mother has to be conscious and alert NOT stupurous. If not the closest family member will sign the consent form.
Nowadays....or rather, ever since medical law was formed it's always been patient centered.

Now assuming no immediate family and the mother is not alert and conscious, sent to hospital late in the night, make it more dramatic..... vital signs unstable and you wait for a while (of course emergency procedures are done) you wait for the result and all was green for operation. What are you gonna do? IF you know abortion is going to save the mother (let's say it's motor vehicle accident).
You then look at the gestational age (estimate) viable?, it has to be >24w or else even if you give dexamethasone, the baby would likely to be dead d/t lung prob. So, i will def. save the mother. Why risk both lives dead?

of course explaination.....will be needed. logical thinking mother =guilty, so will be child= guilty (when he grows up) if mother is chose to let the child be alive and sacrificed herself.

[blarp]

How are there 20 pages of reply to this?

If you need an abortion, get one. I'm not pro getting abortions, but I'm not about to limit anyones freedom to do so. Unless it's like a week until the birth and there isn't any medical reason to do so.

besides mother > baby

and baby without a mother = fked up baby