is abortion correct when it saves the mother?

[kimham8a]

I think it IS morally impermissable to do less than what you can to help others. But people can do this in many indirect ways other than donating, such as convincing the rich to donate more, voting for government to go help, etc.
However it is completely understandable for people not to help at all or help very little because we are human. We won't do anything about something that doesn't feel immediate. If the far-away situations become too horrible people will just push it away, because it's much easier to forget than to do anything about it.
This is one of my reasons for why it is OK for a mother to abort her baby. It's human nature to just push hard stuff away, and forcing everyone to change themselves is what I consider more wrong than the killing of the unborn baby. It may not be 'morally permissable' but that's what people are and I won't blame the human race for abortion.

But is abortion truly not morally permissable?
Another reason why I believe abortion can be justified is because in the long run it can be better for the BABY as well as the mother. What if the mother knew that she wouldn't be able to care for the growing baby financially, physically, or even emotionally? Whether it is better to have that baby alive is arguable in my opinion.

Pros (in terms of happiness, assuming mother is poor and forced to have her unwanted child)
Baby is alive, goes through full life
Cons
Baby could have tough beginning
Mother's life could be more stressed
Baby is just one among the other sperm, where did their rights go? When did the baby get more rights?

These things are hard to measure and therefore I believe it is better to say that the decision of the justification of an abortion must be determined case-by-case, and can reasonably be made by the mother, who has a good chance of knowing about the consequences as much as others.

Summary:
Reason1: People are people.
Reason2: The ethics of all, or even most cases of abortion cannot be generalized. Therefore the mother can decide for herself.

Note: If there is a problem with the clarity of what I said, please say so before countering something you aren't sure of the meaning of. Good day all.

[OldTrees]

Outcome 1: Whether the 999 are guilty of letting someone die or not is dependent on whether intent or consequences is the relevant moral data.
Outcome 2: Yes the 999 are guilty.
Outcome 3: See outcome 1.

Secondly, let's apply outcome 2 to world hunger. From previous arguments, it seems we are all guilty of letting people die. How would you go about explaining when letting die is permissible and not permissible? This is a political world and so that answer will usually involve how much we have to sacrifice versus the life would it not?

Assuming you know and refuse to do nothing about it, yet you have the time to easily:
p1) Letting someone die outside you door is impermissible.
p2) Letting someone die across the country is permissible if people over there already know about it.

Here is where our moral intuitions probably differ:
I do not consider it morally impermissible to let someone die outside your door. I would not do so and would be deeply disappointed in anyone that did. However it is the disappointment at a lack of virtue not at a presence of vice.

I feel our intuitions are the same from what you've posted but well see.

Outcome 2: Want to go down the consequence route? We can look over direct consequences vs long term ones (sometime are slippery slope consequences).

In direct, it's the outcome directly after an event. In the event of letting someone dying outside your door unattended means they will die soon is direct consequence. You touch a hot stove, finger burns.

Long term: can philosophically justify something to be immoral if it meets the standards of a what in logic is called an inductive argument in that the events are likely to happen.

Example: failure to donate to a cause is not a direct result in people dying. There are of course other things that will happen that need to be looked at. I feel this is important because my moral intuitions tell me I cannot be immoral for not donating to something like world hunger or invisible children.

You might have misunderstood.
1) The comment about intent vs consequences was required for accuracy not to start a tangent.
2) Your premise "Letting someone die outside you door is impermissible." and my intuition "Letting someone die outside you door is not impermissible." do conflict. Assuming your intuition matches your premise, then our intuitions are different in this manner.

@kimham8a
What do you mean by morally impermissible? What I would mean by morally impermissible would be mutually exclusive from saying it was OK for a human (a moral agent) to do. I cannot say it is OK for humans to murder (murder defined as immoral killing). This characteristic is what separates the permissible-impermissible divide from the superogatory-permissible divide.

While the question of who should get to choose is an important one, it does not address what the choice ought to be.

[northcity4]

Trees did I say it was permissible to let the guy outside your door die? My bad. I did mean impermissible.

Kim: Unfortunately in logic, the topic of abortion cannot assume consequentalism which is what you discussed by noting 'tough beginnings' and 'better off.' We as humans do not make the decision to end someones life based on future circumstances. If this was the case, then people could go around killing people to save more people for example (see Kants examples on Wiki).

It's sad should your circumstances follow for the baby, but that still does not justify killing it.

Also, pushing or supressing bad things does not justify them either. All you have done is explained why humans do certain things, but in logic, you have provided no evidence to actually support your claims. You have only stated your beliefs: logic considers this a fallacy based on that morals are not presumed to be assumed by humans..in other words, moral relativism in logic is a weak argument.

[northcity4]

(going back to your argument)

Let's assume moral theory allows deficiency of donors to allow permissiblity of people starving for a moment.

p1) WHA needs just 2 people to donate 1000$ to save a life and let's 1000 people know.
I donate 1000$
p2) The person is on the verge of death and needs one more donor since no one else has donated.

Outcome 1: I donate 1000$ as the last possible second for it to be used to save the persons life. Are the other 999 people guilty of almost letting the person die (assuming they knew all this time)?

Outcome 2: I don't donate, person dies. The other 999 people are guilty of letting the person die--->correct, but is this a case where letting die is permissible?

Outcome 3: Somone donates at the last second as well and saves the life. Are the 998 people left responsible for almost letting die?

Secondly, let's apply outcome 2 to world hunger. From previous arguments, it seems we are all guilty of letting people die. How would you go about explaining when letting die is permissible and not permissible? This is a political world and so that answer will usually involve how much we have to sacrifice versus the life would it not?


Assuming you know and refuse to do nothing about it, yet you have the time to easily:
p1) Letting someone die outside you door is impermissible.
p2) Letting someone die across the country is permissible if people over there already know about it.

I feel these premises seem fair as a starting point.

p1) I said impermissible

[kimham8a]

@kimham8a
What do you mean by morally impermissible? What I would mean by morally impermissible would be mutually exclusive from saying it was OK for a human (a moral agent) to do. I cannot say it is OK for humans to murder (murder defined as immoral killing). This characteristic is what separates the permissible-impermissible divide from the superogatory-permissible divide.

While the question of who should get to choose is an important one, it does not address what the choice ought to be.

I meant that it's not good to do, but it isn't too bad. Wrong word I guess.

But as to what the choice ought to be, I said that it is too difficult to generalize a set of rules on this. There are too many tiny factors. This is why I believe that the moral thing to do as a third person (say, a lawmaker) is to allow the mother to choose what is right.

[northcity4]

No. It's quite cut and clear.

Assuming the fetus to be human:

abortion will kill the baby. Tiny factors such as bio ethics and law do not determine the morality of the matter. In the U S they do, but in philosophy they do not which is why we me and trees are discussing logical arguments and considering moral obligation with a potential look into consequentalism.

If you don't agree with my argument that abortion is murder (page 21-22 I believe...after the green paragraph since it got restructured), please read that and tell us what you don't agree with. Otherwise, quit coming in here like a few others have and posting material that has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

[kimham8a]

No. It's quite cut and clear.

Assuming the fetus to be human:

abortion will kill the baby. Tiny factors such as bio ethics and law do not determine the morality of the matter. In the U S they do, but in philosophy they do not which is why we me and trees are discussing logical arguments and considering moral obligation with a potential look into consequentalism.

If you don't agree with my argument that abortion is murder (page 21-22 I believe...after the green paragraph since it got restructured), please read that and tell us what you don't agree with. Otherwise, quit coming in here like a few others have and posting material that has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

I do not mention factors such as law. I agree that the law does not change the morality of abortion, but I still don't think there's a black-and-white answer to the morality of this. Abortion can or cannot be murder based on many factors, such as whether the baby can feel yet, and the outcomes of happiness of the people affected by the birth. Each of those factors in turn can be valued either greatly or lesser compared to each other. This is why I say it should be the choice of the mother; there is too much for an answer to be set in stone.

What I disagree with most is this: you say the answer has to be clear, but you don't say why. Could you expand on this?

[northcity4]

Outcomes of happiness and feelings are irrelevant to the morality of abortion.

So what if a baby can't feel, what does that have to do with making abortion okay? Again, all you have done is shown abortion 'not as harsh' when a baby cannot feel. Like killing someone in their sleep versus when they are awake. Point is: you kill them.

Let me diagram this. Person A=mom, Person B=baby, lines show who kills who.

1) A---->B

2) B--/-->A

#1, mom takes an innocent life knowingly.
#2, baby being born is a result of mom dying, but there is yet evidence to suggest it's the babies fault even. In the case of it being the babies fault, I argued the baby cannot be held responsible (previous posts for support).

In logic, when given the abortion situation, it fits this diagram. The last thing I would like to point out is Person A has all the power in this situation which makes this situation different from if both could choose or a third party.

As far as happiness...again all you have done is explained why abortion might make things better. In logic, something getting better/worse does not justify morality without strong support. I do ask for you to support this claim then.

In my view to happiness: there are countries where the death rate of newborns is like 90%+. So, getting an abortion is fine with them because of this. Saves already born lives (guaranteed to live longer) and less funerals and sadness. Unfortunately, this does not justify those people controlling the outcome of another person's life.

In my argument, I claimed that if a fetus is human, abortion is murder. Assuming the fetus to be human, what else do you disagree with that would make it non-murder? If you feel your claims happiness or feelings are actually useful, then please show me, but as of right now, the way you used them in a logical argument shows them as what we call explanations, not evidence.

[OldTrees]

Trees did I say it was permissible to let the guy outside your door die? My bad. I did mean impermissible.

You meant and said impermissible.
I meant and said permissible.
Hence the agree to disagree stage.

@kimham8a
What do you mean by morally impermissible? What I would mean by morally impermissible would be mutually exclusive from saying it was OK for a human (a moral agent) to do. I cannot say it is OK for humans to murder (murder defined as immoral killing). This characteristic is what separates the permissible-impermissible divide from the superogatory-permissible divide.

While the question of who should get to choose is an important one, it does not address what the choice ought to be.

I meant that it's not good to do, but it isn't too bad. Wrong word I guess.

But as to what the choice ought to be, I said that it is too difficult to generalize a set of rules on this. There are too many tiny factors. This is why I believe that the moral thing to do as a third person (say, a lawmaker) is to allow the mother to choose what is right.

Ah. There is not a good term for "permissible options in the presence of superogatory alternatives". The closest description I know of is "permissible but not ideal".


Most moral theories are able to derive if/when/why something would be considered immoral by that theory. This involves identifying what makes a factor relevant to moral considerations and how such relevant factors contribute to the conclusion.

However due to the general willful ignorance about moral theories, I think you are likely right that society (laws) should stay out of the decision.

[northcity4]

So, you are at home and some guy is banging on your door. You open and see he's dying and asks for help. So, you are saying you can go back inside your house and leave him with no help?

[kimham8a]

In response to the bringing of the logic of Kant, I think the lack of morality of killing a few to save many does not apply if those 'few' are of less value than normal people (value may not be the right word but bear with me here). Now what makes someone have less value? Someone who has less/nothing to lose in the first place. This includes people who are willing to sacrifice themselves (some elderly), people who have never known life (vegetables), and fetuses.

Response to claim that happiness is not relevant to morality. How is the happiness of the individuals involved not relevant? I'd argue that happiness is a large factor in determining the justice of a situation.
You go on to say that ''the point is that you kill them''. I would say that's not an injustice in itself. For example, killing in self-defence is not murder. The root of the injustice would be causing a large unhappiness, with a gain in happiness for the other members that is not large enough to compensate.
Example of when it DOES compensate is self-defense as mentioned before, and the example you gave: the family living with high childbirth mortality rates.

So, you are at home and some guy is banging on your door. You open and see he's dying and asks for help. So, you are saying you can go back inside your house and leave him with no help?

I would not leave him with no help. But I believe that there is a difference between someone who knows what life is and asks for help, compared to a baby that has never experienced those things. A baby doesn't want or care.

[northcity4]

The argument of how much happiness is flawed in abortion. Utilitarianism was meant to be used in 2 cases: to decide a better outcome not resulting in life (life isn't part of the equation, like death) or if life is used, a third party must be the chooser.
Kant says in his trolley example: you can use utilitarianism since there is a third party (driver) choosing the life of the others. This is why happiness cannot be used in abortion. There is no third party. There is person A and B with only one holding the power. Since person A cannot end person's B's life in self defense, person A is left in a particular situation where his/her action can be deemed morally wrong in any situation.

I cannot compare self-defense to happiness as well. The problem with this is that in the Utilitarian thinking, both the killer and potential victim have equal reasons to be happy with their actions. Because of this, self-defense is morally permissible on another basis other than happiness. One example is negative-positive rights in terms of life.

In your first paragraph: that is correct...except for the old person...age does not determine human value, society does. For the fetus, we are still assuming it human (same 'value' as the mom), but yes, this needs a strong support before I can stop using this assumption. If the fetus is human though, it's next best to specify what makes a fetus any less value than the mom.
You stated care, feelings, age, and a few others...but does it matter?

This is fallicious because we start comparing which life to save based on putting value markers...which differ from person to person. In philosophy, this is why those 'top guys' stick to 'is it human or not?'
I don't know the exact reason, but their opinion does matter.

Lastly: a baby is outside your front door and you compared that to a dying man. There honesty is no difference between the 2 except: age, height, education, cares, and feelings, yet even American society does not de-value the baby because of this. I still don't see how a baby outside makes it suddenly okay to let it die.