is abortion correct when it saves the mother?

[russianspy1234]

If something is immoral, it is immoral regardless of the circumstances. Now immoral/=wrong because morality is not a weighted decision. What is right and wrong is. Let me use this example.

Killing is immoral. If someone broke into my house, and was going to kill me and my wife, and I killed them, then that would be immoral. Killing is immoral. However, it would still be the right thing to do, even if it is immoral. I determine it is right by weighing out the good and the bad. The morality stays the same regardless of the situation. How right or wrong it is, doesnt.

Specifically I am unfamiliar with using immoral to represent a potentially morally permissible choice.

I think this is where we are getting lost.
Morals are, at least in my view, absolute. There is no compromising with morality. If something is immoral in circumstance A, it is immoral in circumstance B. There is no "permissible morality" . That phrase, at its essence is "permissible immorality" You are taking an immoral act, and saying it is ok to do in this situation.

If you had to do an immoral act to stop an immoral act, then your act was still immoral. Although the legal system in the US is definitely messed up, I recall a story where someone jaywalked because he saw someone about to be hit by a car and he saved the guys life. Then a police officer nailed him for jaywalking.

snip

I think i accidentally misrepresented the circumstance. The baby was going to be ok regardless. However, the mother was told she had a 0% (not near 0% chance, an actual 0% chance) of surviving the pregnancy. She was told that if she went through with it, then she would die. She is in good health to this day, just for the record. Meanwhile, your statement is more an appeal to ignorance than anything. All the information anyone but the doctor had, said that there was a 0% chance of survival. I do agree that the doctor could have been lieing, however, we have no choice but to say that he wasnt.

your example is what we call anecdotal evidence, and for every case like yours there are 1000 where the doctor was correct.

your also oversimplifying the definition of morality, and moral "puzzles" often involve what you would do in certain situations (ie kill 1 to save 10) and they even get more in depth than that, so no morality of an action is not absolute, or rather, "action" involves context eg "killing someone when there is no immediate danger to you" is not the same action as "killing someone poiting a gun at your face"

[OldTrees]

If something is immoral, it is immoral regardless of the circumstances. Now immoral/=wrong because morality is not a weighted decision. What is right and wrong is. Let me use this example.

Killing is immoral. If someone broke into my house, and was going to kill me and my wife, and I killed them, then that would be immoral. Killing is immoral. However, it would still be the right thing to do, even if it is immoral. I determine it is right by weighing out the good and the bad. The morality stays the same regardless of the situation. How right or wrong it is, doesnt.

Specifically I am unfamiliar with using immoral to represent a potentially morally permissible choice.

I think this is where we are getting lost.
Morals are, at least in my view, absolute. There is no compromising with morality. If something is immoral in circumstance A, it is immoral in circumstance B. There is no "permissible morality" . That phrase, at its essence is "permissible immorality" You are taking an immoral act, and saying it is ok to do in this situation.

I agree that morals are absolute. However I consider the morally relevant detail as being moral or immoral. When the immoral morally relevant detail is present in an option then that option is morally impermissible.

Ex:
Let's define Murder as Immoral killing (ignore any previous definition for now). In all circumstances all killing that would be murder would be immoral. Killing that is not murder may not be immoral. In this manner the moral is absolute. Murder is always impermissible.
Now lets examine a circumstance where you have the choice to either flip or not flip a switch. The morality of the action depends on what the switch does. If it merely  adjusts the lights then flipping the switch is morally permissible. If it would murder someone then flipping the switch is morally impermissible. The action of flipping a switch is immoral in circumstance 2 but not in circumstance 1 because a morally relevant detail changed.

	1	2
Is murder immoral?	Y	Y
Is flipping the switch murder?	N	Y
Is flipping the switch immoral?	N	Y

Line 1 is absolute.
Line 2 is a morally relevant detail that varies.
Line 3 is the effect of the morally relevant detail on the morality of the choice at hand.

If you had to do an immoral act to stop an immoral act, then your act was still immoral. -snip we are talking about moral not legal snip-

Agreed. However the next step in the logical chain is to conclude:
If you would have to do an impermissible act to prevent an impermissible act then preventing the impermissible act is not permissible.

[BluePriest]

your example is what we call anecdotal evidence, and for every case like yours there are 1000 where the doctor was correct.

your also oversimplifying the definition of morality, and moral "puzzles" often involve what you would do in certain situations (ie kill 1 to save 10) and they even get more in depth than that, so no morality of an action is not absolute, or rather, "action" involves context eg "killing someone when there is no immediate danger to you" is not the same action as "killing someone poiting a gun at your face"

I dont consider it me simplifying. I consider it others overcomplicating. These are morals though. There is no mutually agreed on book that says what they are. We will have disagreements on them. Both of us could be wrong. 1 of us could. Neither of us know the answer. I am simply telling you my view.

[KeeperofDreams]

Do you mind me asking what ailment she was suffering?

[northcity4]

Here are some other thoughts to consider:

Morally, it is WRONG for the women to abort her baby; especially since the the creator of this thread silenced the argument by saying "baby is sentient."

What happens is that people put situations (problems with going the other road) to sway us from what is really right and wrong. Morally, if the women aborted, she would be wrong. That simple, but that doesn't mean she won't be able to live with her self. "So you are saying murder is always wrong?" Yes, thus why we have the words murder and kill. If you are the reason someone dies, you have to look at if from the situation behind why. Accident/unintentional or purpose? The baby cannot be held accountable for the mother's death. We think it's the baby's fault (although unintentional), but you could argue it's the women's fault as well. If the women gets it aborted, looking from what the creator already assumed about what would happen if the baby survived, it seems like the women's motives were selfish.

Topic war: what if the situation was during a war scenario? We need the women alive to win the war or thousands/millions of people will die.
You can argue all you wan to justify killing the baby in that case, but the baby did not "ok." Morally, it's still wrong, although the women would still probably be able to live with herself. Like a judge ruling in the case of "les Miserables." Sorry poor man, what you did was WRONG=punishment. Now, the judge knows he did it to save his life (read the story if unfamiliar with this), but the if the judge rules by what is wrong and right, the poor man's excuses mean nothing.
Final thoughts: mass effect 2: the man trapped in that building who's mind was like a super computer and people basically imprisoned him because they needed his mind for the war effort (communicate with the geth). Again, we get swayed with scenarios from what is right and wrong. What they did was wrong.

So, if abortion correct to save the mother, even if the death of the mother brought ruins to so much? yes

[Cheesy111]

Here are some other thoughts to consider:

Morally, it is WRONG for the women to abort her baby; especially since the the creator of this thread silenced the argument by saying "baby is sentient."

What happens is that people put situations (problems with going the other road) to sway us from what is really right and wrong. Morally, if the women aborted, she would be wrong. That simple, but that doesn't mean she won't be able to live with her self. "So you are saying murder is always wrong?" Yes, thus why we have the words murder and kill. If you are the reason someone dies, you have to look at if from the situation behind why. Accident/unintentional or purpose? The baby cannot be held accountable for the mother's death. We think it's the baby's fault (although unintentional), but you could argue it's the women's fault as well. If the women gets it aborted, looking from what the creator already assumed about what would happen if the baby survived, it seems like the women's motives were selfish.

Topic war: what if the situation was during a war scenario? We need the women alive to win the war or thousands/millions of people will die.
You can argue all you wan to justify killing the baby in that case, but the baby did not "ok." Morally, it's still wrong, although the women would still probably be able to live with herself. Like a judge ruling in the case of "les Miserables." Sorry poor man, what you did was WRONG=punishment. Now, the judge knows he did it to save his life (read the story if unfamiliar with this), but the if the judge rules by what is wrong and right, the poor man's excuses mean nothing.
Final thoughts: mass effect 2: the man trapped in that building who's mind was like a super computer and people basically imprisoned him because they needed his mind for the war effort (communicate with the geth). Again, we get swayed with scenarios from what is right and wrong. What they did was wrong.

So, if abortion correct to save the mother, even if the death of the mother brought ruins to so much? yes

Saying that the situation is just trying to sway us and doesn't change anything is silly.  A killing in self-defense is different than a killing in the defense of a third party is different than a cold-blooded murder.  The argument that would come into play for abortion in this case, even if you take for granted that normal abortion = murder, would be that the baby would inflict harm upon the mother and thus the abortion is in self-defense. 

[OldTrees]

So, if abortion correct to save the mother, even if the death of the mother brought ruins to so much? yes

I believe, based on the rest of your post, that you meant abortion was wrong (not correct).

Consider this analogy:
Oprah is deathly ill. Her liver has been overloaded. She could make a full recovery if connected to someone else's liver for 9 months. Some Oprah fans abduct Oprah and you and preform the temporary surgery. You are now sustaining the life of a human. You did not choose this situation. Neither did the human you are sustaining. If you sever the connection then Oprah will die.

A question arises about whether you are morally obligated to sustain Oprah for the 9 months or if it is morally permissible to sever the connection and let Oprah die.

[artimies7]

Back on topic: Who are we to decide in this situation? The doctor?

If I was the doctor here, I'd let the mother decide whether it's her or her child.

P.S. Not many babies that age are very sentient. Granted, they are alive and that's something to be proud of, but sentiency: no.

[vivimancer]

Consider this analogy:
Oprah is deathly ill. Her liver has been overloaded. She could make a full recovery if connected to someone else's liver for 9 months. Some Oprah fans abduct Oprah and you and preform the temporary surgery. You are now sustaining the life of a human. You did not choose this situation. Neither did the human you are sustaining. If you sever the connection then Oprah will die.

A question arises about whether you are morally obligated to sustain Oprah for the 9 months or if it is morally permissible to sever the connection and let Oprah die.

So, in your analogy, you have been abducted and now you are sustaining the life of an other human being, potentially that could seriously harm your health and possibly your life. You have in effect been 'raped', it was forced on you and was in no way your choice.

So, in this situation i would assume; you would have no emotional attachment to Oprah and by seeing Oprah you would be constantly reminded of a traumatic experience where you were violated.

In this circumstance I think it would be very hard to argue against this person wanting to have Oprah removed.

[kimham8a]

In Oldtrees's case, being in the point of view of the abductee, I would find it pretty cold-blooded to just look at Oprah in the face and say, ''I am going to let you die now because it's morally permissable. I wouldn't kill you if it was wrong to do so, but it is ok in my situation to let you die. So I will make you die.''

Original Topic:
I found abortion morally correct whether anyone's life is in danger or not. Could someone explain to me their reasons for believing abortion is wrong?
Also, whatever the answer to the above question, the morality of a decision I believe is determined by the degree of pain felt by each side as a consequence of that decision. If, as some people have said, abortion is wrong no matter the consequences, what if I stole 5 bucks (morally wrong) to save everyone on Earth from having their eyes gouged out (apparently meaningless consequence)?

[OldTrees]

In Oldtrees's case, being in the point of view of the abductee, I would find it pretty cold-blooded to just look at Oprah in the face and say, ''I am going to let you die now because it's morally permissable. I wouldn't kill you if it was wrong to do so, but it is ok in my situation to let you die. So I will make you die.''

Nobody ever does something because it is morally permissible. They always have other reasons that they only act upon because they do not see it as morally impermissible. If they did not have those other reasons then they would be more concerned about if supporting the life would be morally permissible.

A more reasonable example of motive would have been: "Since it is morally permissible to let you die, I may consider that alternative. In the case where I cannot afford to be incapacitated for 9 months, I cannot afford to support you. So I will let you die."

This then gets into the discussion about what is a justified excuse to let someone die. Most would agree that the absence of an excuse is not justified. Most would agree that abstaining from killing someone is a justified excuse to let someone else die. We have no established that somewhere between these extremes is the turning point where letting someone die is justified.

PS: If stealing 5 bucks is morally wrong then it is morally wrong. If stealing 5 bucks can be morally permissible then it can be morally permissible. If you are using Rules utilitarianism then it is probably morally wrong. If you are using Act utilitarianism then it is probably morally obligatory. Virtue Ethics and Kantian Ethics have different views.

[northcity4]

Maybe my understanding of sentient is off, could some1 post their version for me please?

 Also, I do ask: does truth play a matter in this? Lets take murder for instance: my professor said to look at it this way: pretend there was no way of proving something is morally wrong. You have 2 kingdoms: one allows murder, the other does not. The kingdom that does not allow it thrives and the other comes to ruins. I am not saying murder is wrong, but the truth of the matter is that one kingdom survived and one did not.

I am sure we all agree here that if you are not thriving is a bad thing. So, based on observations...can we see if something is wrong? Abortion: ive researched and stats show 75-80% of all women later in life regret abortion---> regardless of the circumstances of the time. If, if this statistic is true, how would this play a role?

-sorry for not answering previous posts: wanted to keep us back on track.