No, I'm saying the mother is the doctor's priority.
Abortion///cont.
- Thread starter quip
- Start date
No, I'm saying the mother is the doctor's priority.
glassjester
Well-known member
I'm thinking it's impossible.
Either the baby cannot yet survive outside of his mother. In which case the baby cannot be saved without saving the mother.
Or the baby can survive outside of his mother. In which case the baby could be delivered early, if the mother could not be saved.
Either way, the baby would not be saved at the expense of the mother.
glassjester
Well-known member
Correct...though his specific action is determined by the circumstance presented to him...not the other way around.
glassjester
Well-known member
This is true in both cases.
I'll continue the claim of dissemblance as long as you continue to present your objection as not an intended default preclusion to the contitutional challenge of restricted liberty via reasonable, thorough examinations of both claim and counter-claim. What's not acceptable is doubling down against the liberties of women, by no less than autocratic rationale, obstructing the very process for its determination itself.
This not only defies reason and our process in defining our liberties by way of it.....it openly fears them.
Last edited:
Not so. That would be the equivalent of claiming the lifeguard chose one swimmer over the other because one was closer or a better swimmer than the other.
That's precicely what your analogy was constructed against.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
glassjester
Well-known member
Quip doesn't think so. He thinks it's the moral equivalent of killing in self-defense.
glassjester
Well-known member
Again...
- Two lives are imperiled (due to circumstances independent of the rescuer).
- If the rescuer does not act, both lives are lost.
- If the rescuer acts, one life may be saved.
All of those statements are true for both cases.
Your gripe seems to be that swimming is not the same as being pregnant.
This is special pleading.
I'm saying the doctor's priority is always with the mother given the equivalent particulars of the 'swimmers' analogy...entirely unlike the lifeguard who situationally must pick at random.
glassjester
Well-known member
Simply because that is the patient he must save first, otherwise he certainly loses both.
This fact does not logically imply a greater intrinsic value of the mother's life.
Quite the opposite, in fact. The precedence of the effort to save the mother is due to the added value of the life of the unborn child. Treating the mother is the only way there can be a chance of saving both.
Anyway, who's to say the lifeguard chooses randomly? Might he not be justified in choosing to rescue the swimmer he judges to be the more likely to survive? If he attempts to rescue the swimmer that he thinks might die anyway, he risks losing both.
Of course it does. You've just expressed the very necessesity ("must") of the hierarchy.
Though, 'value-added' need not infer equal value.
(Plus the goal of the analogy was - specifically - the illustrated death of one over the other.)
You're arguing beyond the intended scope of the analogy.
glassjester
Well-known member
No, but it is sufficient cause for the seemingly preferential treatment of the mother.
Agreed. But your analogy claims one death. You agree that it must be the fetus?
glassjester
Well-known member
Most times, sure. But not due to a greater intrinsic value of either life.
And if the unborn child is able to survive outside of the womb, the child may survive the mother's death, rather than the other way around.
glassjester
Well-known member
It's just a matter of who the doctor can save, not who's more valuable. If he can save both, he will. Right?
Most time? If one (or else both) must die...give me an example where the mother must intentionally be killed, outside natural occurance or her choice to do so.
Goes without saying. So, why say it?
Again, outside the point.