toldailytopic: Were you for or against your mother's right to terminate you?

[gcthomas]

A new born infant cannot survive on its own either for years and years, should we be able to kill them too since they are unable to sustain their own life yet?

That would be a moral judgement to make, and one might to different conclusions in different places, times and situations. It is possible to rationalise infanticide on cognitive power, although I wouldn't in a rich, western country. But if you were part of a small New Guinean tribe that could not afford the resources for a new baby (at the cost of an adult dying of starvation or losing the work of the mother to support the group) then the balance wouldn't be so clear cut.

 

[Rusha]

Thank you for you clarity.

You had two outcomes likely. Save the mother, or kill the mother. You have chosen the path that would cause TWO deaths instead of one.

Kill the mother by inaction to avoid the moral stain of an abortion.

Interesting.

WHY do you leap to the conclusion that you need to *willfully* kill the unborn baby in order for the mother to live rather than trying to save both lives?

As you well know, almost all abortions are done for the sake of convenience.

In the few instances that their are health issues or complications, there is no good reason that the goal should not be to save both the mother and her unborn baby.

 

[gcthomas]

WHY do you leap to the conclusion that you need to *willfully* kill the unborn baby in order for the mother to live rather than trying to save both lives?

As you well know, almost all abortions are done for the sake of convenience.

In the few instances that their are health issues or complications, there is no good reason that the goal should not be to save both the mother and her unborn baby.

The argument I was challenging is that there are NO situations which could make an abortion moral. I set up a hypothetical situation where the physician had determined (let's say, correctly) that there was no chance that the mother could be saved without a termination of an early foetus.

The answers I have got so far indicte that the moral choice is to avoid the decision, and as a result lose both mother and foetus, trusting to luck, and salving conscience by saying 'we tried'.

In this rare (but real) situation, would you sacrifice the mother in a vain attempt to avoid the best, but distasteful, option?

 

[Rusha]

The argument I was challenging is that there are NO situations which could make an abortion moral. I set up a hypothetical situation where the physician had determined (let's say, correctly) that there was no chance that the mother could be saved without a termination of an early foetus.

The answers I have got so far indicte that the moral choice is to avoid the decision, and as a result lose both mother and foetus, trusting to luck, and salving conscience by saying 'we tried'.

In this rare (but real) situation, would you sacrifice the mother in a vain attempt to avoid the best, but distasteful, option?

Rather than throwing out an extremely remote situation, let's stick with this question:

Should AOD be legal?

 

[resurrected]

In this rare (but real) situation, would you sacrifice the mother in a vain attempt to avoid the best, but distasteful, option?

No, of course not.

Should AOD be legal?

Of course not.










See how easy that is guys? :idunno:

 

[gcthomas]

Rather than throwing out an extremely remote situation, let's stick with this question:

Should AOD be legal?

AOD? First trimester, yes. Up to 20 weeks, no, but with exemptions for special cases. Later: no.

Now, on my hypothetical case: I know it is difficult. Sacrificing the mother sounds bad, but it can only be avoided by an abortion, which sounds bad. I can entirely understand why you won't answer, but I'm sure you will excuse me if I fill the void by concluding that difficult ethical dilemmas are too hard for the simplistic view your morality requires. Unless you want to clarify your opinion.

 

[Rusha]

AOD? First trimester, yes.

Why

Up to 20 weeks, no, but with exemptions for special cases. Later: no.

Why not?

Now, on my hypothetical case: I know it is difficult. Sacrificing the mother sounds bad, but it can only be avoided by an abortion, which sounds bad. I can entirely understand why you won't answer, but I'm sure you will excuse me if I fill the void by concluding that difficult ethical dilemmas are too hard for the simplistic view your morality requires. Unless you want to clarify your opinion.

I did answer ... quite clearly. The intent should be to save BOTH lives. The intent should be to kill neither.

As you know, the sole intent for abortion is to kill the life of the unborn baby.

 

[gcthomas]

Why

Why not?

I've answered these qs in some detail earlier in the thread, so I won't repeat here.

I did answer ... quite clearly. The intent should be to save BOTH lives. The intent should be to kill neither.

OK. In the situation as described, the intent to save both will kill both, whereas the intent to save the save-able one will kill one, save one. The decision you'd make would be the one that leaves two dead, instead of one. How would that be the ethical action?

As you know, the sole intent for abortion is to kill the life of the unborn baby.

(my emphasis)

No, no, no. That may be a majority reason, but there are more. In the situation I described, the reason would be to save a life, by hastening a death (not causing a death, for death would happen anyway when the mother dies). For a foetus that is in the process of a long decline and death, an abortion can save suffering and pain to both mother and foetus.

 

[Angel4Truth]

That would be a moral judgement to make, and one might to different conclusions in different places, times and situations. It is possible to rationalise infanticide on cognitive power, although I wouldn't in a rich, western country. But if you were part of a small New Guinean tribe that could not afford the resources for a new baby (at the cost of an adult dying of starvation or losing the work of the mother to support the group) then the balance wouldn't be so clear cut.

Youre kidding right? I would starve before i would let my child.

 

[gcthomas]

Youre kidding right? I would starve before i would let my child.

If a productive mother living in extremely marginal conditions starved, then the child would probably die anyway from getting no milk. Distasteful to someone in a rich country perhaps, but ethics are context sensitive.

 

[Aimiel]

Being adopted, I cannot help but be glad that there used to be such stigma against abortion (born in 1955). I often argued with my adoptive mother against abortion and she said, "It should be a woman's right to choose," until I one day argued that had my birth mother taken that route that she would have no children. It changed her mind about abortion altogether. Abortion is murder, even if it is just a one-celled zygote.

 

[Angel4Truth]

If a productive mother living in extremely marginal conditions starved, then the child would probably die anyway from getting no milk. Distasteful to someone in a rich country perhaps, but ethics are context sensitive.

Loads of rich women wanting babies that cannot have them, what about that? Why make it so $$$ to adopt then, much better than killing them dont you think?

 

[gcthomas]

Loads of rich women wanting babies that cannot have them, what about that? Why make it so $$$ to adopt then, much better than killing them dont you think?

So YOU'VE been frustrated that you couldn't get an unwanted baby off a New Guinean stone-age Dani group in the middle of the remote highlands then?

Have you tried to stop an abortion in the US by paying the mother?

Or is it too expensive for you to stop murder?

 

[Angel4Truth]

So YOU'VE been frustrated that you couldn't get an unwanted baby off a New Guinean stone-age Dani group in the middle of the remote highlands then?

Have you tried to stop an abortion in the US by paying the mother?

Or is it too expensive for you to stop murder?

You've assumed quite a bit there haven't you. Like that i am rich or something .... rich according to world standards since i am an american, rich according to american standards? Far from it.

If i could afford it, sure i would stop an abortion by paying the mothers medical bills and expenses - even though i am not looking to have another child, even though if i wanted to have one i could from my own body.

As far as being frustrated that other countries sell them, sure, but being that i am no diplomat or leader of those countries, there really isnt much i can personally do about that is there?

Have you tried to stop abortion in the us by offering money to the mother? If no, then why not? Do you think killing the baby is better for everyone?

 

[doloresistere]

Youre kidding right? I would starve before i would let my child.

If a productive mother living in extremely marginal conditions starved, then the child would probably die anyway from getting no milk. Distasteful to someone in a rich country perhaps, but ethics are context sensitive.

I am trying to make some connection to the logic that A4T used in her post and the "logic" you used in response to her. I can't even thread a coherent thought connecting your response to her.

 

[gcthomas]

I am trying to make some connection to the logic that A4T used in her post and the "logic" you used in response to her. I can't even thread a coherent thought connecting your response to her.

You really can't? I'm sorry to hear that. Maybe someone can help you out.

 

[Angel4Truth]

You really can't? I'm sorry to hear that. Maybe someone can help you out.

Maybe you could help us all out, im not sure anyone understood it, including me, or where you got that i wanted someone elses child, or wanted to buy one myself or that i couldnt have any.

So maybe you can tell us.

 

[gcthomas]

I am trying to make some connection to the logic that A4T used in her post and the "logic" you used in response to her. I can't even thread a coherent thought connecting your response to her.

Oh well. Here goes.

A4T was suggesting that it was a moral position to starve yourself before a child could starve. Agreed for most situations. But, where your death would kill the child (and siblings who can no longer be supported), it can be moral to allow that one child to die, and immoral to allow yourself to starve to death.

It wasn't really a difficult explanation. 'Pick the choice that does the least harm to others' can be a moral decision. (Caveats obviously apply, before you find exceptions)

 

[Angel4Truth]

Oh well. Here goes.

A4T was suggesting that it was a moral position to starve yourself before a child could starve. Agreed for most situations. But, where your death would kill the child (and siblings who can no longer be supported), it can be moral to allow that one child to die, and immoral to allow yourself to starve to death.

It wasn't really a difficult explanation. 'Pick the choice that does the least harm to others' can be a moral decision. (Caveats obviously apply, before you find exceptions)

Sorry, i am unable to process anything moral about allowing a child to die.

 

[Stripe]

If a productive mother living in extremely marginal conditions starved, then the child would probably die anyway from getting no milk. Distasteful to someone in a rich country perhaps, but ethics are context sensitive.

What sort of argument is this?

People in some countries are poor therefore everyone should be allowed to murder their children?

Can the evolutionists please come up with something not so utterly despicable?