Gallup Pro-life/choice

Wow I am surprised at the not liking of PP's hypothetical situation.

His point was that IF a mother had a disease that could be cured by killing a young baby then it wouldn't happen. Why wouldn't it happen? That is because it is a child.

On the other hand Pro Lifers(Linus or one because I have seen him say it) say that if a pregnancy is in fact going to kill a mother, than an abortion is ok. The whole time this is said, they argue that a fetus is in fact a human life.

If it is ok to kill one "human life" to save a mother, than why is it not ok to kill another?

I'm actually really surprised at some of the criticism of PP's argument. Have any of you ever taken a course in Ethics? Try to imagine teaching an Ethics course (or having any meaningful discussion of ethics) using only real-world examples.

Chewp, using hypotheticals is the only way you can arrive at any conclusions about morality. I don't think you're getting it.

I have a slight beef with peter's logic here, not for it being hypothetical.

In the case of aborting to save the mother's life, we're dealing with a lifeform whose existence threatens the existence of the mother. Since that lifeform itself has a low chance of survival, we see abortions as a sad, but justifiable means to save at least one of their lives.

In the case of the second option, the newborn would survive perfectly well if the mother died. In that instance you are putting more value on the mother's life then the newborn's life. Also, since the newborn is virtually defenseless, your preying on something weaker then you.

The moral issues with the second situation over the first isn't because its a baby vs. fetus, its because you're saying its life is worth less then the mother's life in the second situation. In the first situation, you're weighing the odds of each life and making a purely logical choice.  If the same conditions existed for the baby and the mother, where the baby was most likely going to die anyway, I think the situation would be much different.
  

Holy crap, I agree with the Canadian.

Seriously, the situation  was completely tailored to fit one side of the argument.

What if, hypothetically, everyone who agrees with abortion will get herpes? Maybe you'd better change your tune, because you're going to get herpes.

The point of the argument Reb isn't to say abortion is a good thing.

The point was to show that the same people who say that fetuses are actual human living beings and shouldn't be killed are very against the killing of a child to save a mother. This is while they say that abortion can only happen if the mother is in danger.

From this it shows that they do in fact actually believe that a fetus is <born human. Nothing more.

It is not an impossible hypothetical situation.

It is a question on whether you actually believe that a fetus is the same a human that is already born.

jmac3 wrote: It is not an impossible hypothetical situation.

lol wut?

So, then I call on you to answer Linus's challenge, name one instance in the medical world where killing an already born child would save the life of a mother.

MY point is that if you're going to base decisions and 'rational' arguments on hypothetical situations that are woven from impossible, implausible and ridiculous instances, then you really aren't any better than the "OMG THE SKY IS FALLING" neo-cons that you're always claiming to be smarter than.

It's not even a weak argument.

Also, I did say "it isn't an impossible hypothetical situation" but I didn't really mean it was possible. Just poor hasty words.

Oh and maybe the mother needs blood.

jmac3 wrote: Oh and maybe the mother needs blood.

And there are no matches on earth except for the newborn?

There you go again.


Yes, I'm just being a pain in the ass now. Baby is asleep, its affording me a precious few minutes of free time.