A Little More Realistic Pro-life Dilemma

Abbyas

Muse
Abbyas
Joined
Nov 18, 2005
Messages
684
If abortion would be okay in the case of danger to the life of the mother...

would it not be okay if she was carrying twins? Two lives versus one?
 
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. If the mother dies, both children could pass as well. Either way, its morally reprehensible to force someone to give their life to save another.
 
bob_kark said:
Either way, its morally reprehensible to force someone to give their life to save another.
Click to expand...

Isn't someone forced to do that in this case, regardless of which alternative you choose? Either the twins give their lives to save the mother, or the mother give her life to save the twins? Based on your principle, wouldn't it be best to choose the lesser of two evils, and save the twins? (Of course they might die as well, but I think the proposed hypothetical meant to imply that we can be reasonably certain that it's possible to save both of them, at the cost of the mother's life.)
 
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Click to expand...

That's my point. In the pro-life view, aren't fetuses already "in the hand", or fully realized lives?
 
but I think the proposed hypothetical meant to imply that we can be reasonably certain that it's possible to save both of them, at the cost of the mother's life
Click to expand...

Exactly. I don't think we have to go to far to find an example. Say the woman has early stages of cancer. Chemotherapy would kill both fetuses, but by avoiding it, she could carry both to term.
 
Even with that example, the viability of the twins is not 100%. As to my comment about it being morally reprehensible, in any situation where one must die in order for the other to survive, someone has to die. However, forcing someone by law to choose to die, is morally reprehensible. One must make that choice on their own.
 
Last edited:
Even with that example, the viability of the twins is not 100%.
Click to expand...

No more risk than any other pregnancy.

However, forcing someone by law to choose to die, is morally reprehensibe.
Click to expand...

But aren't we forcing the twins to die for the mother?

This is exactly why I'm pro choice. How is this different than forcing someone by law to go through the physical and emotional hardships of pregnancy? Can you see my connection here?
 
Abbyas said:
No more risk than any other pregnancy.
Click to expand...

A birth where the mother is weakened by cancer isn't any riskier than any other pregnancy?

Abbyas said:
But aren't we forcing the twins to die for the mother?

This is exactly why I'm pro choice. How is this different than forcing someone by law to go through the physical and emotional hardships of pregnancy? Can you see my connection here?
Click to expand...

We aren't, she is. That's the difference.
 
bob_kark said:
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. If the mother dies, both children could pass as well. Either way, its morally reprehensible to force someone to give their life to save another.
Click to expand...

Uh... isn't forcing someone to not get an abortion forcing them to give up their life to save another?

I don't see where pointing out the logical-inconsistancies in the anti-choice insanity is going to get us anywhere.
 
strathmeyer said:
Uh... isn't forcing someone to not get an abortion forcing them to give up their life to save another?

I don't see where pointing out the logical-inconsistancies in the anti-choice insanity is going to get us anywhere.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I forgot that the mortality rate for women giving birth was 100%. What logical inconsistancies are you referring to, other than your own?
 
As for me, I'd want to know how far along the pregnancy was and why an abortion could save the life of the mother. Frankly these strained hypthesies are like "if a tree falls in the woods...."

In real life, choices in medical matters are are rarely clear cut. Outcomes are frequently expressed as percentages. Find a mother carrying twins and ask her how she feels about it.

IIRichard
 
It's still pretty strained because there's no doctor on earth who could promise the mother would live if she got the chemo, and that the mother would successfully carry to term then die if she did not. Maybe she could carry to term and then get chemo. Or maybe she'd get the chemo and die anyway. Or maybe she'd lose the babies or die before she reached term.
 
Crazytree said:
it's not a person until its out and breathing.
Click to expand...
I disagree. What is your basis for this reasoning? Don't get me wrong I could make a fairly compelling argument in support of this proposition but I'm interested in your take.

Thanks
 
Roe v. Wade is probably one of the worst written decisions handed down by the Supreme Court in the last 50 years. believe me, I know... I had to suffer through it twice in law school.

what I took from that case is that there is essentially no point at which science/man/law/whatever can decide that a fetus is now a human life. this is sort of a "world's tallest midget" problem. therefore, the Court created an artificial trimester system which is completely arbitrary. a fetus 5 months and 29 days is legally distinct from a fetus 6 months and 1 day? Roe v. Wade certainly thinks so.

being decidedly Pro-Choice before I had a chance to delve into the substance of the argument... I am admittedly using backwards logic in order to psychologically support my position.

[as a brief aside... I would never take part in an abortion... nor would I "allow" my partner to have an abortion. of course, I have always worn condoms, so I can be quite smug on this particular issue.]

I have elected to draw my line in the uterus, so to speak. I believe that one life becomes to at the moment at which the fetus is no longer wholly dependant on the mother's life support system in order to survive. of course, as medical technology progresses... this point is being moved further and further back. [just as oldies are being kept alive on life support longer and longer.] I believe that so long as the fetus is incapable of surviving on its own, it is biologically and philosophically an extension of the mother's body, as it is unable to sustain itself without an outside biological support system.

hence... life begins at birth [even an abrupt one] seems to me a legitimate, arbitrary and reasonable personal bright line rule.
 
Crazytree said:
Roe v. Wade is probably one of the worst written decisions handed down by the Supreme Court in the last 50 years. believe me, I know... I had to suffer through it twice in law school.

what I took from that case is that there is essentially no point at which science/man/law/whatever can decide that a fetus is now a human life. this is sort of a "world's tallest midget" problem. therefore, the Court created an artificial trimester system which is completely arbitrary. a fetus 5 months and 29 days is legally distinct from a fetus 6 months and 1 day? Roe v. Wade certainly thinks so.

being decidedly Pro-Choice before I had a chance to delve into the substance of the argument... I am admittedly using backwards logic in order to psychologically support my position.

[as a brief aside... I would never take part in an abortion... nor would I "allow" my partner to have an abortion. of course, I have always worn condoms, so I can be quite smug on this particular issue.]

I have elected to draw my line in the uterus, so to speak. I believe that one life becomes to at the moment at which the fetus is no longer wholly dependant on the mother's life support system in order to survive. of course, as medical technology progresses... this point is being moved further and further back. [just as oldies are being kept alive on life support longer and longer.] I believe that so long as the fetus is incapable of surviving on its own, it is biologically and philosophically an extension of the mother's body, as it is unable to sustain itself without an outside biological support system.

hence... life begins at birth [even an abrupt one] seems to me a legitimate, arbitrary and reasonable personal bright line rule.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the response. If I understand you correctly you are saying that there is no reasonable basis for determining when life begins and so one basis is as valid or for that matter as arbitrary as any other, add to that the fact that the unborn baby requires a biological life support system then delivery becomes a good point of delineation for you, correct?

I think this raises a number of questions I won't go into them all. The main one that comes to mind is that a baby outside of the womb can't live with out a support system either. Why is placenta and umbilical cord more significant that a teat? Why is the ability to live without a support system important at all? Why is breathing important? Cockroaches consume oxygen and can live without a support system. Do they merit the same consideration as a human baby? I'm thinking there is something more to your criteria besides a living entity that does not require a biological support system.

That being said I don't think the notion of trimesters is completely arbitrary. I don't like Roe v Wade either but there is a clear difference between the first trimester and the third. You could argue that there is no difference between night and day because we can't precisely determine when one starts and the other ends. But that would just be silly. There is a difference between night and day just as there is a difference between the first and second trimester.

No, it's not easy defining what is and what is not human life and it is true that medical science is pushing viability back but that doesn't obviate the fact that there is a distinct life form with brain patterns, a personality and emotions that is far more (IMO) than simply an extension of the mother.

The only thing that an unborn child does not have in the third trimester, that is significant to me, is moral agency. I personally could care less about breathing or biological support systems. These things to me are incidental. When someone goes in for a heart transplant they go on life support. I'm not certain anyone would argue that such a person is a non-person. I could be wrong though?

Please don't construe my post as being anything but my thoughts and perceptions. My discussions in this area tend to generate a lot of heat and debate since I often appear to take more of an authoritative positions than my education and experience justify. I am not an authority on human biology, ethics or the law.
 
bob_kark said:
We aren't, she is. That's the difference.
Click to expand...
To expand on bob_kark's point: a comparison is being made being a woman carrying a preganancy to term because she is forced to do so, and a woman having an abortion to save her life. That isn't really the right comparison. If you're going to propose a law saying that it's illegal for a woman to kill her fetus to save her life, then a comparable law would be one which makes it illegal for a fetus to kill its mother to save its life. And surely we can all agree that putting a fetus in jail for kill its mother is absurd.
 
bob_kark said:
However, forcing someone by law to choose to die, is morally reprehensible. One must make that choice on their own.
Click to expand...

You can't force someone to chose since choice suggests free will.

Consider the following situation

There has been a nuclear meltdown. The water that has hurriedly been pumped into the reactor building in a futile attempt to extinguish the fire has run down underneath the reactor floor to the space underneath. The problem presented by this is that the smouldering fuel and other material on the reactor floor is starting to burn its way through this floor, and this is being made worse by materials being dropped from helicopters, which re simply acting as a furnace to increase the temperatures further. If this material came into contact with the water, it will have generate a thermal explosion which would arguably be worse than the initial reactor explosion itself, and would render land in a radius of hundreds of miles from the plant uninhabitable for at least one hundred years as well as poisening/killing anyone living there.

The solution is to open a valve to drain off the water. The valve itself is under water and you yourself do not have the skills to reach it. Anyone going to open it will die. Probably before they get back to the surface. Do you order someone with the skills to go and open it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom