Is the life of the mother or father more important than a baby?

When reasoning you are supposed to understand the underlying principles and not superficially or emotionally look at just the situation at hand and apply those principles consistently.

The problem is you most Pro-choicers basically use personhood to claim moral significance for things in general, then use other rules to stop non person things you want to include from being killed i.e babies, but these equally apply to animals with exactly the same or higher cognitive abilities, that you in fact allow to be killed!!!

In other words you use a rule when it suits you for a foetus, but then arbitrarily ignore it for a baby.

Ralph and others here think Pro-Lifers are monsters for choosing the life of a foetus over a mother, but what about a baby which isn't a person either?

Do the rest of you automatically prefer the life of the mother or father over the life of a baby?

I can think up a thought experiment where both a mother and baby's lives are threatened and there is only one drug or organ to spare. Now either could live while the other dies, but also there is a none zero chance both will live. I would argue both have a right to life and right to the cure, so personally unless the mother decides to lay down her life for the child, as a doctor I would let fate decide.

Any two innocent moral entities have the same right to life as each other.

But what about where the mother or father through abuse or carelessness caused a smilar situation? Wouldn't they then be the offending party and the innocent party take precidance over her?

I certainly think in an analogous situation where a assassin poisoned both himself and me and where there is only one antidote, as the innocent party I have the moral right to the antidote.

Put another way does a baby have less rights than its parents? I think you guys are on the horns of a dilemma either way.

Tags: abortion

Views: 18

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Baby or fetus. Which is it?
Sorry! I just spent 10 minutes on a reply and all that came out was baby or fetus. There needs to be some further clarifications. Is this disorder 100 % fatal? If so than the doctor cannot let fate decide because both will die. That is clearly immoral. Abuse is not in the same category as carelessness. Define carelessness.
What if the parent is unable to communicate their wishes through incapacity?
What if the abuser has an ability to save others?
I had some other arguments but lost the thread when computer glitched. I'll get back to this when it comes back to me. But, I think these are some points to consider.
Oh yeah. What is more important potential vs existing ability? Damn, I'll get the gears going again.
Good Post!
Just a quick one I've a few jobs to do.

As far as the analogy goes you want everything to be equal so both mother and baby have an equal chance of surviving if the other dies but there is small but non zero chance both could survive if nothing is done. There is certainly room to play with it depending if the chance of both surviving is raised but I haven't thought about that. But for now say there is a small but real chance both will survive.

Sophies Choice? But an interesting point in itself on how anyone decides who lives and dies when you have two adults with the same exact chance of survival.

No the parent can communicate but I think it would also work for the reverese.

Carelessness I don't think it matters as long as the parent did something that harmed in major way.

Can the abuser save other lives?

What I'm looking for is a simple all things being equal, if you start going into complex what if's you can start to justify anything taken to an extreme. eg Hitler may have in fact saved the human race from extiction by starting WW2 etc

Have to run, so no need to rush a reply will be back much later.
This a complex issue that cannot be as simple as all things being equal. The Hitler comparison is disingenuous. The sun may explode tomorrow making this all moot.
Why do you think the parent's inability to communicate would also work for the reverse?
Carelessness may matter vis a vis equating it with abuse which would weigh against the abuser.
The non zero outcome you describe makes this even more complex.
Baby
Sorry had to edit to this

The problem is you guys basically use personhood to claim moral significance for things in general, then use other rules to stop non person things you want to include from being killed i.e. babies, but these equally apply to animals with exactly the same or higher cognitive abilities, that you in fact allow to be killed!!!
"Put another way does a baby have less rights than its parents? I think you guys are on the horns of a dilemma either way. "


A fetus is not a baby,so the question is irrelevant in that context..

My position is that there are no such things as innate rights.

There is no basic moral dilemma for me. The simple answer is "'Yes; the parents are more valuable than a baby"

BUT, I'm moral relativist,so concede there will be exceptions.
Not out of context you just don't understand the argument. Or granted you might not even use the personhood argument is that the case?

So what is you moral reasoning based on Golden rule, might is right?

& a parent who harmed a baby still has more moral value than it?
"So what is you moral reasoning based on Golden rule, might is right?'"

Are you directing your question at me?

If so; I just finished saying I'm a moral relativist. I reject the notion of moral absolutes. So yes,sometimes (even often) might IS right.

Morality is above all pragmatic. The closest thing I've ever seen to a universal moral principle is "the ends justify the means" . My perception is that there are many altruistic acts,but little if any altruistic motivation,and no altruistic people.

My position is called 'egoism'; that human beings are animals motivated by self interest above all else. This view also goes with my understanding of the nature of power; I accept the conflict theory of power best describes the way power works in the real world.



Thought for today : "A 'cynic' is what an idealist calls a realist" (Sir Humphrey Appleby)
How very Ayn Rand.
"How very Ayn Rand."

I've never read Ayn Rand and only a little about her [and most of it scathing] so can't comment.


"While I've read some basic on egoism it would be interesting to see whether that's "just another way to say my might makes right. "


Oh,you mean "I don't know anything about it,so here's my opinion---"

Read some more,then perhaps comment.

Egoism neither infers nor implies 'might is right' as a general principle.THE guiding principle self interest,which is not the same thing.


"Yes even for a moral relativist they would have underlying principles they they should use consistently.

" Should use" No. I decide what values I 'should" have, and do not allow others to decide for me. I do not presume to speak for others.


"In practice, for me,yes,within the broad spectrum of Judaeo Christian ethics dominant within my culture and ethnicity..


"I disagree pragmaticism may play a large part but often what is pragmatic or easy isn't what is moral."

'Pragmatic' is not a synonym for 'easy'

I just finished stating that [in my opinion]morality is based on pragmatism.I reject moral absolutes and the selfless,altruistic base of morality as fantasy. I guess we'll need to agree to differ

We are only another species of animal,and a destructive one at that.We have the double edged sword of sentience,which has given us delusions of grandeur,and an inflated sense of our worth.
No I have quickly gone over egoism and the focus on the self, but what I was getting at is how do egoists sort things out when their interests collide?

Some may coopperate which is fine with other egoists that agree but what about those that don't?

& Yes I haven't read up on it further-thus the questions-even still I don't think it an unreasonable question. Ultimately would it not be about who can enforce their interests, therefore might is right? Or maybe not if you are happy to turn the other cheek.

Yes, you are right about pragmatism and ease I withdraw that.

I suppose as an egoist you get to have your cake and eat it, whatever you do -consistent or not- is doing what you want.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

MJ

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service