Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Chris Z on August 30, 2009 at 9:03pm

Abortion: Against all cases except imminent death of mother, this is a trade off situation. A person who is raped can raise the child, deliver the child, and give it up for adoption. The mother's health mentally and physically is better off this way. In addition, they can be proud of what they have done. I hear some people say that women who are raped need an abortion because the child will be a constant reminder of her trauma. Not buying that for one instant. The memory of the rape won't go away after an abortion. Also, the abortion itself adds additional psychological trauma.

Euthanasia: I will get back to you on euthanasia. There are a lot of different situations which fall under this idea, some are acceptable and many are not. I will say now, however, that if I found myself in absolutely excruciating pain (like from cancer or a virus eating away at my brain), then I would like to have the option of increasing my morphine drip to a lethal dosage.

Permalink Reply by Simon JM on August 30, 2009 at 9:42pm

The death of the mother is something I would like to discuss.

For me it isn't generally a factor. Say for instance a parent wanted to make some extra money by storing some toxic waste. Which leads to the parent and a child both getting a disease where they need an organ donation, but there is only one left.

Say the child is a new born non-person; should the fact that it is less developed or that the parent has stronger established social relationships automatically mean the child has less worth than the parent?

To me that is a no. They equally should have a shot at life, especially since for the mother, she caused the life threatening situation to come about by her choice.

For me I would let fate decide.

I do think by taking the stance that the life of the mother has more value than the foetus, that Pro-lChoicers will see it helping to support their case by saying even we don't think the life of the feotus has the same moral worth as the mother.

Otherwise I agree with rape and but no exceptions incest.

Permalink Reply by Chris Z on August 31, 2009 at 3:13pm

This is my point. There lives are equally valid. The mother, however, will be able to take care of herself whereas the baby will 'require' the responsibility of a father or adoptive couple. So the father would surely raise the child. Or, if there is no father, an impotent couple would likely adopt this child. I will give you that it is more likely than not a suitor will be available. However, I cannot be certain that there will be someone for the child. It is because of this uncertainty, that I favor the mother over the child.

Additionally, this is where I disagree, favoring the life of a mother (over the child), who will take care of herself, is a more responsible decision than allowing fate to favor the life of a child (over the mother) which requires the uncertain availability of child-suitor. I must remind us, for the sake of the argument, that allowing fate to decide is allowing for both the death of the mother and the child; the precept of my argument for the exception to abortion is the case where we are reasonably certain that one of the two will inevitably die if no corrective action is taken.

Lastly, the child could turn out to be a better person than the mother (or the other way around), but this does not (and ought not) enter the decision making process outlined above. This type of consideration and others like it are unknowns. Should these things in someway be knowable (e.g. you know the child will become a murderer), which I don’t believe could be knowable, but for the sake of the argument will humor the consideration, we would have to consider the arguments for and against capital punishment. Also, I suppose the notion of innocent until proven guilty would be settled because we would know the child will murder given freedom. So we let them live and lock them up right away which would more or less elevate this child’s future propensity to murder.

So I suppose now it is clear that unfortunately we find ourselves agreeing that we disagree about the case of the imminent death of a mother if she delivers her baby.

Just for kicks, and because we are all thinkers, I would agree to favor the baby's life over the mothers should the mother's condition be demonstrated to be that of some type of irreversible and unquenchable suffering state (or vegetative state), and the baby is of a condition of greater viable health. Remember this is all under the premise that it’s one life or the other.

Whether all of that could be determined and known with today’s technology or ever, I have my doubts, yet I am open to the possibility.

You said, "Otherwise I agree with rape and but no exceptions incest."

I have interpreted that you are saying that you are for abortion in the case of rape but not incest. Is this correct?

Permalink Reply by Simon JM on August 31, 2009 at 8:01pm

I really do see that nay of this is relevant. We aren’t living in a social vacuum nor on a desert island, where practical exceptions would be valid. So yes in principle in certain circumstances one could support your case, but living on desert islands or having no one to take care of the child are exceptions to the rule.

The main precept I have is one cannot use severe personal health circumstances that were self induced to justify killing or allowing to die another moral entity just to save yourself; especially when you have put that other entity in a situation of dependence.

If you can think of other situations where this is allowed pls show them, but what I’m after is consistency and if anything, one could argue in these cases that in fact the life of the innocent party takes precedence.

If a murderer using poison accidentally poisoned himself as well as the victim and there was on antidote I think one would surely argue that the innocent party should be the one who gets to use the antidote.

I would also say we are looking at cases where all things being equal eg both would lead a normal health life if the other died.


An yes against rape but not incest where rape isn’t involved. There are in fact cases of consenting adult incestuous relationships.

Permalink Reply by Chris Z on September 1, 2009 at 2:51am

Yes, I agree. In any case should a mother die and the child be saved, this child will almost 100% of the time have someone to raise him/her.
However, I was trying to make the case below, but got carried away with my first example. My first example was intended to be a support, not the sole point to my argument.
Here is my sole argument/main point for this trade-off case:
If a woman, by no fault of her own but insufficient biological mechanics, finds herself in a predicament where she is going to die if her baby isn’t killed, then I am going to rescue the woman. She is functional, grew to her age, is well rooted and established in life, surroundings, family, friends, neighbors, employer, and community. Her physical and mental condition compared to the child is further along. She was already born and had already been living her life. Through no fault of her own, other than the biology with which she was naturally endowed, she finds herself in this situation. I do not see how this is not clear. It is the mother who should be saved, not the child.

If a woman, by fault of her own (taking drugs or whatever), finds herself in a predicament where she is going to die if her baby isn’t killed, then...
Now this is a good question, and I believe this is the one you were asking me and others to focus on. This is a case of child endangerment and battery. Also, what condition is the baby in due to the drugs in the blood stream? It’s late, but I will get back to this question; it’s important.

If a murderer using poison accidentally poisoned himself as well as the victim and there was on antidote I think one would surely argue that the innocent party should be the one who gets to use the antidote.
Yes, I agree, even if the person was not a murderer. The unwary person should get the antidote.

How can you support an abortion for a victim of rape?
In anticipation that I will be presenting my argument after yours, I have decided to put forth my argument in advance.
This is an unfortunate and devastating case, and, there is no doubt, that a great burden of sacrifice is placed on the victim. However, the woman’s memories of rape are not going to go away as a result of getting an abortion. The woman’s memories of the abortion are not going to go away either. Moreover, a woman who brings the baby to term, delivers the baby, and gives the baby to adoptive parents, has preserved a life. There is much pride and honor to be admired in a person who takes their responsibility forward and through self-sacrifice saves the life of a child illegitimately put upon her.

Permalink Reply by Simon JM on September 1, 2009 at 5:47am

I still see no reason to favour a woman over the child. What one must do in these cases is look for an underlying justification and the see how it stacks up in different situations.

If you are saying that the deciding moral factor is the strength of their existing social relationships that would seem to indicate that you would allow the poisoner in the earlier case off because he has or has more friends. I’ve encountered progressive philosophers who recognise that if the foetus warrants equal moral treatment then it should be treated with equal moral consideration. Now since the number or the fact one has friends isn’t a relevant moral consideration between you and another friendless human person, nor should it be for a friendless non person human foetus either.

The philosophy on the subject looks for inherent qualities in that individual to grant moral relevance not accidental relational circumstances that can vary from individual to individual.

Another way to approach it what if a pro-choicer used your reasoning to just advocate general abortions, wouldn’t you object that the fact that it hasn’t lived a independent life with friends is irrelevant?

Permalink Reply by Chris Z on October 11, 2009 at 11:56pm

"I still see no reason to favour a woman over the child. What one must do in these cases is look for an underlying justification and the see how it stacks up in different situations."

You are right.
Here is a case to consider where I would select the child over the mother, but I don't think this could be pulled of legally, at least very often.

Imminent death of mother and child. Mother used drugs intentionally which brought about the circumstance of one life or the other. Select the child so long as the child remains viable (good health and survival).

Rape is no case for an abortion. That is not pro-life that is pro-choice all the way. Have the child and give him/her up for adoption. There are no tangible benefits to aborting a child concieved from a rape. There a host of benefits to the woman should she birth the child, both physical and psychological.

Permalink Reply by Simon JM on October 12, 2009 at 12:11am

Nice to have you back Chris

Permalink Reply by Simon JM on August 30, 2009 at 9:41pm

BTW Chris I'll reply to your messages later

Permalink Reply by Chris Z on October 13, 2009 at 12:18am

Simon, I think we might be able to recruit more Pro-Life Nonbelievers from some of the Ex-Believer groups on this site. Also, I am pretty certain that most vegetarians and vegans are Pro-Life. I just joined a group like this. I will post a comment letting them know we are here.