[Abortion Thread] (POLL 4) A compromising position...

[Spirit of Hope]

Pointless collateral damage for a fetus which dies anyway isn't moral.

While tragic, it's preferable to murdering someone who "dies anyway."

I mean if the fetus is dying either way, what difference does the procedure make to you?

[Soviet Ostmark]

My suggestion is ethical. If you can't compromise then you're just not being fair in debate to people who are pro-life.

You accuse my suggestion of mutilation? I accuse your suggestion of murder.

I don't compromise on people's fundamental rights. In this case a women's right to control her own body in a way that has no effect on you. You can call it murder if you wish, I would reply it is self defense.

Even if abortion was homicide, it would be justifiable.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

While tragic, it's preferable to murdering someone who "dies anyway."

I mean if the fetus is dying either way, what difference does the procedure make to you?

guy hopes to make it to his heaven evidently, even if that road has to be paved with millions of corpses.

[Stellar Colonies]

Pointless collateral damage for a fetus which dies anyway isn't moral.

While tragic, it's preferable to murdering someone who "dies anyway."

Same result with more widespread damage isn't preferable, it causes more net suffering.

Removal still results in death either way with our current level of technology.

[Esalia]

Pointless collateral damage for a fetus which dies anyway isn't moral.

While tragic, it's preferable to murdering someone who "dies anyway."

I don't think I've ever met someone who in one breath argues that his position is the ethical one, and in the next condemns his own position as murder.

[Sundiata]

While tragic, it's preferable to murdering someone who "dies anyway."

I mean if the fetus is dying either way, what difference does the procedure make to you?

Good question. It matters to me even if the fetus is going to die because it's never the place of a human being to kill another human being. Because a human being is a human being no matter how small.

[Maricarland]

I think that we should invest in research into artificial wombs and ectogenesis, or at least into research to make the point of viability sooner, so that way we will have the ability to terminate a pregnancy and free the pregnant person from being forced to use their body against their will to keep another person alive, without having to terminate the life of the fetus or embryo.

[Celritannia]

I mean if the fetus is dying either way, what difference does the procedure make to you?

Good question. It matters to me even if the fetus is going to die because it's never the place of a human being to kill another human being. Because a human being is a human being no matter how small.

So why should the surgeon allow the mother to die despite the fact she could be saved very easily?

[Sundiata]

I think that we should invest in research into artificial wombs and ectogenesis, or at least into research to make the point of viability sooner, so that way we will have the ability to terminate a pregnancy and free the pregnant person from being forced to use their body against their will to keep another person alive, without having to terminate the life of the fetus or embryo.

Absolutely, and offer these procedures free of charge. Healthcare is a human right.

[Necroghastia]

So if someone needs an abortion for life-saving reasons, the morally good and correct thing to do is to cut out the entire reproductive system?

Yes. The doctrine of double effect is a thing.

A thing that requires one to cover their eyes and ears, and shout "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU," sure.

[Spirit of Hope]

I mean if the fetus is dying either way, what difference does the procedure make to you?

Good question. It matters to me even if the fetus is going to die because it's never the place of a human being to kill another human being. Because a human being is a human being no matter how small.

By your logic humans are killing another human under both processes, so why does the process matter? In both cases the intent is to kill the other human, in both cases the other human will die. One is just doing it with extra steps and making the first humans life worse.

Note, this is using the logic that the fetus is a human (it isn't) and ignores the right for a women to defend themselves.

[Sundiata]

Yes. The doctrine of double effect is a thing.

A thing that requires one to cover their eyes and ears, and shout "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU," sure.

I don't think you're very familiar with it but the point is certainly not to ignore injustice.

[Celritannia]

A thing that requires one to cover their eyes and ears, and shout "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU," sure.

I don't think you're very familiar with it but the point is certainly not to ignore injustice.

Allowing a woman to die from a preventable surgery is an injustice.

[Necroghastia]

I mean if the fetus is dying either way, what difference does the procedure make to you?

Good question. It matters to me even if the fetus is going to die because it's never the place of a human being to kill another human being. Because a human being is a human being no matter how small.

Was it not the place of David to kill Goliath?

[Spirit of Hope]

A thing that requires one to cover their eyes and ears, and shout "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU," sure.

I don't think you're very familiar with it but the point is certainly not to ignore injustice.

The doctrine of double effect doesn't apply here. The positive effect (the removing of the fetus) can be done without the negative effect (the surgery).

[Sundiata]

Good question. It matters to me even if the fetus is going to die because it's never the place of a human being to kill another human being. Because a human being is a human being no matter how small.

By your logic humans are killing another human under both processes, so why does the process matter? In both cases the intent is to kill the other human, in both cases the other human will die. One is just doing it with extra steps and making the first humans life worse.

Note, this is using the logic that the fetus is a human (it isn't) and ignores the right for a women to defend themselves.

The point of the procedure is, yes, to save the life of the mother. However, another person is also alive: the fetus. If the other person unfortunately dies in an attempt to save the mother's life, it's tragic but it's not killing them. It's just an unfortunate effect of ultimately trying to save both lives, starting with the mother.

That is where double effect applies.

[Celritannia]

By your logic humans are killing another human under both processes, so why does the process matter? In both cases the intent is to kill the other human, in both cases the other human will die. One is just doing it with extra steps and making the first humans life worse.

Note, this is using the logic that the fetus is a human (it isn't) and ignores the right for a women to defend themselves.

The point of the procedure is, yes, to save the life of the mother. However, another person is also alive: the fetus. If the other person unfortunately dies in an attempt to save the mother's life, it's tragic but it's not killing them. It's just an unfortunate effect of ultimately trying to save both lives, starting with the mother.

That is where double effect applies.

Not preventing the death of a woman from a simple surgery is murder, it also goes against the Hippocratic Oath.

[Sundiata]

Good question. It matters to me even if the fetus is going to die because it's never the place of a human being to kill another human being. Because a human being is a human being no matter how small.

Was it not the place of David to kill Goliath?

No.

[Spirit of Hope]

By your logic humans are killing another human under both processes, so why does the process matter? In both cases the intent is to kill the other human, in both cases the other human will die. One is just doing it with extra steps and making the first humans life worse.

Note, this is using the logic that the fetus is a human (it isn't) and ignores the right for a women to defend themselves.

The point of the procedure is, yes, to save the life of the mother. However, another person is also alive: the fetus. If the other person unfortunately dies in an attempt to save the mother's life, it's tragic but it's not killing them. It's just an unfortunate effect of ultimately trying to save both lives, starting with the mother.

That is where double effect applies.

Yes, but you can save the mothers life without doing your procedure. You do a normal abortion. This kills the fetus and saves the mothers life (the same result) without an invasive surgery.

The doctrine of double effect actually works against you here, because it calls for you to use a less damaging procedure if one exists.

[Rifts Earth]

Yes. The doctrine of double effect is a thing.

do you also do this for ppl needing chemo while pregnant?

In that situation, I'd say keep the fetus, take the medications, and pray. Living deformed is better than being snuffed out prematurely.

[Sundiata]

The point of the procedure is, yes, to save the life of the mother. However, another person is also alive: the fetus. If the other person unfortunately dies in an attempt to save the mother's life, it's tragic but it's not killing them. It's just an unfortunate effect of ultimately trying to save both lives, starting with the mother.

That is where double effect applies.

Yes, but you can save the mothers life without doing your procedure. You do a normal abortion. This kills the fetus and saves the mothers life (the same result) without an invasive surgery.

The doctrine of double effect actually works against you here, because it calls for you to use a less damaging procedure if one exists.

It's more damaging to directly kill the unborn child than to fail at saving them.

[Necroghastia]

Yes, but you can save the mothers life without doing your procedure. You do a normal abortion. This kills the fetus and saves the mothers life (the same result) without an invasive surgery.

The doctrine of double effect actually works against you here, because it calls for you to use a less damaging procedure if one exists.

It's more damaging to directly kill the unborn child than to fail at saving them.

How?

[HISPIDA]

Yes, but you can save the mothers life without doing your procedure. You do a normal abortion. This kills the fetus and saves the mothers life (the same result) without an invasive surgery.

The doctrine of double effect actually works against you here, because it calls for you to use a less damaging procedure if one exists.

It's more damaging to directly kill the unborn child than to fail at saving them.

lmao what

[Sundiata]

It's more damaging to directly kill the unborn child than to fail at saving them.

How?

Because murder is evil.

[Spirit of Hope]

Yes, but you can save the mothers life without doing your procedure. You do a normal abortion. This kills the fetus and saves the mothers life (the same result) without an invasive surgery.

The doctrine of double effect actually works against you here, because it calls for you to use a less damaging procedure if one exists.

It's more damaging to directly kill the unborn child than to fail at saving them.

Since there is no way to "save" the fetus at this time, both are directly killing it. One just does more damage to the woman first.

When someone successfully transplants a fetus from one woman to another your logic would hold more ground, but that hasn't been done yet (and isn't even really on the horizon as far as I am aware). So your logic falls apart.

Both procedures are being done to kill the fetus, one just does more damage to the woman along the way. Thus it is less damaging to do a normal abortion.