This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Abortion Scenerio
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
We've had this discussion more than a few times, so let's start it off with a very specific set of circumstances.
Let us say that a man and a woman have a discussion about having a baby, and both conclude they should have one. They have consentual sex and the woman becomes pregnant. A short while into the pregnancy, she decides to have an abortion, tells the man, and makes it apparant there is nothing that will change her mind, and there is nothing the man can legally do to stop the abortion. The man then holds her hostage, in extremely comfortable circumstances (except the fact she is hostage), until she gives birth. We'll say he got a doctor to go in on it, to look after her medical well being. After the baby is born, he immediately releases her, turns himself into the authorities, and confesses to his crimes. He agrees to never see her or the baby again. He is just happy that the baby is alive.
What was ethically wrong about his actions?
What was ethically right about his actions?
What was ethically wrong about her actions?
What was ethically right about her actions?
Were his actions justified?
Now let's say that the baby grows up, and tries to press charges against the mother for attempted murder.
Does the offspring have justified grounds to convict the mother?
Post by
Patty
He was ethically wrong to hold her there against her will. The whole ethical situation about Abortion is a very foggy area, so I'll steer clear of discussing that.
The child probably wouldn't have a leg to stand on if he went to court against his mother (even if he wanted to) But the woman would have legal support about being held hostage.
TL;DR - If she wanted an Abortion, they should have discussed it further and not taken any extreme actions.
Post by
MyTie
TL;DR - If she wanted an Abortion, they should have discussed it further and not taken any extreme actions.
But her actions were going to be extreme. That's what makes the whole scenerio interesting. There is no right way to answer this question without sounding extreme or indecisive.
Post by
Deepthought
But her actions were going to be extreme.
Depends on what you define as extreme.
Post by
Patty
Hehe, I mean they should have sat down and discussed it. If the woman does not feel ready to have a child, and for a valid reason, rather than teenagers going out and getting laid for instance, then the man should respect it is her body which bears the child - not his.
Post by
MyTie
But her actions were going to be extreme.
Depends on what you define as extreme.
So, you are saying that extreme is subjective. By that rational, his actions were not necessarily extreme.
Post by
Deepthought
But her actions were going to be extreme.
Depends on what you define as extreme.
So, you are saying that extreme is subjective. By that rational, his actions were not necessarily extreme.
No, I am saying that what is "extreme" is decided by the society and culture within one lives. I would think kidnapping and holding your wife would be considered extreme in modern western culture.
Post by
MyTie
Hehe, I mean they should have sat down and discussed it. If the woman does not feel ready to have a child, and for a valid reason, rather than teenagers going out and getting laid for instance, then the man should respect it is her body which bears the child - not his.
So, if someone is dependant on me for their life, I have a right to kill them?
Let's say you and I are in the desert, and I have plenty of food and water locked away in a locker next to us until help arrives in 9 months. I pull out a gun and shoot you. I'm justified?
Post by
MyTie
No, I am saying that what is "extreme" is decided by the society and culture within one lives. I would think kidnapping and holding your wife would be considered extreme in modern western culture.
So, Nazism at the time, was justified?
Post by
Deepthought
So, Nazism at the time, was not extreme?
Ohhh, nice Godwin there MyTie. Real nice.
Yes, Nazism was extreme, because, here's the thing, Nazi Germany in of itself is not "western culture", it was a extreme shifting to the right of it.
So, if someone is dependant on me for their life, I have a right to kill them?
Are you against condoms and birth-control pills too?
Post by
Patty
No, I am saying that what is "extreme" is decided by the society and culture within one lives. I would think kidnapping and holding your wife would be considered extreme in modern western culture.
So, Nazism at the time, was justified?
Because every German and general westerner loved the Nazis, right?
Post by
TheMediator
So, if someone is dependant on me for their life, I have a right to kill them?
Let's say you and I are in the desert, and I have plenty of food and water locked away in a locker next to us until help arrives in 9 months. I pull out a gun and shoot you. I'm justified?
There's a difference between killing someone and letting them die. You're not obligated to give them your food or water.
Post by
MyTie
So, if someone is dependant on me for their life, I have a right to kill them?
Let's say you and I are in the desert, and I have plenty of food and water locked away in a locker next to us until help arrives in 9 months. I pull out a gun and shoot you. I'm justified?
There's a difference between killing someone and letting them die. You're not obligated to give them your food or water.
Let me change it to fit for you better:
Let's say you and I are in the desert, and I have enough food and water locked safely in a locker to last us both for 9 months until help arrives. I relax, drink my water, and eat my food. You sit next to me and slowly and painfully die of dehydration while begging me for aid. I'm justified?
Edit: I have to disagree that this fits abortion better than the last one. Either way, my opinion is 'no' to both.
Post by
TheMediator
If its your food and water, sure. You're not obligated to feed me your stuff. Do you really put every death from starvation on your conscience?
Well, if you preferred, they could cut the fetus out of the pregnant woman and leave it on a table to starve to death. I'd say it'd be more humane to put its out of its misery.
Post by
Deepthought
Let's say you and I are in the desert, and I have enough food and water locked safely in a locker to last us both for 9 months until help arrives. I relax, drink my water, and eat my food. You sit next to me and slowly and painfully die of dehydration while begging me for aid. I'm justified?
Um,
this happens to hundreds of people daily
(easily prevented starvation death), and you're using it as a hypothetical example?
Uhhhh....
Post by
MyTie
If its your food and water, sure. You're not obligated to feed me your stuff. Do you really put every death from starvation on your conscience?
If I'm holding two sandwiches, and a dude dies of starvation next to me while I sunbathe, then yes, I put it on my conscious.
There is a fundamental difference between your ethics and mine that make it very hard for us to communicate effectively. You and I do not use the same perspective of the world. To me, your views seem malicious and lack empathy. To you, my views seem archaic and self serving.
I think the biggest difference between me and you is empathy. That person, standing next to me, dieing. I actually
feel
their pain, in a very real sense. From our many conversations, I don't think you do.
Edit: @Deepthought - I think that those statistics (I was aware of them) are horrible. Terrible. The problem is that the governments of those regions take the aid for themselves and leave their people to perish. I was just thinking the other day of how one person could possibly send aid directly. The world isn't set up that way though, unfortunately. However, your statistics don't change the ethics of the scenerio presented.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I haven't read any of the responses yet. I'm just going to answer the questions right off the bat.
What was ethically wrong about his actions?
First let's parse his actions:
End: Save the unborn baby's life
Means: "Kidnap" his wife
Circumstance: She was going to kill the baby
The means, here, are morally evil, so the act as a whole must also therefore be morally evil.
What was ethically right about his actions?
The end.
What was ethically wrong about her actions?
Parse:
End: Preserve her autonomy
Means: Killing the baby
Circumstance:
The means are morally evil, and thus the whole act.
What was ethically right about her actions?
The end is amoral, it is ethically right in the sense that it's not wrong.
Were his actions justified?
No.
Now let's say that the baby grows up, and tries to press charges against the mother for attempted murder.
Does the offspring have justified grounds to convict the mother?
That's a legal issue, not ethical, to which the answer in this country is no.
Post by
TheMediator
I'm not saying I wouldn't feed him my sandwich, I'm just saying I don't believe I am obligated to give him my sandwich. Also, there's huge differences between giving someone your sandwich, constantly giving someone your sandwiches for 9 months, having to bear a child, and having to raise a child.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I'm not saying I wouldn't feed him my sandwich, I'm just saying I don't believe I am obligated to give him my sandwich. Also, there's huge differences between giving someone your sandwich, constantly giving someone your sandwiches for 9 months, having to bear a child, and having to raise a child.
You're the cause of there being someone to need the sandwiches in the first place. So, yes, I'd say there is an obligation present.
Post by
MyTie
I'm not saying I wouldn't feed him my sandwich, I'm just saying I don't believe I am obligated to give him my sandwich.What I am saying, is that I AM obligated, by my empathy, to give that sandwich. IT IS MY OBLIGATION. You're view, that it is NOT your obligation, is the fundamental difference between you and me. The thought that I didn't have an obligation to help him, wouldn't even cross my mind. I would lose confidence in myself if I even contemplated the possibility that I was not obligated to save a person's life at the cost of a sandwich. Also, there's huge differences between giving someone your sandwich, constantly giving someone your sandwiches for 9 months, having to bear a child, and having to raise a child.There is a difference, but both are trivial when the victem faces death.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.