Topics Abortion

Question Recently in my Philosophy class during a lecture on abortion the argument came up that in one view stance abortion is not immoral if it is to save the life of the mother. This is was to be considered toward the end of the pregnancy as well. Why is it that the mother's life is more valuable than the unborn child? Often the early baby could be incubated and go on to live its life. Is the mother's life more valuable because she has grown into a moral entity? Contributes more to society? Should the baby be more valuable because its life is brand new, with infinite possibilities, and the mother has had some years to life, is already closer to old age and death than the baby anyway?

Accepted:
March 2, 2011

Comments

I don't think it is quite that easy to extract a baby from a mother and for it to survive as you suggest. Even if it were and if we were to regard the fetus as having the same rights to life as its mother, there are reasons to prioritize the life of the mother. She is already alive while we do not know if the fetus will make it to life outside the womb. We have the choice between keeping someone alive who is already alive or letting her die in order that she bear someone who might not live after all.

Many people do not think it is acceptable to abort a fetus even if this is done to save the mother's life since they see this as doing evil in order that good may result, a principle they reject. Anyone who holds that view cannot carry out the sort of thinking just produced here. If we are able to make a decision about who lives and who dies there is something to be said in favor of allowing someone to live who is already alive. It is not like redistributive taxation, where we take some money from the wealthy and give it to the poor, since taking life is all or nothing, and one wonders also at the psychological issues that would arise were a person to know that his or her birth had only been made possible by the deliberate killing of the mother.