Gunnar wrote:subgenius wrote:Problem:
1.25% of birth mothers endure major complications.
Solution:
Kill the baby.
Is it better to kill the mother if only one or the other can be saved? And what if neither can be saved without the abortion?
ETA: What would your own choice be if your own wife's only chance of survival were to have an abortion?
subgenius wrote:All good questions, and perhaps all best left to those faced with answering those questions for it is they that are realizing the consequences of those decisions.
That is actually a good answer, and certainly compatible with Roe vs. Wade. If we could leave it at that, the debate over Roe vs. Wade could be laid to rest.
subgenius wrote:But let us look at your first question - the mother or the baby, who to save?....most likely the mother will choose which?...and should she be the only one who gets to decide?, why does the baby not get a "choice"?...ok, the baby is (arguably) unable to offer their choice...so who gets to choose for the baby? the mother alone?...she is under duress and unlikely to be in a legal state of mind to make such a decision...so in your mind, who should make the decision and why?
The woman should certainly be free to seek and carefully consider the council of qualified medical medical authority, and honestly appraise the relevant risks of her situation, but I firmly believe that she should be the final arbiter of what decision to take, without government or legal coercion or condemnation for choosing to save her own life.
I still would like to know, though, what would be your own choice if it were your wife (or daughter) at risk. Would you defer to her or condemn her if she opted to save her own life?