• Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    you must abort a fetus that’s threatening the mothers life, while some Christians would call that murder.

    If the mother dies and the baby hasn’t been born yet, then two people have died. Aborting a life threatening fetus is the only sane course of action, as you are not ending one life, you’re saving those who can still be saved.

    • Pipoca@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s a bunch of different kinds of ethics. That’s a very consequentialist, pragmatic take. I mean, I agree that it’s the moral action here, but your argument for it is very consequentialist.

      Some religions take a more deontological view of ethics, where actions are right or wrong based on the action itself, rather than on the consequence it has.

      For example, in Judaism, if a group of Nazis says “give us one of you to shoot or we’ll shoot you all”, then you’re supposed to let your entire group get shot because killing an innocent to save your own life is wrong (though killing the nazis would be acceptable because they’re aggressors in this situation). It sounds like you would call that insane, because the whole group dies instead of just one member.