Let's put the God/morality issue to rest

[Peregrinator]

My point is that merely mouthing platitudes like 'all life is sacred', or similar words to that effect, is without relevance at the time when one must choose - and we make moral choices very often, perhaps not with such serious consequences. I was attempting to clarify by using an extreme example. However, in the scenario, at that time, if any choice is made at all there is some kind of value inequality that has been applied and even THAT may change depending on circumstances. Eagledad, I think, recognizes that.

 

Eagledad had earlier applied, sarcastically, an example using the hot button of abortion - in his response to a post by Thomas Jefferson (and I have to tell you, it feels weird to be responding to a name like that). There was no substance in that example, however, merely a position. So I asked my question. I merely wanted to know what Eagledad would choose to do. He didn't see a moral dilemma - his words. I guess he'd save the nurse too. If he thinks adding the serial killer into a fertility clinic is more interesting, I think we've opened it to all sorts of fantasies.

 

Years ago I posed another dilemma regarding ectopic pregnancy. That's very real so there is no false dilemma there. There was one forum member who stuck by the moral absolutist position and admitted that he would allow both woman and fetus to die. I commend his honesty, if not his choice, and am thankful that his view has not prevailed in our courts. But in this case as in that case, I merely was curious about the answer to the dilemma I posed, this time to Eagledad. And just like back then, I again offer no criticism of Eagledad's inability to 'see' a dilemma. It would have been nice for him to explain how there isn't one but I have accepted his answer as is.

 

Sentinel947, I might add that I agree with your choice. I'd save the nurse. In the case of the woman or child choice, I'd make the decision based on what I saw at the time, probably gauging the greatest likelihood of success, or least risk, depending on how you measure these things or perhaps based on something as simple as which one I detected first. They're two persons to me. If I can't save both I'll "Do My Best" and save one of them. Sometimes the glass is half full and sometimes the container is two times larger than needed.

"However, in the scenario, at that time, if any choice is made at all there is some kind of value inequality that has been applied" - not necessarily. It could well be a case of "which one can I save?" or "which one is likely to survive?" ... there is not necessarily a judgment about the "value" of the life to be saved at all.

[Sentinel947]

My point is that merely mouthing platitudes like 'all life is sacred', or similar words to that effect, is without relevance at the time when one must choose - and we make moral choices very often, perhaps not with such serious consequences. I was attempting to clarify by using an extreme example. However, in the scenario, at that time, if any choice is made at all there is some kind of value inequality that has been applied and even THAT may change depending on circumstances. Eagledad, I think, recognizes that.

 

Eagledad had earlier applied, sarcastically, an example using the hot button of abortion - in his response to a post by Thomas Jefferson (and I have to tell you, it feels weird to be responding to a name like that). There was no substance in that example, however, merely a position. So I asked my question. I merely wanted to know what Eagledad would choose to do. He didn't see a moral dilemma - his words. I guess he'd save the nurse too. If he thinks adding the serial killer into a fertility clinic is more interesting, I think we've opened it to all sorts of fantasies.

 

Years ago I posed another dilemma regarding ectopic pregnancy. That's very real so there is no false dilemma there. There was one forum member who stuck by the moral absolutist position and admitted that he would allow both woman and fetus to die. I commend his honesty, if not his choice, and am thankful that his view has not prevailed in our courts. But in this case as in that case, I merely was curious about the answer to the dilemma I posed, this time to Eagledad. And just like back then, I again offer no criticism of Eagledad's inability to 'see' a dilemma. It would have been nice for him to explain how there isn't one but I have accepted his answer as is.

 

Sentinel947, I might add that I agree with your choice. I'd save the nurse. In the case of the woman or child choice, I'd make the decision based on what I saw at the time, probably gauging the greatest likelihood of success, or least risk, depending on how you measure these things or perhaps based on something as simple as which one I detected first. They're two persons to me. If I can't save both I'll "Do My Best" and save one of them. Sometimes the glass is half full and sometimes the container is two times larger than needed.

Yea. Pack. I'm a Catholic and you aren't going to many people who are as staunchly against abortion as I am, but even I believe when the choice is coming down to the mother or the child in childbirth, you owe it to the mother to save her and perform that abortion. Neither the child nor the mother "deserves to" die, but the case comes down to making a choice of "who lives and who dies". To do nothing might cause both the mother and child to die, and I suppose the doctrine of "taking a life to save a life" comes into play in that scenario.

 

I do believe a fetus is a living, unborn child. Before I get flamed too badly from some corner of this forum, I do not believe in the death penalty or abortion. I'd say my position on America's culture of death is consistent.

 

In my own scenario, there is a variety of factors as to who I'd save, but if I could only save one and each was equally accessible and their survival chances where the same, I'd take the Child. Maybe because the women has more of a chance to survive on her own, or maybe because I reach a mental roadblock about leaving a child alone in a fire to die. I'd take the kid.