• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which one do you save?

Which do you save?

  • Total voters
    21
Arcana XV said:
Why? Because from the moment I knew I was pregnant it was very clear to me that I would do anything to protect my kid, including dying so she could live. And yes, I would absolutely say the same now. I would die for her without hesitation. My life was not horrible, quite the opposite in fact. That's why I want my child to get to experience it, even if it means I won't get to see it. :)
Click to expand...

Thank you. I'd give my life for Tiara, but I would not have been there for her, and I could not trust my perpetrators to not do the same to her.
 
Personally, I'm saving the baby. My wife would never forgive me if I, more or less, had our child killed.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Here's the scenario.

Woman is about to deliver the baby. She's in no condition to make any choices due to the pain. Doctor tells you that he can save either the woman or the baby but not both. And the only way to save either one is to kill the other. To not choose one means 100% certain death for both. Doctor needs an answer immediately or both will die. Neither of you (the woman who in this scenario is your wife and you) ever talked about this happening so you have no idea what her wishes would be in this matter.

These are your only choices:

1: Do you choose to save the baby and let the woman die?

2: Do you choose to save the woman and let the baby die?
Click to expand...

I would save the woman and let the baby die. Both are human beings and deserve life, however it boils down to who I know and love more. This poll question is no more different than "who do you save, a random stranger or your best friend?". Now if I absolutely hated my wife I would save the baby.
 
Arcana XV said:
Why? Because from the moment I knew I was pregnant it was very clear to me that I would do anything to protect my kid, including dying so she could live. And yes, I would absolutely say the same now. I would die for her without hesitation. My life was not horrible, quite the opposite in fact. That's why I want my child to get to experience it, even if it means I won't get to see it. :)
Click to expand...

I understand completely. But the OP specified that you're not the mother in this scenario. And since you have to decide for the mother, you are deciding who essentially has more value as a human being. So instead of being about maternal feelings, the question entails whether or not the mother's life has more value. I think it does for all of the reasons already mentioned in this thread. As for my husband, I believe that he would choose me, although I plan to ask him later. I am under this assumption because I asked him shortly after our son was born who he felt more attached to between our older daughter and our newborn son. He said he felt more attached to Sarah. Therefore, she had more immediate value since she was more of an established family member at that time. Now that my son is a year old, the decision would be impossible.
 
digsbe said:
I can't chose either. The baby is an equal human life compared to the woman.
Click to expand...
It's interesting that you could be so heartless as to let them both die. How silly is that. LOL
 
BDBoop said:
I'd have to put myself in the husband's shoes and say I'd save my wife. Hopefully we can have more children. Soul mates are irreplaceable.
Click to expand...

Or a man could have made the idiotic decision and married the woman that I married and decided to choose the innocent baby over the bitch.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Or a man could have made the idiotic decision and married the woman that I married and decided to choose the innocent baby over the bitch.
Click to expand...

...... Okay, that level of hatred is literally nauseating, I know now. Thanks.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
All reasonable forms of pro-life ethical standards consider the life of the mother to be at least equivalent to the life of the fetus, and would thus find saving the mother perfectly acceptable and consistent with their ethos. The fact that there are people who hold otherwise disturbs me, and the fact that they are sometimes taken seriously sickens me, but in general you are going to find very, very few people of any persuasion who would say that choosing to save the mother is wrong.
Click to expand...

But the very fact of considering one class of humans (adults), to be generally more 'worthy' of being saved opens nuances for which it is difficult to avoid a logical consequence. The implication is that there is some quality which we value which is not fully present in newborns, and almost certainly is absent in fetuses and in any event is at most barely discernible in them.

In any case, my point was that the use of hypotheticals is not a trap. Your post, if true in it's implications, actually strengthens that point in the case under consideration, because your claim is that it is consistent to be anti abortion and yet still value the mother over the newborn under the scenario. As such, there would be no trap, and the hypothetical still would be helpful in clarifying the matter for both sides.
 
theplaydrive said:
how is it nauseating? his ex is a bitch - i'd take the kid too.
Click to expand...

Oh, my bad. I didn't realize she'd posted here, and we actually knew the whole story.
 
molten_dragon said:
You fail at two points here.

First of, you've not proven that the woman's rights are greater than the baby's. The fact that a choice is allowed to be made at all means that their rights are equal, not that the woman's take precedence. If the woman's rights actually trumped the baby's (in a legal sense), then the doctor would have no choice but to save the woman and let the child die every time.
Click to expand...

The reason that the choice is made at all in my scenario is because that is what doctors are suppose to do in such situations or similar situations. In the post which you quoted I also showed that if someone that can speak for the woman isn't there then the doctor will choose the woman. But in the doctors place its not really a choice. While I don't know if it is law or hospital regulation I do know that the doctors will 100% of the time save the woman over that of the baby.

molten_dragon said:
The other problem you have is that you've not shown why the fact that a woman's right to life trumping the baby's right to life means that all of a woman's rights trump the baby's right to life. For this to work, you'd have to somehow prove that.
Click to expand...

I'll think on this one for a bit.
 
Well im guessing if she is pregnant she wants to be pregnant becuase she hasnt got an abortion yet so i would save the preggers lady.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Or a man could have made the idiotic decision and married the woman that I married and decided to choose the innocent baby over the bitch.
Click to expand...

In my scenario it is assumed that the wife and husband love each other and the woman isn't a B. Its meant to pit two things of "supposed" equal value against each other. If you think the wife is a B and she is then it is no longer equal.
 
BDBoop said:
Oh, my bad. I didn't realize she'd posted here, and we actually knew the whole story.
Click to expand...

She has BPD. She knows this and is a complete bitch. How is that hatred in the slightest? She verbally and mentally abused me for years... this is just a fact. How would her posting her inaccuracies and inability to recognize reality from her delusions going to clarify anything for you and how was my comment hatred again?
 
Kal'Stang said:
In my scenario it is assumed that the wife and husband love each other and the woman isn't a B. Its meant to pit two things of "supposed" equal value against each other. If you think the wife is a B and she is then it is no longer equal.
Click to expand...

I assumed that and that is why I voted to save the wife when I voted. :)
 
BDBoop said:
Oh, my bad. I didn't realize she'd posted here, and we actually knew the whole story.
Click to expand...
Oh, my bad. I didn't realize we were assuming that Bodi was lying and therefore nauseating. You're taking his post too personally.
 
Last edited:
theplaydrive said:
Oh, my bad. I didn't realize we were assuming that Bodi was lying and therefore nauseating. You're taking his post too personally.
Click to expand...

I'm only nauseating to look at... seriously, you've seen the pictures! ;)
 
theplaydrive said:
Oh, my bad. I didn't realize we were assuming that Bodi was lying and therefore nauseating. You're taking his post too personally.
Click to expand...

You really don't get that there are two sides to every story?
 
BDBoop said:
You really don't get that there are two sides to every story?
Click to expand...

Will you just answer the question... how is what I said "hatred" and why is it nauseating to you?
I know you don't like me since I keep beating you in debates, but seriously, just be honest... :)
 
BDBoop said:
You really don't get that there are two sides to every story?
Click to expand...
You really don't get that it's nonsensical and overly emotional to condemn someone and call them "nauseating" after reading one sentence about their personal life. (btw, please don't pretend that you're interested in both "sides" - you clearly picked a side and insulted someone because of it which is senseless since it's not even your life. i can't even believe i'm having this conversation)
 
theplaydrive said:
You really don't get that it's nonsensical and overly emotional to condemn someone and call them "nauseating" after reading one sentence about their personal life. (btw, please don't pretend that you're interested in both "sides" - you clearly picked a side and insulted someone because of it which is senseless since it's not even your life. i can't even believe i'm having this conversation)
Click to expand...

It is a personal thing with her against me... not sure why though. Not that it matters, but I am a really good guy. Nice, honest, compassionate. Almost a perfect catch.
 
My first reaction was save the baby because the mother has had a chance to experience life while the child has not. However, I find the comparisons to abortion laughable. They are not the same. It is like saying if you speed you support murder. The two have nothing in common.

The difference is that abortion is almost always optional and this scenario is not.
 
ksu_aviator said:
My first reaction was save the baby because the mother has had a chance to experience life while the child has not. However, I find the comparisons to abortion laughable. They are not the same. It is like saying if you speed you support murder. The two have nothing in common.

The difference is that abortion is almost always optional and this scenario is not.
Click to expand...

I am not making this argument, but the two are more the same than you describe. They are both about the baby dying... that makes the two extremely comparable. Your analogy was about as off as it could be, in all fairness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom