This is an interesting, although flawed, thought experiment.

First, it’s completely irrelevant that two of the three women previously killed an unborn child as the math makes this a simple choice. I would save the pregnant woman. She represents at least two lives, more if she has a multiple pregnancy.

How I think you meant to phrase this question:

If a pregnant woman and two other women who both had abortions were hanging off a cliff, and saving one set of lives meant letting the others fall, which would you save?

I will also entertain you further by assuming the pregnant woman is only carrying a single child. Even now, I would still save the pregnant woman. Why?

1) The pregnant woman’s life equals one of the other women’s lives. We are now left with a choice between an unborn child and a woman who has lived several years.

2) Whenever we are presented with a situation where lives must be saved in a certain order due to time or resources, such as a sinking ship, children are always the first to be saved since they possess more life potential.

3) Since the child should be saved, by default, his or her mother must be saved.

But what you were really trying to determine was if a woman who has never killed an unborn child is more valuable than a woman who has killed an unborn child. I would save the woman who has never killed. At least I have reasonable assurances that by saving her, no future children are at risk of dying by her hand. If I saved the woman who has proven her capability to kill, I would be placing the lives of future unborn children at risk.

“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.”

Posted by cultureshift

A plea to win the hearts of those who choose to dehumanize our development and undermine our right to live.

Leave a Reply