The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

[Zhavric]

Imagine this scenario:

A person is dangling from the edge of a cliff. They're using their right hand to hold on for deer life. In their left hand is a child.

The person holding onto the cliff has the ability to let go of the child. If they do so, the child will surely/100% die. Zero chance for survival. They child 100% is dependent on the person's arm for life.

The person does not want to hang from the cliff. The person wants to get up from the where they are. If they try to climb up with the child, there is a small chance both of them will fall. This chance, though, is minimal. However, if the person struggles to bring he child up from the cliff, the person's wallet will fall out of their pants go sailing over the cliff and cause significant financial hardship going forward. Their lifestyle will be forever changed if that happens. But if they let the child fall, they can save their wallet from falling and go on with the same lifestyle they'd always had.

Question for debate: without changing the context of the scenario, what is a morally/ethically sound reason to allow the child to fall to their death?

My argument is there isn't one. Not without changing the context. If we allow for the context to be changed (Which I'm not) the closest we could get would be, "Well, if BOTH the person and the child will fall into the cliff with a high degree of certainty, it's acceptable to let the child fall because two people dying is worse than one person dying."

I cannot stress enough that you may not change the context of the original scenario. If you wish to do that, start your own thread. Answers that begin with things like, "Well if the kid were evil" or "if there were two kids" or "I'd call for help and wait" or anything beyond the scenario presented will be ignored.

The scenario is mean to be a metaphor to abortion. The mother is the person and the child is the fetus. Climbing back up (with it's small, but real risk of death. Giving birth can be fatal...) is giving birth. Letting the child go to fall to their death is abortion. As with changing the context, insisting that the scenario means other things/doesn't represent abortion will be ignored as it's just another attempt to change context.

Please be as thorough with your reasoning as possible. Present me a case as to why it should be acceptable to let the child go and explain.

---

Just to pre-empt the upcoming "A FETUS IZNT A CHILD!!!" objection: That's not what we're here to discuss. Yes. A large number of fertilized human eggs fail to become humans all on their own. I accept that. We're not here, though, to discuss biology. We're here to discuss choices. In an abortion a woman is making a very clear choice. Regardless of her reasoning, the choice is, "I am stopping a person from happening". I don't believe that to be a moral choice. Ultimately it doesn't matter if a fetus is a small baby or a cluster of cells: when a woman chooses to have an abortion she is choosing to make sure another human doesn't happen so insisting that the human is "just a clump of cells" (or however the objection is worded) isn't relevant to our discussion.

[futureboy]

Sorry for not answering the thought experiment, but I feel that it's lacking some analogous aspects to pregnancy & childbirth - notably the pregnancy part.
Many pro-choice argumentation is based on the woman's right to bodily autonomy and choice to not be pregnant, which seems to be missing from your scenario.

[Zhavric]

Sorry for not answering the thought experiment, but I feel that it's lacking some analogous aspects to pregnancy & childbirth - notably the pregnancy part.
Many pro-choice argumentation is based on the woman's right to bodily autonomy and choice to not be pregnant, which seems to be missing from your scenario.

On the contrary! It's right there.

The body autonomy argument in the scenario is "You have no right to hold onto my arm."

The problem with the body autonomy argument is that it's self-contradicting. It establishes that people shouldn't be forced to do things against their will where their body is concerned, but then does a 180 and insists the body of the fetus/child/unborn is of no consequence. Now sure: it's an important fact. No one wants to go into a hospital for a broken leg and come out missing a kidney and a chunk of liver with only "We needed them" as an explanation. However, it doesn't take into account what happens when one body is inside another.

This is why I like the dangling-from-a-cliff example because it shows the body autonomy argument for what it is: misplaced. Yes. It's your arm and you have every right to it. But if you make the choice to say "You don't have a right to my arm and I don't care if you fall to your death" then that's a not okay.

[futureboy]

The problem with the body autonomy argument is that it's self-contradicting. It establishes that people shouldn't be forced to do things against their will where their body is concerned, but then does a 180 and insists the body of the fetus/child/unborn is of no consequence.

No, it insists that the needs of another body do not override the right to bodily autonomy - hence the wide banning post-viability abortions, when the fetus no longer needs to use another body.

[Zhavric]

Why does the woman's body autonomy outweigh the fetus? Or to put in terms of the op, why does the person's right to their arm outweigh the child's right to cling to it/not die?

---------- Post added at 03:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:15 PM ----------

And, again, the body autonomy argument doesn't trump the choice the woman is making. You can say, "You can't force me to" all day. It doesn't change the facts:

In the op, the person KNOWS the child is going to fall to their death if they let go. They're informed and aware of it. At BEST (which I'm far from allowing) body autonomy is just a bad explanation for a morally unacceptable decision... akin to "I HAD to hit him because I can't show weakness" or "I shouldn't get banned for cursing because the other guys cursed at my first". Just because one has an explanation doesn't make it a good one.

Second, the body autonomy is meant to protect others/institutions from harming YOU. In the scenario of abortion, the woman is telling a doctor "I want you to do something invasive to me." Not the other way around.

It's like I said: you can't say, "This is MY arm and I don't consent to you to hanging from it. Body autonomy! Get off me! *punt*" and claim any sort of moral high ground.

[MindTrap028]

So, from a relativist POV, there is a significant omission, namely what the people (if any) at the top of the cliff think. If they are 100% chanting.. "Punt the baby go for distance", then she may have a social obligation to punt the baby for distance.

As no people were mentioned and I don't wish to change the context of the OP, then she can't possibly do moral wrong, if she punts the child, she will most literally have the moral high ground as there is no one to oppose her. If she does not, and chooses to struggle to the last breath and at risk of her own life. Again she is the master of her domain, and as the lone moral agent in the example... she alone determines morality.

That is of course unless someone wants to forward that morality is some sort of objective thing that is not subjective to human opinion or states of mind.

So, official answer. According to the example, and subjective morality She can do no wrong.

[SharmaK]

Imagine this scenario:

A person is dangling from the edge of a cliff. They're using their right hand to hold on for deer life. In their left hand is a child.

The person holding onto the cliff has the ability to let go of the child. If they do so, the child will surely/100% die. Zero chance for survival. They child 100% is dependent on the person's arm for life.

The person does not want to hang from the cliff. The person wants to get up from the where they are. If they try to climb up with the child, there is a small chance both of them will fall. This chance, though, is minimal. However, if the person struggles to bring he child up from the cliff, the person's wallet will fall out of their pants go sailing over the cliff and cause significant financial hardship going forward. Their lifestyle will be forever changed if that happens. But if they let the child fall, they can save their wallet from falling and go on with the same lifestyle they'd always had.

Question for debate: without changing the context of the scenario, what is a morally/ethically sound reason to allow the child to fall to their death?

My argument is there isn't one. Not without changing the context. If we allow for the context to be changed (Which I'm not) the closest we could get would be, "Well, if BOTH the person and the child will fall into the cliff with a high degree of certainty, it's acceptable to let the child fall because two people dying is worse than one person dying."

I cannot stress enough that you may not change the context of the original scenario. If you wish to do that, start your own thread. Answers that begin with things like, "Well if the kid were evil" or "if there were two kids" or "I'd call for help and wait" or anything beyond the scenario presented will be ignored.

The scenario is mean to be a metaphor to abortion. The mother is the person and the child is the fetus. Climbing back up (with it's small, but real risk of death. Giving birth can be fatal...) is giving birth. Letting the child go to fall to their death is abortion. As with changing the context, insisting that the scenario means other things/doesn't represent abortion will be ignored as it's just another attempt to change context.

Please be as thorough with your reasoning as possible. Present me a case as to why it should be acceptable to let the child go and explain.

---

Just to pre-empt the upcoming "A FETUS IZNT A CHILD!!!" objection: That's not what we're here to discuss. Yes. A large number of fertilized human eggs fail to become humans all on their own. I accept that. We're not here, though, to discuss biology. We're here to discuss choices. In an abortion a woman is making a very clear choice. Regardless of her reasoning, the choice is, "I am stopping a person from happening". I don't believe that to be a moral choice. Ultimately it doesn't matter if a fetus is a small baby or a cluster of cells: when a woman chooses to have an abortion she is choosing to make sure another human doesn't happen so insisting that the human is "just a clump of cells" (or however the objection is worded) isn't relevant to our discussion.

You're missing some serious alternatives:

1. If the child could be seriously ill and in a great deal of agony, barely able to hold on for life, and would not live much longer. It would be more merciful to let the child go so at least the person lives.
2. If the wallet is lost not only is it the person's life but also the child's life would be drastically affected: the person's career and the child's future would be completely ruined forever.
3. For the religious, at least the baby will get a free pass in whatever afterlife there is, so that's a comfort.
4. Also for other religious folk, the baby will just get reincarnated, or maybe even have deserved that kind of death. So no big loss there.
5. And maybe souls will just get re-used so when the child dies, it will just enter life in a new born.

So I see no problem giving the person, whose life will be wholly affected, to make their own private decision. I don't see why other people need to judge them one way or another.

[Belthazor]

So, from a relativist POV, there is a significant omission, namely what the people (if any) at the top of the cliff think. If they are 100% chanting.. "Punt the baby go for distance", then she may have a social obligation to punt the baby for distance.

As no people were mentioned and I don't wish to change the context of the OP, then she can't possibly do moral wrong, if she punts the child, she will most literally have the moral high ground as there is no one to oppose her. If she does not, and chooses to struggle to the last breath and at risk of her own life. Again she is the master of her domain, and as the lone moral agent in the example... she alone determines morality.

That is of course unless someone wants to forward that morality is some sort of objective thing that is not subjective to human opinion or states of mind.

So, official answer. According to the example, and subjective morality She can do no wrong.

Agreed. Unless an objective source of morality can be confirmed, all anyone can do is "say" it's wrong to "punt" the child.

Though, there is no reason to think a society can not agree that it is not moral to "punt" the child, nor match the morals that an objective source would give. There has been no support offered that subjective morals could not be the same as an objective source in any given situation.

[MindTrap028]

Agreed. Unless an objective source of morality can be confirmed, all anyone can do is "say" it's wrong to "punt" the child.

The OP here is asking for a morally valid reasoning.
"saying" is one thing, having a valid justification and reasoning is another.

The biggest confirmation that can be offered for objective moral laws and obligations is to show that the contrary is false.
And we pretty much all recognize that a valid justification is needed for moral questions. Which is inherently contrary to any subjectivist view.
... but that isn't the topic here...

Though, there is no reason to think a society can not agree that it is not moral to "punt" the child, nor match the morals that an objective source would give. There has been no support offered that subjective morals could not be the same as an objective source in any given situation.

I don't understand the relevance of this to the OP.
What relevance is the possibility that a subjectivist could accidentally be in line with objective moral laws and duties?

The OP asks for a morally ethically sound reason to let the child fall.
My answer was that no reason is necessary in the given situation.
How does your answer relate?

[Sigfried]

Well, its a goofy thought experiment but sure, I'll play along.

Answer: I agree that the moral thing to do is to save the child and sacrifice the wallet.

Critique: You basically came up with a tortured analogy to ask, what is more valuable, a child's life or a financial loss.

Conclusion: If you think this argument is persuasive, then I think you are morally bound to donate, say, 1/2 of your net income to programs to feed and care for children in the developing world right now and for the rest of your life. Otherwise you are hypocritical in your moral views.

[Belthazor]

The OP here is asking for a morally valid reasoning.
"saying" is one thing, having a valid justification and reasoning is another.

Indeed, that is the question.
However:
if objective moral do not exist, all we are left with is "saying".

if objective morals do exist, there would be the "obvious source" to appeal to.

---------- Post added at 08:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:19 PM ----------

I don't understand the relevance of this to the OP.
What relevance is the possibility that a subjectivist could accidentally be in line with objective moral laws and duties?

It only applies in that most people that hold objective morals exist also generally claim subjective morals could not have the same result.

---------- Post added at 08:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:22 PM ----------

The OP asks for a morally ethically sound reason to let the child fall.
My answer was that no reason is necessary in the given situation.
How does your answer relate?

And I agreed with you in this situation.

The point is, objective and subjective morals could reach the same conclusion in a given situation.

[MindTrap028]

The point is, objective and subjective morals could reach the same conclusion in a given situation.

Which I don't think anyone ever objected to.

[Zhavric]

So, from a relativist POV, there is a significant omission, namely what the people (if any) at the top of the cliff think. If they are 100% chanting.. "Punt the baby go for distance", then she may have a social obligation to punt the baby for distance.

As no people were mentioned and I don't wish to change the context of the OP, then she can't possibly do moral wrong, if she punts the child, she will most literally have the moral high ground as there is no one to oppose her. If she does not, and chooses to struggle to the last breath and at risk of her own life. Again she is the master of her domain, and as the lone moral agent in the example... she alone determines morality.

That is of course unless someone wants to forward that morality is some sort of objective thing that is not subjective to human opinion or states of mind.

So, official answer. According to the example, and subjective morality She can do no wrong.

This is just cleverly worded context-changing. I didn't explicitly state it, but I shouldn't have to say things like "murdering kids is bad". This is the only replyI will be giving to this line of "reasoning".

---------- Post added at 09:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:00 AM ----------

You're missing some serious alternatives:

Translation: "I want to change the context and answer my own debate question instead of yours."

Ignored.

[futureboy]

Why does the woman's body autonomy outweigh the fetus? Or to put in terms of the op, why does the person's right to their arm outweigh the child's right to cling to it/not die?

Because the woman's right to bodily autonomy is based on her being recognized as a born person with all the rights and responsibilities associated, which the fetus lacks. This is why post-viability abortions are widely banned - which I already pointed out. Since you seem to have missed that, the reasoning behind it is that, post-viability, the fetus can survive outside the womb, and since "surviving outside the womb" pretty much equates to being a born person, then the rights associated are recognized. Further, your use of language (ex: "invasive" and "punt") implies that all abortions are surgical, while the current data shows that early-term medical (pill) abortions represent the majority of abortions in many countries. Your thought experiment lacks such intricacies, and therefore fails to serve as a valid analogy.

[Zhavric]

Because the woman's right to bodily autonomy is based on her being recognized as a born person with all the rights and responsibilities associated, which the fetus lacks. This is why post-viability abortions are widely banned - which I already pointed out. Since you seem to have missed that, the reasoning behind it is that, post-viability, the fetus can survive outside the womb, and since "surviving outside the womb" pretty much equates to being a born person, then the rights associated are recognized. Further, your use of language (ex: "invasive" and "punt") implies that all abortions are surgical, while the current data shows that early-term medical (pill) abortions represent the majority of abortions in many countries. Your thought experiment lacks such intricacies, and therefore fails to serve as a valid analogy.

Your reasoning is flawed because the ability to survive unassisted is not and has never been a reason to deny person rights. There are plenty of people who would die instantly if taken off of life support. We don't consider them to be any less human. So saying a "fetus can survive outside a womb" doesn't make sense. To put in terms of the op, it would be like saying, "Well, if the child is young enough or disabled enough, then it becomes okay to drop them."

As for surgical versus pill, it's irrelevant. Body autonomy, the actual reason for it, is to allow patients to effectively say "You can't do that to me!" In an abortion a woman is saying, "Please do this to me." Thus the body autonomy argument is irrelevant.

[futureboy]

Your reasoning is flawed because the ability to survive unassisted is not and has never been a reason to deny person rights.

Nor did I say that. You're confused about what's going on when rights associated with personhood are recognized and protected. Bottom line, recognizing and protecting the personhood of the fetus has a number of issues, which is why anti-choice movements trying to get the fetus' personhood have repeatedly failed.

There are plenty of people who would die instantly if taken off of life support. We don't consider them to be any less human.

An organism that is usually able to survive outside the womb that is unable to do so because of illness is not the same thing as an organism that is unable to do so due to its very nature.

As for surgical versus pill, it's irrelevant. Body autonomy, the actual reason for it, is to allow patients to effectively say "You can't do that to me!"

Yes, and the bodily autonomy argument for the pro-choice side is, "you can't do that to me" - ie: "you can't force me to be pregnant, I decide what happens to my body".

[Dionysus]

Body autonomy, the actual reason for it, is to allow patients to effectively say "You can't do that to me!" In an abortion a woman is saying, "Please do this to me."

So what is a person saying when they want a tumor removed? When they want chemo? When they want a hysterectomy? When they want vaccines? What are they saying when they refuse such treatments/recommendations? In what important way(s) are they different forms of "You can't do that to me!"/"Please do this to me."?

Also, when you imply that the will of the mom is trumping the will of the fetus, what do you mean by "will"? Do you mean something like the expressed desire of the fetus to live their life? If not, do you mean the potential expressed desire of the fetus to live their life? If the former, how does that make any sense? If the latter, why should someone's expressed desire be overridden by an almost-someone's unexpressed desire? Do you regard the mother and the fetus as being on equal ground in terms of self-awareness, goals, desires, needs, etc?

---------- Post added at 02:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:55 PM ----------

I should say also that I’m not making an argument in opposition to the OP. I do find it to be a little forced, but it nonetheless touches on serious moral considerations that shouldn’t be blithely swept away by misconstruals of the argument.

With regard to the question about “will”, what I’m getting at is the question of conscious experience. It seems to me that the capacity of conscious experience should play a role in the conversation, but with the way you’ve framed the OP, the capacity for conscious experience is simply assumed to be there.

In your view, does it matter at all whether or not the z/e/f is capable of conscious experience? And if it doesn’t matter at all, how do you square that with cases such as the Terri Schiavo case where she wasn’t capable of conscious experience? Also, just for the sake of discussion:

Suppose that Terri Schiavo had said at some point that if she were ever in an accident where she was in a presumably irrecoverable vegetative state, that she wished to remain on life support indefinitely pending the possibility an undiscovered technology that would allow her mind to be restored. In such a case, should she have been granted that wish irrespective of the overall burden imposed on anyone affected by that effort?

Another scenario: In 2014 a Texas woman was kept on life support against the wishes of her family because she was 14 weeks pregnant when she died. The woman in question was a paramedic, and had expressed to her husband that she never wanted to be kept artificially alive. However, the hospital refused to accommodate this based on a law that "required that lifesaving measures be maintained if a female patient is pregnant - even if there was written documentation that this was against the wishes of the patient or the next of kin". In this case, people were keeping a person an unconscious person alive against their expressed wished based on the fact of her pregnancy. Did the hospital behave morally in this case?

[MindTrap028]

This is just cleverly worded context-changing.

Clever you say I'll take that complement.

I didn't explicitly state it, but I shouldn't have to say things like "murdering kids is bad". This is the only replyI will be giving to this line of "reasoning".

Well, if you are appealing to an objective moral fact, then You wouldn't have to say it.
But from the subjective POV, that is not an established fact.

I don't see that you have invalidated my response. I understand if you don't like it personally, however that isn't really relevant to it's logical validity as applied to the OP. The core of my answer does not alter the OP
namely, that she can do no wrong, as the examples lone moral agent.

[Zhavric]

So what is a person saying when they want a tumor removed? When they want chemo? When they want a hysterectomy? When they want vaccines? What are they saying when they refuse such treatments/recommendations? In what important way(s) are they different forms of "You can't do that to me!"/"Please do this to me."?

Also, when you imply that the will of the mom is trumping the will of the fetus, what do you mean by "will"? Do you mean something like the expressed desire of the fetus to live their life? If not, do you mean the potential expressed desire of the fetus to live their life? If the former, how does that make any sense? If the latter, why should someone's expressed desire be overridden by an almost-someone's unexpressed desire? Do you regard the mother and the fetus as being on equal ground in terms of self-awareness, goals, desires, needs, etc?

---------- Post added at 02:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:55 PM ----------

I should say also that I’m not making an argument in opposition to the OP. I do find it to be a little forced, but it nonetheless touches on serious moral considerations that shouldn’t be blithely swept away by misconstruals of the argument.

With regard to the question about “will”, what I’m getting at is the question of conscious experience. It seems to me that the capacity of conscious experience should play a role in the conversation, but with the way you’ve framed the OP, the capacity for conscious experience is simply assumed to be there.

In your view, does it matter at all whether or not the z/e/f is capable of conscious experience? And if it doesn’t matter at all, how do you square that with cases such as the Terri Schiavo case where she wasn’t capable of conscious experience? Also, just for the sake of discussion:

Suppose that Terri Schiavo had said at some point that if she were ever in an accident where she was in a presumably irrecoverable vegetative state, that she wished to remain on life support indefinitely pending the possibility an undiscovered technology that would allow her mind to be restored. In such a case, should she have been granted that wish irrespective of the overall burden imposed on anyone affected by that effort?

Another scenario: In 2014 a Texas woman was kept on life support against the wishes of her family because she was 14 weeks pregnant when she died. The woman in question was a paramedic, and had expressed to her husband that she never wanted to be kept artificially alive. However, the hospital refused to accommodate this based on a law that "required that lifesaving measures be maintained if a female patient is pregnant - even if there was written documentation that this was against the wishes of the patient or the next of kin". In this case, people were keeping a person an unconscious person alive against their expressed wished based on the fact of her pregnancy. Did the hospital behave morally in this case?

I'm quoting Dio, but this reply is only in part for him. Really, it's for everyone.

I think we can dispense with a lot of the sillyness about subjective/objective morality, address your concern about tumors, and bring the thread back on topic with this:

"Wait... you mean that cluster of cells I'm asking you to remove from my womb has a high chance* of becoming a human being!? I had NO idea!"

That sentence has been said in earnest ZERO times in the history of ever. Just like the person knows that throwing the child off the cliff will 100% kill the child, a woman having an abortion knows that she is 100% stopping a person from coming into existence. And I hold that choice is not a moral one.

"But zhav subjective morality says.." No. We aren't discussing that. Because ANY debate on here that has to do with ANY sort of right or wrong can be derailed with what is effectively moving the goal posts. This is an abortion debate. If you want to have a subjective morality debate, kindly start your own thread on it.

It all comes down to the choice the woman makes. What I'm looking for isn't anything so inane as restructuring morality, or inventing a new context, or anything like that.

I'm looking for something very specific here. "Zhav, it's okay for that person to throw the child off the cliff and here's why. It's because of reasoning X with support Y."

I very much want to see and discuss X and Y. But if you are not giving me X and Y then you are off topic.

And Dio to address your question of will, I think you've taken it off on a tangent. Let's focus it back on the op: Imagine the person saying, "I can let go of anyone I want AND the kid isn't allowed to hold onto anyone even if they wanted to." It's a double standard. Body autonomy necessarily establishes the primacy of protecting one's body AND insists that the body residing inside one's body has no such protections. One cannot demand the protection of body autonomy AND insist that it not apply. "Everyone's body is SUPER important which is why I should be able to say "I don't approve of you holding my arm" and the child should just accept that they're going to fall and die."

*granted, not 100% likely, but a good chance.

[Dionysus]

And Dio to address your question of will, I think you've taken it off on a tangent.

Well, I don’t see that it’s all that tangential. If you’re asking about the moral value of a thing, it’s important to weigh its individual components if you want sensible output. But here you’ve created an incredibly tight set of parameters, then applied them to a wide range of considerations, while insisting that one size must fit all; it doesn’t make sense. If a person were to ask something like “Is it morally acceptable to have an abortion under some circumstances?” and someone says “Yes”, it is simply foolish to then say “Then you must be okay with dropping children off cliffs to save your wallet.”, because that’s not at all what the person’s answer says or even implies. It’s like assuming that a person who favors border security is a racist, or assuming that a person who doesn’t support Trump must love Hillary; one simply doesn’t follow from the other.