But it's not a case of one or the other (as it might be with a 7 month pregnancy where the baby might survive the death of its mother). It's not even ends justify the means. This foetus will not survive. So it isn't taking one life to save the other. It's saving one life or saving neither.
The bottom line is that one cannot commit straight-up murder in order to save a life. Period. You do whatever you can to save both of them and leave the rest in God's hands, but deliberately killing the fetus is morally indefensible. Like I said, I expect most of you to find that foolish, but I can't say that I care.
And seriously, iamzack, your shtick is beyond tiresome.
Again, omission bias: the tendency to treat an action carried out by omission as somehow different from one carried out by positive action.
But that is still correct. If someone falls in front of an incoming train and you don't help them, the train hitting them is not your fault. It would be your fault that you didn't help them, but clearly that's a remarkably smaller evil to commit than actually running them over with a train yourself.
Omission bias makes perfect sense. It doesn't mean that lesser evil is a bad thing, just that the greater evil isn't your fault regardless of whether you commit a lesser evil to prevent it or not.
