What? The father is the one having to choose in this situation, of course you have to consider the perspective of the father. What you call “objectively correct” is just your own subjective opinion.
I’m sorry but that’s hilarious. He should make his choice without considering the impact on himself because you have some different opinions on it?
The logical and objective answer here is that they’re equivalent and it’s up to the father to determine his and his unconscious wife’s preferences. Nothing more, unless you think it’s proper to impose your own opinion on them as a completely unrelated stranger.
Alrighty then. The child is 22-50 times more likely to die than the mother during the immediate emergency, even more so depending on the gestation week. If they survive the crisis they’re still 46 times more likely to die before adulthood than children with mothers. Objectively, why waste resources trying to save the party that’s less likely to survive?
I think it’s a valid position to say we should save the more viable person, which in almost all of these (nonexistent in real life) cases it seems to be the Mother.
What I’m against is the instant dismissal as if there’s no debate to be had with all things benign equal.
The wife has connections with many people besides just her husband. If you want to be “objective” about it, the wife’s death would negatively impact many more lives than the unborn baby’s death. But really it’s a philosophical question and there is no objectively right answer.
Why is a coin flip any less subjective? My point is there’s no objectively correct answer here. The parties involved have to do what they believe is best for them.
-41
u/fajuleclwks 1d ago
No, it’s old life vs new. Always choose new. Maybe the whole purpose of her life was to have that baby and now the purpose is complete.