It is immoral to choose the baby's life over the mother's if one is sure to die during childbirth.

Depends on who is doing the choosing.

@NghtShd
good point

Okay, if it's anyone except the mother.

If the mother chooses the baby's life over her own that's not immoral, just dumb. (in my opinion)

These "It's immoral to do _X_ if _Y_" claims are dumb. First, I think it is wrong to make moral judgments for other people. Second, it is snap judgments like this, with too little information, that made the Terry Schiavo case the circus it was.

There are enough instances where choosing that baby's life over the mother's would be the proper moral choice that the entire exercise is pointless.

I don't think it's wrong to consider the morality of hypothetical actions, nor to make moral judgments about others' actions if one holds oneself to the same standard. I do agree that it's rarely cut-and-dry, and one should consider the particulars of the case, but this is one case where I think it's actually relatively clear.

I would be interested to read more exceptions to the claim enumerated, also. You brought up Terry Schiavo; maybe if the mother is a vegetable is another exception.

I'd like to see any case where it is this cut and dried: one will die and one will live and someone gets to choose.

It's nonsense - as are most of the claims of this ilk.

Huh, seems pretty obvious to me that the mothers life is more important than the life of the unborn. Maybe there are a few odd exceptions like if the mother had a head injury that rendered her brain dead.

Nowadays this choice rarely has to be made, but back in the day it was not uncommon. I don't get why you think that there are many cases here. I contend that the life of the mother should be the first priority of the care providers, and the life of the infant second.

If somebody has to make that choice, they probably have their reasons - who are we to say they are wrong or immoral because of that choice? Especially in the hypothetical. What point is served?

I agree generally. The first exception I thought of was if the mother chooses the life of the baby and if the mother has a plan for the baby to be raised and cared for without her needing to be alive to do it. I do think it's immoral for her to choose to have a baby that will not be cared for, so if she has nobody to take over the care of the baby, I think choosing to have it and die is immoral and irresponsible. Yes, the situation sucks, but damaging two lives is worse than damaging one.

I think saving the baby would be the right thing if the mother were severely ill, such as if the mother were dying anyway in the near future and choose to die to have the baby, then I'd be okay with it. For example, if the mother had untreatable cancer and only a few months to live, then it makes sense to give her life for her baby's.

The mother being brain dead isn't an exception, because the mother is already dead, saving her life is no longer an option. Of course you save the baby - one death is better than two.

I don't want to have a baby at any hospital that would prioritize its life over mine.

Yup, depends on who is doing the choosing. And in case Rorek ever deletes his account and his mid-thread adjustment is lost, I cannot vote yes.