Quote:
Originally Posted by Thrice
There has been very little discussion of morals from the pro-choice side, the argument is completely about whether or not a fetus is living, then comparing it to animals, then posting a lame picture. What drives the pro-choice compass?
|
I've already posted my moral argument - in my last post and earlier on page 6 when I posted :
(edit : I agree, though, there's not enough moralistic points from either side .. which makes me wonder if people think about their morals or if they just follow the compass blindly.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tore
I'm pro-choice .. as a biologist, I don't really see anything holy about an embryo. We're a god-forsaken bunch.
It's an interesting moral topic and I've read through the answers here and it doesn't seem like a lot are actually providing any arguments why they should be pro-life or pro-choice. From a utilitarian perspective, the right thing to do is whatever causes the least amount of pain and/or most amount of happiness. Because you can't know if the child will be happy or not, you could argue that when taking such a decision, you should look at the now and whatever you think might happen. The possibility of the child living a happy life is just speculation and could be disregarded. Since it's logical to assume that a fetus does not have the capability to suffer much because of an abortion, it should not have the same moralistic consideration as that of an adult person, for example the mother. In other words, you should do what maximizes the happiness of people such as the mother and father, not the fetus which is probably neither happy or sad about the decision.
Obviously, from such a utilitarian standpoint, you have to be pro-choice because it's the only feasible, practical way to attempt to make such a philosophy work. Granted, most people are not wholly utilitarian because it justifies gruesome acts for the sake of the better good. For example you kill one to save a hundred. Such a situation would be easy to defend from a utilitarian perspective, but normative ethics may have a problem with it (ex. "thou shalt not kill"). Still, utilitarian ethics are often used in life and death situations. For example if you do first aid in a situation where there are several victims, should you focus your effort on the person which is hurt the most and will most likely die or should you rather try and save those you are more likely to be able to help?
I'm not sure if I'm 100% utilitarian when it comes to pro-life or pro-choice, but I don't think the potential of being a person automatically grants the same moralistic considerations as actually being one. Thus, I think the one you have to consider is the mother (/parents) and so she should get to choose.
Besides, we can use those little suckers for stemcell research!
|
The last sentence was just for fun, but the point and my morals say that fetuses require much less moralistic consideration than the mother does. Another moral dilemma that illustrates my thinking could be this : if you had to kill one of two people, one being a total braindead with no relatives and the other being a working huband with children and a wife who loves him, you would probably choose to kill off the braindead one. Almost all people would because they think it's the moral choice in the matter - it hurts less people - and it's basically this utilitaristic thinking which is the basis for my moral argument. Both of these are humans, people, yet your moral compass tells you one is less worth in a moral sense than the other.
When you are a pro-lifer and you want to have a pro-life policy in society, then you have to vote for someone who's willing to push it. The "tough luck kiddo" argument would not get taken seriously here. The "fetuses are humans just like you and I and killing people (including fetuses) is wrong" argument might, although it's been losing ground overall.
If you really are a pro-lifer, then of course I think you have to consider what pro-life means, what such a law would do to society and then if the moral argument is good enough to make it a law. If you agree that there should be abortions, even if it's just in rape cases, then I'm not sure you are a pro-lifer. Boo Boo made a good point about pro-life being sexist which I agree with. I'd like to add to it with the point that while a mother might be stuck with an unwanted child, it's so much easier for a father who has an unwanted child to just run off and not get involved. The pro-life argument is really quite unfair towards women.
I'm still a bit drunk from yesterday's fun, but I hope all this makes sense still when I look back at it in a few hours time.
