Originally Posted by mr dave

yes, but those odds are ridiculously small. plus there's the whole 2nd part to my statement, that, while you don't need to believe or follow when you're just doing it for kicks, is still something that should be recognized.

i guess i just see myself as more than our highest basic instinct.

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?

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!

Originally Posted by Strummer521

I only listen to you talk when I want to hear Emo performed acapella.

Originally Posted by tore

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.

Originally Posted by Thrice

im with you bro, excuses are pretty lame when it comes to having children.

Originally Posted by bandteacher1

I type whicked fast,

Originally Posted by tore

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.)



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.

Originally Posted by mr dave

i really think this is a reflection of the differences between our societies. the 'tough luck kid' argument doesn't get taken that seriously here either BUT... i'm willing to bet the reasons are different. your society seems to be more willing to take personal responsibility for their actions, it's not as self-centered. north america has developed a wicked sense of entitlement over the last few decades, the attitude wouldn't be taken seriously because people want to do what they want, when they want, without being held responsible for their actions because it's anyone but their own fault.

how often do you hear people defending their destructive behavior with 'it's just how i am, i can't help it' or 'it's not my fault, it's the way our society is'. it's BS and i'd like to think most of us can agree on that.

if you're capable of recognizing yourself as more than a biological function you should be able to control yourself as more than one as well. of course the urge to have sex would be our strongest, it does stand to reason that the only method of survival for the species would be its most intense and advanced basic instinct.

education not abstinence is the key

Originally Posted by Thrice

Well then, since it seems being 'Pro-Life' is more political than moral, I'll resign my statement of being 'Pro-Life' and just say I am against abortion. Abortion does not sway my vote what so ever in elections. Also, on the sexist issue, I feel thats why women should be even more responsible because they do not only have to worry about the child and pregnancy, but also the father or lack there of.

Originally Posted by tore

I think I agree with you and I do think that taking reponsibility of your life and the situation you're in and then owning up to that is admirable and something people should strive for. Another popular example of people who don't that I see on the TV are fat people who blame their genes. They turn the problem from being caused by behaviour which they can control to being caused by genes which they can't so that they can feel happily helpless about it. However, no matter how you twist and turn it, genes don't make you fat .. It's eating 6 pounds of junk food every day that does it.

Originally Posted by bandteacher1

I type whicked fast,

Originally Posted by toretorden

I think I agree with you and I do think that taking reponsibility of your life and the situation you're in and then owning up to that is admirable and something people should strive for. Another popular example of people who don't that I see on the TV are fat people who blame their genes. They turn the problem from being caused by behaviour which they can control to being caused by genes which they can't so that they can feel happily helpless about it. However, no matter how you twist and turn it, genes don't make you fat .. It's eating 6 pounds of junk food every day that does it.



Abortion is a moral dilemma so politicians go about it with moral arguments. Of course we have morale in politics. The pro-life way would be by passing a law that forbids abortions .. I just don't think the "tough luck kiddo" is a good enough moral basis for such a law.

To me, thinking practically, I think of unwanted pregnancy as a problem in society. Abortion provides a means to help society deal with that problem. Then you have people who want to keep the problem and remove the solution. Why? It just seems counter-productive. I'm all for people taking responsibility of themselves and their actions and as you probably know, I've been in a sticky situation already and I owned up to it. That doesn't mean I would prefer to have no choice in the matter.

Originally Posted by Vanilla

If abortion was to be banned again, imagine the reprocussions for the human population? We can't feed 2/3 of the world as it is, so how the hell is not allowing people to have the choice going to be beneficial?