Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice (single, quote, Lute, Khol, Ching)

Guybrush · 04-22-2009, 03:17 AM

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!

04-22-2009, 03:17 AM	#11 (permalink)
Guybrush Juicious Maximus III Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Scabb Island Posts: 6,525	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! __________________ Something Completely Different