At least you focused on the cause of abortions rather than the morality. I’m sure thats the only way to make progress. [frogblog]
Whilst I don't deny this point is quite pragmatic, people are making it to avoid the real debate, one that defines our morality.
PART ONE
One thing modern society doesn’t want, is to have to deal with morality. It is a new society based on rationalism. Rationalism without moral constraint leads us in a destructive direction.
By not continuing to debate morality and ethics, they seemingly become less and less important. Certainly, a big part of this debate for some people (and I’m not necessarily talking about people here) is to play with semantics to convince themselves that killing a pre-born is not really ending a life. If it were seen as that we might collectively try much harder to work on prevention and on expanding post-birth support options.
The cause of abortions is having sex for reasons where a baby is an unacceptable possible outcome. We need to debate morality and ethics. These are not things to be discarded like an unwanted baby.
PART TWO
One of the most compelling arguments in the abortion debate for the pro-choice camp is that a women has "sovereignty" over her body. It's hers, and she's in charge of it, and no-one can tell her otherwise. Her body is her property. The baby growing within it is either her property, to dispose of as she will, or it is an illegal resident, to be ejected because of her ultimate property rights.
That argument makes rational sense.
It is an argument that is completely rational, and also devoid of any real morality.
The morality of the argument is that the women had free choice not to get pregnant, and now pregnant, has now a new life to guard. There is arguably, a moral obligation to complete the pregnancy and then call on others to help care for the baby, again for moral reasons if no other.
In adopting property rights to explain a new, rational framework for society to conduct its affairs we open ourselves to a new social structure, one that appears similar but would in practice, seem as different from concept and execution as communism.
This ideology best fits Libertarianism. I must confess, it is a very appealing ideology. The huge advantage rationalism has, it is seemingly dispenses with the subjective nature of morality. Morality too, has its problems when we find ourselves discussing "which morality".
To me, where morality meets rationalism we have a marvelous synthesis of, hang-on, that's an answer for another post, so put that out of your mind and get to the end of this comment :-)
No, the point of this comment was to highlight where a Libertarian rationalism can take us, with a discussion from prominent US Libertarian where he argues:
"Snacky dog [his dog] is property. If I want to take Snacky's head and smash it against a brick wall it's my right to do it! It's my right to do it.
To discuss the idea of rationalism without morals, it is interesting to read Lucyna's recent post, and the comments that go with it. So, go read Lucyna's post, Fatuous pro-abortion slogans and then watch the video that the above comment came from. (My comment, 6 comments down)
Added video link for the lazy: Snacky Dog
Whilst I don't deny this point is quite pragmatic, people are making it to avoid the real debate, one that defines our morality.
PART ONE
One thing modern society doesn’t want, is to have to deal with morality. It is a new society based on rationalism. Rationalism without moral constraint leads us in a destructive direction.
By not continuing to debate morality and ethics, they seemingly become less and less important. Certainly, a big part of this debate for some people (and I’m not necessarily talking about people here) is to play with semantics to convince themselves that killing a pre-born is not really ending a life. If it were seen as that we might collectively try much harder to work on prevention and on expanding post-birth support options.
The cause of abortions is having sex for reasons where a baby is an unacceptable possible outcome. We need to debate morality and ethics. These are not things to be discarded like an unwanted baby.
PART TWO
One of the most compelling arguments in the abortion debate for the pro-choice camp is that a women has "sovereignty" over her body. It's hers, and she's in charge of it, and no-one can tell her otherwise. Her body is her property. The baby growing within it is either her property, to dispose of as she will, or it is an illegal resident, to be ejected because of her ultimate property rights.
That argument makes rational sense.
It is an argument that is completely rational, and also devoid of any real morality.
The morality of the argument is that the women had free choice not to get pregnant, and now pregnant, has now a new life to guard. There is arguably, a moral obligation to complete the pregnancy and then call on others to help care for the baby, again for moral reasons if no other.
In adopting property rights to explain a new, rational framework for society to conduct its affairs we open ourselves to a new social structure, one that appears similar but would in practice, seem as different from concept and execution as communism.
This ideology best fits Libertarianism. I must confess, it is a very appealing ideology. The huge advantage rationalism has, it is seemingly dispenses with the subjective nature of morality. Morality too, has its problems when we find ourselves discussing "which morality".
To me, where morality meets rationalism we have a marvelous synthesis of, hang-on, that's an answer for another post, so put that out of your mind and get to the end of this comment :-)
No, the point of this comment was to highlight where a Libertarian rationalism can take us, with a discussion from prominent US Libertarian where he argues:
"Snacky dog [his dog] is property. If I want to take Snacky's head and smash it against a brick wall it's my right to do it! It's my right to do it.
To discuss the idea of rationalism without morals, it is interesting to read Lucyna's recent post, and the comments that go with it. So, go read Lucyna's post, Fatuous pro-abortion slogans and then watch the video that the above comment came from. (My comment, 6 comments down)
Added video link for the lazy: Snacky Dog