Pro-life or Pro-choice?

Bingo-bango.

 

What's your basis for this assumption? People like to see facts and figures this, in my opinion, is an opinion not a fact so it is invalid.

 

Good point yet again. I was going to mention something along these lines but you beat me to it. Touche'.

 

Another thing to remember is the possibility that morals themselves do not exist and are merely a fabrication of the human psyche.

 

Again, this is confused. Can you choose if you don't exist? Is it a necessary condition that one exist before they can make choices? contrariwise, it is not a necessary condition that one be able to choose in order to exist. Existence (life) is logically prior to choice. If there are no human beings, then the concept of choice cannot be attributed to anything, and is therefore empty. I'm not talking about quality of life, but mere life. one could exist without having choices (See philosophical discussions on Free-Will, Determinism, Compatibilism).

Secondly, choice presupposes rationality, because the choice relies on the deliberative reason, weighing one option against another. therefore, Rationality is what separates man from beast. This is consistent with anything Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, or Immanuel Kant would say on the issue of fundamental properties of human beings (man is the "rational animal", not the "choosing animal")

Furthermore, if choice is so important, then it is an immoral action to take the life of another person, because that eliminates their free choices. It is morally impermissible to use your freedom to choose to take away another's right to continue making choices. In this case, what safeguards the right of another to continue to choose? The right to life.

 

For the same reason we presume innocence and not guilt in the court of law. we err on the side of caution because it is a far greater evil to imprison an innocent person than it is to let the guilty go free. Likewise, we presume it's a life just in case it is a life, because it is far greater evil to assume it is not a life and terminate it, rather than assume it is a life and therefore preserve it. The danger is in assuming it is not a life.

as for facts and figures, scientific facts have little or no play in ethical and philosophical discussions, as this would be a category mistake. There are value-facts and conceptual issues and Valid/invalid argumentative forms, but this would take us well beyond the present discussion.

 

You're associating the generic ability to choose with choosing abortion. The ability to choose doesn't end because abortion is outlawed. Only the ability to choose to end the life of another. We can make the choice that abortion is wrong. Choice doesn't go away with the loss of abortion.

This argument is the same as saying, if I don't have the ability to gun someone down in the street for my own convenience, then I am no different than an animal. It doesn't make sense.

 

Except in Nicomachean Ethics, Ch. 4, Aristotle explains that a person cannot be morally virtuous if the actions are undertaken by chance, under advice, or through social influence. A person must be free to make a moral decision on his/her own. He lists three criteria in order to take a virtuous (moral) act:

1.) It is done knowingly

2.) It is chosen for its own sake

3.) They are chosen purposefully, not on a whim, and not under influence of societal acceptance or pressure.

He goes on to state that without this criteria of knowing decisions, a person is not actually morally superior. So therefore, persons accepting or denying abortion as an option due to legality, social or familial influence, or ignorance are not any morally virtuous than the counterpart.

So in the terms of morality, the ability to choose and decide is of vastly more importance than the ability to breathe.

 

Actually, what I am saying is that if you don't have the ability to choose whether or not to gun down someone in the street for your own convenience, you are no different than an animal.

That, and the fact that 99.9% of creatures on the Earth cannot operate complex machinery like a firearm.

 

Then it's really just a moot point in the argument of whether or not abortion should be legal. You can obviously choose to do it whether or not it's legal, consequences be damned. Doesn't mean it should be sanctioned by the state.

 

This is a red-herring. I'm not talking about what makes an action virtuous, or what makes for a virtuous person. If you cannot understand that existence is logically prior to choice, there is nothing more to discuss in this regard. It is a basic metaphysical point, as is the point that rationality is prior to choice; (1), (2), and (3) above cannot be achieved apart from the deliberative reason.

Furthermore, there are some things that are not subject to Aristotle's "virtue as a mean" analysis; things that are unequivocally wrong, and I surmise that abortion would be among them given Aristotle's functional view of human nature and actual/potential properties distinction. You cannot simply extricate his virtue theory out of the context of his metaphysical teleology

 

It's not their body they are killing.

 

Pro-Life for me. No abortion unless in the case of rape, incest, or the health of the mother.

The choice is made before having sex - not after. Both my children are adopted and I will be eternally grateful to their birth-mothers for not aborting them.

 

The argument in its current state has evolved from the question of when a person is considered a "person." I have illustrated that while the "spark of life" is, yes, a necessary precursor for the basic elements to be in place, without the ability to reason and decide, that being is nothing more than a mass of cells, no different that other organisms upon the face of the Earth.

As to the "virtue as a means" argument, this was in direct rebuttal to the areas (accent in BOLD) where you argue the moral validity and weight of actions of a being. Since morality is distinctly a human concept, using Virtue of Means, it can be deduced that one who comes to a decision on the subject of an abortion while doing so under the influence of political, religious or other pressures is in fact less morally sound than one who reaches a decision through understanding and conscious deliberation.

Finally, assuming that Aristotle would consider abortion as unequivocally wrong under his actual/potential properties is folly, for while he sees the final cause (telos) of a fetus to be an adult, in actuality, it's final cause is to no longer exist. (death)

Aristotle also cautioned that his students also determine the material, efficient and formal causes of a being or phenomena, for they do not all possess a final cause, and each case study should be studied individually for said reasons.

By this reasoning, according to the Actual/Potential Distinction, the final cause of a certain fetus may be to become an aborted fetus. In that regard, it has fulfilled its potential and all causes have concluded. Or it may posses no final cause at all. I can hardly see how Aristotle's philosophy can construe this as unequivocally wrong when the matter in question has achieved its purpose.

 

Consequentialist theories FTW.

Fuck virtue ethics and deontological theories.

 

I disagree with both of your points. Your first argument that anything could happen before the baby is born, and it might not live. If someone was going to die tommorow would that give me the right to kill them today? For your second argument there are many possible mental and physical problems that can come along with abortion for the mother, and from the baby's perspective don't you think killing a living thing is a health issue. Being in the science field you should now a single cell is "alive" and a living thing. I don't believe it is right to kill something just because it is not self aware.

 

My take.

 

That's an asumption. I believe most, if no all athiests have a sence of moral. If not, then we are in a sad state for a society. Much of the discussion here is based on philosophy rather than religion. Lets not turn this into a theological topic, or blame it on religion.

 

I think it's rather a statistical trend than an assumption.

 

No, but at which point does a fetus have a body? Also, the fetus is tearing up the mother body for about 9 months.