There have been a couple comments inspired by the article
here about Pro-Choice. What interests me is that, rather than most of these people trying to extend their own morality onto someone else directly, they attempt to do so in the form of waxing philosohical about the whole concept of choice while secretly acknowledging that their own morals are better than those with whom they disagree.
Which brings to mind the question: What are we really arguing about with the whole Pro-Choice/Pro-Life debate? I see to entirely separat debates, which (just like the Fighting Sioux debacle) are only marginally related, and I wish to clarify these and see what other people think.
First, there is the debate of whether one should have an abortion, and that supposing this is not always possible, under what conditions should someone have an abortion. This is a question of individual morality. Whether I am in favor of someone having the ability to choose whether to abort or not is of a totally different opinion than lynsey's or Red's or talksalot83's or commando eli's, is the question here. At this point, we can have a moral debate. Is it right for someone to take an unborn life? What about all the children that have been alive and in foster care for years? What about all the orphans in the world? At what point does a clump of cells turn into a human being? When does it acquire a soul? These are all moral questions, the last of which is connected blatantly to the independent theologic views of the individual, the others usually accounted for in some other aspect of religion. Religion aside, however, it comes down to an individual's moral choice. I leave that to everyone else to decide on their own.
Second, there is the debate of whether or not it should be illegal to have an abortion. This is different from the above in that, just because something is considered immoral by some part of society does not necessarily make it illegal. Muslims and Mormon's do not drink, yet drinking is legal. Many people find marijuana use perfectly acceptable, but it remains illegal. So there obviously exists a disjunction between what individuals or groups of individuals (the latter being any group of citizens "less than the population of the United States") think of as moral actions and what the United States government deems inappropriate actions for its citizens to undertake. Why, then, is there even a question of whether abortions should be legal in this country? Clearly in disallowing people the ability to have an abortion morals are being imposed through law, something that should not be related. Law should exist for the good of the society as a whole, not to please the moral standards of a select few.
Like I have said before (I think it was here...), it's not up to me whether you have an abortion or not. I seriously don't think I will have an opinion on it unless the issue comes up for someone close to me. The point I wish to make here is that there
is a disjunct between an individual's morals and the governmen's laws. Some things should not be legislated because they are moral issues. Case in point with the issue of abortion.
Topic: Pro-whatever (and other interesting logical debates) (Read 2568 times)
