Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!laura From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Pro-which-life(?) Message-ID: <3670@utzoo.UUCP> Date: Thu, 22-Mar-84 20:16:53 EST Article-I.D.: utzoo.3670 Posted: Thu Mar 22 20:16:53 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 22-Mar-84 20:16:53 EST References: <785@ihuxq.UUCP> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 73 Ethics is a pretty complicated issue. The context of an ethical action is of supreme importance in telological (consequentialist) theories of ethics (such as utilitarianism or ethical egoism) but doesn't really matter as much in deontological theories (such as Kant's) and really doesn't matter very much as all (except in that it is interesting) in theories such as Natural Law where an action can been demonstrated to be wrong regardless of the consequences. The difference between them is rather clearly seen when I pose the question: It is wrong to kill humn beings. Almost everybody will agree with this. However, a lot of people will say "it is wrong because it just is" (thus supporting natural law, and having found a basic axiom of truth which need not be questioned) where as other people will say "well, this is in general true, but there are cases when it is morally right to kill a human being". These people (usually utilitarians, since the theory is relatively popular) see that the good of an action can only be ascertained with respect to its consequences (in this case "the greatest good of the greatest number"). Personally, I think that utilitarianism is fundamentally flawed. What I don't know how to do is judge whether a fetus is human or not. Until there is a definition that everyone can live with (and don't hold your breath) I do not think you should abort *anything*, simply because if you made a mistake in your assessment of human life you would act againsyt the basic good of human life, which to my mind is *the* basic good and needs no justification. (This puts me pretty solidly in the Natural Law camp, at least with respect to the existence of axiomatic fundamental goods. However I am also solidly in te ethical egoist camp, so if you expect traditional Natural Law, you won't get it here. However, I support ethical egoism because I think that it is in accordance with the natural laws, which moves me back... The question is that I think that it is never in your own interest to abort something which is a human beingand if you think that it is then you are making a mistake in your judgement.) However, having people raised in homes where they are not wanted is not good and adoption has such a high rate of failure that either it is fundamentally flawed or we don't know enough about how people grow up to know how to adopt them properly. Therefore, the solution is to make it extremely difficult to get pregnant. Sterilise everybody, and then there will be no abortions and no unwanted children. If you want children, then make the process reversible. In Canada the proportion of unwed mothers who are on welfare is staggering. I have to pay taxes to support these people who were so damn irresponsible as to get pregnant in the first place. Birth control methods fail, and people do get raped, but I know that most of these children were the result of sheer irresponsibility on the part of at least one (and usually 2) people. I would rather not pay for these people's irresponsibility. I don't condone such blatant immaturity and irresponsibility in anyone. Given the great number of people who seem perfectly willing to act in such a lousy manner as to have irresponsible sex, I would much rather sterilise the lot of them. A lot of people have told me that this is harsh, but I have yet to see why, given that sterilisation is reversible. I'll bet if both the pro-life and the pro-choice camps sent their money to this cause we would have reversible sterilisations pretty darn quick. -- Laura Creighton utzoo!laura "Capitalism is a lot of fun. If you aren't having fun, then you're not doing it right." -- toad terrific