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 being
 and 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