the only easy day was yesterday

Sunday, September 9, 2007


I've had an assignment to read the Roe vs Wade federal abortion court opinion for moral philosophy this week, and I figured what better time than now to see what I think of abortion myself.

I will begin with my usual beggining assumption, without which I could not argue anything, that to a living human being the state of himself, namely his mind and his emotions and his body (the immediate things of which people are naturally concerned), and the state of others are the most important things to him, given that he would no longer be living if he did not value life and by asserting that primacy of life by continuing to live he demotes any other possibility of importance to himself becasue he would not be able to percieve the importance of any such things were he not alive. I do hold that if a person holds his life to be of this magnitude of importance, that by nature of the assertion that he holds life in general to be important - because without the existence of life in itself, or rather without the potential that he be born a homo sapiens sapiens, as others have - that he would not be living, so with appreciation of ones own life, we take that one must appreciate all life, and neccissarily, and primarily, the potential for life.

Now the solution to the problem of abortion becomes simple. Any stage of child, any trimester, before the point of viability or after, from zygote to organism that can readily survive on it's own (with sufficient nutrients; i mean here to sight the definition of the point of viability either way) remains the potental for life, and furthermore from a pragmatic standpoint, a life that potentially could be greatly possitively influential and good for the human race. This does mean that contraceptives become disrespecting the potential for life, and at that, in modern times, great and infulential life, and therefor against what a living being naturally wants.

There is here, as is the nature with all things, seemingly an exception. What of the great women whose lives are at risk as long as they carry a child? Does the principle of appreciating life apply here. I think through reason, though it may not be a utilitarians delight to hear, even if the most dimwitted human in history is to be born, if my reason is to follow, it seems as if respecting the potential for life should take primary importance over already existing life.

I may get back to this later to examine the social and cultural reprocussions of accepting such a belief, I may not...


The W said...

Im kind of a relativist on this issue, despite the fact that im not a big fan of relativism. I feel that no one has the right to decide if another person should bring more life into this world or not. That decision is up to those that are in the business of making life. I'm not sure what id do if i found myself in such a situation, but id probably leave most of the decision up to the girl.

Jasper Yate said...

that, though, is a problem of government, I am simply porviding my best reasoning ability as to what is right by humanity, someone telling them what to do is another issue; Mill, in On Liberty, proposes that the only reason for governing a people is because yyou believe those people are stupid and cannot make decisions for themsleves, anad it seems to be a truth that is rediscovered every time one considers life without a regulatory system such as a government. The second thing, and the main argument in abortion today, is that it is not a womans right to decide the fate of another citizen, which is why they've instated the point of viability, to make it easy for the government to enforce the rule. this seems to be the best way for the law to handle it without even greater controversy from other laws, but this is not the answer to the moral question, law is only a guidline for us to not be total idiots, although we do a pretty good job of it anyway.

The question, though, is not if anyone can regulate who can and can't bring life into this world, but rather once a new life is conceived what to make of it, and i am saying that whether it puts the mother in risk or not, the instance of potential life, intrinsically is more important to a human being than their own. This being dictated by reason and intelligent consideration, rather than the rampant narcissism that let's people not care about any other lives.

This brings up another big problem with large reprocusions, which I think is enough to actually ban abortion under the circumstances, this problem being the social influence of taking a life as abortion does. Despite the actual argument of abortion in iteslf it has a horrible effect with many other things ive mentioned, I've heard girls shrug off the concept of abortion like its no problem becaue what they want to do with themselves is more important thatn life. abortion in america is a little thing in peoples minds that helps us all to not value each others lives and humanity. if we could all look at this issue intelligently then it would be a different story, but you know all that shit gets in the way of people thinking, so they need to be told becaue they can't think for themselves, or they refuse to.

The W said...

what then for the harsh economic situation that the child might be born into? also, is not the life (well being) of the woman important as well?