|
Aswad -> RE: Pro-life Anti-Christian (10/31/2008 8:08:34 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rulemylife
You didn't say it to Rule, you said it to me. You can scroll up and verify that. It does get confusing when we are both on the same thread with similar screen names.
My apologies for the confusion. I can't even recall whether it was you or him I was trying to reply to. The content was styled for him.
quote:
Yes, as I said, there is and probably never will be a clear answer. You say that the question of when life begins is not the issue but you don't state what you believe the issue to be.
I have two beliefs on the matter, one of which is personal morals, the other of which is pragmatic ethics.
The latter one is that the central issue cannot be decided at this point and that, accordingly, the matter should be resolved by generalizing other ones to universal principles that cover it. Essentially, that foeticide is morally equivalent to any other killing, and thus subject to the question of circumstances. A killing in self-defense, for instance, is generally recognized as morally sound. Killing under duress or while mentally unbalanced is morally mitigating in most cultures. Premeditated killing for convenience is usually considered morally reprehensible. By dealing with the abstract principles, one is assured that one does not do additional wrongs over what is already sanctioned in other contexts, and that one does not reject what is already sanctioned, either.
The former one breaks down to the "beggars can't be choosers" issue. Until such time as the vessel is capable of sustaining its own life, it is reliant on what others choose to give it, and my views place no moral obligation on one life to sustain another, although my aesthetics favor it in many instances. Accordingly, by my view, the procedure should be designed such that it does not, in itself, kill the vessel, but rather seperates the vessel from what it needs to live when the host is unwilling to provide it. That is little different from disconnecting life support equipment, except that the equipment in this case happens to be another life, who happens to be the one recognized as having the authority to make the decision as to whether or not to withold life support. A generalization of the principles of passive euthanasia, although my view also encompasses postpartum abandonment as morally sound, if not exactly an aesthetically sound choice.
For a typical society, I believe the "peg it on something else" approach is most sound.
For one that strives for integrity, the other choice is the only one I've found that resolves the dilemma of providing a moral basis for parenting and imprinting a new vessel with values, norms and other artefacts of the parents' (or their host society's or culture's) preferences and traditions. There probably are others, but this one doesn't need as much bootstrapping, and is somewhat more elegant than other possible resolutions I've considered.
Health,
al-Aswad.
|
|
|
|
