| EricFabian said: 1. Immoral. When you have a child, you will understand. 2. Normal yes. Can't see any problem 3. It doesn't care. If they are good parents, there is no problem 4. Illogical |
See, this post is exactly what I mean when I talk about how the ideology pressuposses (I probably spelled that word wrong) answers to questions that should be at least informed by science and research. Particularly I mean points 2. 3. and 4. I won't repeat what I've already said many times, but I would like to ask, what exactly do you consider illogical about my point 4? Please share because if there truly is a fallacy I'd like to know. I have no problem with changing my position when shown evidence that warrants it.
@Slimebeast
Part of the reason I asked the question, but I don't think you can so easily label it hypocrisy. The morals of people are done step by step. A person thinks up a hyphotetical situation and considers this situation right or wrong depending on the feelings of the person. As many situations are devised, a system of morals is developed, which by nature is incomplete, and also since we don't tend to think about everything at the same time, the system may also not be consistent, which is the case here. The problem of abortion in a general sense seems different than the problem of abortion of a child due to some particular reason, though the action is the exact same.
So I think this is a good opportunity for pro-choice people to strenghten their morals. The thing is, I consider abortion an act of neutral moral. That is, it's neither wrong nor fine. It's never moral to abort, just like it's never immoral to do so, at least the act itself. As an analogy, think of murdering ants in your house. It's not moral or immoral, you just do it.
However, the reasons behind abortion can be moral or immoral. And so it is possible to consider abortion a choice of a woman while still condemning some abortions as moral or immoral.
