no matter who I ask or where I go to ask it the answer always comes out with the same intensity. Its as if I asked them if they agreed with the general message of Mein Kampf, a question which would actually carry the audacity to outrage the listener and warrant an extreme reaction. apparently abortionists are worse than himmler according to some and the pro-life crowd is the equivalent of hitler to others. personally, i never understand the divide on the issue. at least when sensible human being discuss general morality they sit down like civilized individuals and typically end up agreeing or agreeing to disagree. but no such understanding exists between the pro-choice and pro-life crowd. "you are either with us or against." if i personally were to play devil's advocate against one side the other side would consider me lucifer himself.
like thompson once said (while referring to himself), "no sympathy for the devil." (quote taken blatantly out of context)
so here is what i would like anyone reading to consider: it has become apparent to me that this entire abortion debate is merely over definitions. the pro-life crowd defines a fetus as life, the same as mine or yours, while the pro-choice crowd does not equate the fetus as equal to the lives of you and i (or at least overlooks the quality of life as less then the necessity of choice). the pro-life crowd does not consider the "right to choose" a human right while the pro-choice crowd feels the right to choice when you have a child is essential in modern society. but further more that the debate based on definition cannot have a entirely morally justifiable answer. simply said, who is to say whether there is morality behind keeping a baby or terminating a pregnancy after 4 weeks? or is it simply the same debate that everyone has accepted: the kind of black and white, good and evil, right and wrong bullshit that most want to accept?
a couple of posts ago a member of this community attempted to prove or at least openly embrace the correctness of utilitarianism. it is my opinion that not every choice in life is so public and that utilitarianism may be thoroughly justifiable but horribly unrealistic. (i guess i am saying it is a little distopian in its ends then i would like to accept). but i bring up utilitarianism to suggest whether abortion can be simplified to such terms. is it possible that the abortion question can be answered by a silent or private morality? or do we have to accept that when we decide to abort a pregnancy or not we are making an impact on the world around us at a greatly level? is it okay to terminate a pregnancy because of the discomfort, displeasure, and often sorrow of many even though it might violate the right to live of one? can we always fall back on the most amount of happiness for the most amount of people or most we be more creative than utilitarianism?
there are a lot of questions that as i am writing this i would doubt many consider consistently. as i said before i think most people violently spit out "PRO-CHOICE!" or "PRO-LIFE!" without thinking about the question of definitions, of utilitarianism, or even of logic itself. if you are curious of my personal opinion i will only admit that i am an amoralist and don't care about definitions or the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. i only consider the goal and logical outcomes at hand and i simply move on. i would never criticize a decision to keep or give up a child on that principle alone. either way i am bringing this argument out of the hopes that some one has logical bias and pause for their own philosophy or possibly insight considering the philosophy of another. i would be very thankful for such a comment.