I posed this question to a friend who said that even if one candidate had all the right views on "everything else" (like health care, economics, etc.), abortion may probably still trump all that because of how many people die through abortion. Without minimizing the wholly unethical nature of abortion, I do want to say that I think there is something more to this.
What I'm trying to show is that if the debate is not about numbers, then there's something else going on. I can't quite pinpoint what that "something else" is but it's definitely more fundamental.
Transport the abortion debate today to the WW2 era. Now let's simplify the whole situation and posit that the choice is between one candidate whose policies will effectively end the war and punish the radical dictators and their minions but who is also pro-choice (and will sign FOCA). The other candidate is really pro-life and would most likely be more able to change federal policy to reflect her ideals. She will effectively end legal abortion, stem cell research on aborted fetuses, etc. However, her foreign policy experience is not only literally non-existent, but she adamantly supports further appeasement for Hitler.
In this (obviously) simplistic view, I'm guessing one would vote for candidate A. And if I'm right, it seems that there is something to saying that even though more people will die through abortion, the candidate who supports it is the better choice in this case.
"Better choice" can mean a lot of things but my purpose here is not showing which voting choice is more moral, per se, but rather that I don't think the number of deaths due to abortion trumps "everything else". Any thoughts?
The Value of Small Things
1 hour ago
2 comments:
haha, "simplistic" is one way to describe the example! :) Personally, the Abortion issue is not the end-all for me, but it does weigh very heavily. Afterall, voting for someone who supports abortion on demand is the same as voting for someone who sanctions the murder of the inconvenient.
I can understand people who make that their BIG issue. I can't say that I know that much about politics yet but I do know that there has never been (in the 3 elections I've been old enough to vote) a candidate who I completely agree with, so there is bound to be some compromise when voting. I suppose if given a choice between the two I would rather live in a poorly run country than have been murdered in the womb. That's my 2 cents.
"I would rather live in a poorly run country than have been murdered in the womb."
Yeah this issue is tough because a poorly run country can, for some, mean chronic health problems, disabilities, death, and factors that lead to depression and suicide. I don't think it's so easy to just say "poorly run country" because of all this and more. What I suspect is the discussion would then turn onto the "numbers" affected, and responding to that was the point of my post.
Post a Comment