The GR consistency approach to abortion tries to show that most people, insofar as they take a consistent view on the matter, will think that
The GR consistency approach to abortion tries to show that most people, insofar as they take a consistent view on the matter, will think that
For some cases, my way of reasoning doesn't yield a definite answer -- since some people are willing that they would have been aborted under certain conditions. Suppose that the baby would be born severely handicapped. Some might prefer not to have lived at all than to live in this condition. I personally think that an abortion would be wrong here. But my way of reasoning doesn't force this conclusion.
So, if reason forces the conclusion that abortion is normally wrong, it leaves some of the details fuzzy. This is how reason normally works in ethics. It's clear on the general point (for example, of racism being wrong) but less clear on the details (like bussing or quotas).
The GR consistency approach to abortion tries to show that most people, insofar as they take a consistent view on the matter, will think that
Were you sober when you read the chapter?
The GR consistency approach to abortion tries to show that most people, insofar as they take a consistent view on the matter, will think that
For some cases, my way of reasoning doesn't yield a definite answer -- since some people are willing that they would have been aborted under certain conditions. Suppose that the baby would be born severely handicapped. Some might prefer not to have lived at all than to live in this condition. I personally think that an abortion would be wrong here. But my way of reasoning doesn't force this conclusion.
So, if reason forces the conclusion that abortion is normally wrong, it leaves some of the details fuzzy. This is how reason normally works in ethics. It's clear on the general point (for example, of racism being wrong) but less clear on the details (like bussing or quotas).