4 comments

[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 22.9 ms ] thread
Every story about family planning, abortion, IVF, etc. in popular media seems to center around particular individuals and their struggles, hopes, and dreams -- with the end-result of pushing the ethical boundaries further or affirming a particular ethical stance, and without appealing to anything objective. But they're only telling a part of one side of the story: there are many people who chose not to have an abortion, despite genetic counselors advising them otherwise for whatever reason (Down's syndrome, genetic conditions, etc.), and are very glad they did so.

Either way, a long-term trend of telling and listening only to individual stories shifts the discussion away from what the objective moral values are or should be based on principles, ethics, logic, and worldview -- and perhaps leads people to think that objective moral values and duties don't exist.

What objective moral values do you think exist in this case? The abortion debate is really about defining when human life begins, and there has never been universal agreement on the answer.
Most people agree that it’s begun by the time the child is born. Apparently democratic legislators disagree though, somehow.
I’m reticent to debate my position on HN. My point was that moral values and duties exist, and a glut of subjective discussion undermines them.