What value is "life"? Does life have value simply for being, intrinsic value? Or are their properties of life that give life value?
The later would seem to be the case. It is why most of us are inclined to grant a person with a painful fatal disease that is begging for "voluntary euthanasia" the sweet release of death. Or how we think more of a person then a dog, or an insect or a plant, etc. For the pro-life verse pro-choice argument the points of value are generally pain, happiness and freedom verse intrinsic value of life. Different metrics between these generates different stances on the pro-life/pro-choice debate, and produces most but not all pro-life/pro-choice stances.
If our thinking more of a person than a dog extends to the point that we think killing it on whim is our prerogative, I would argue you are not talking about happiness, lack of pain or freedom, but malice born of selfishness.
Civilization tends to be built on the precept that wielding greater power be met with a greater capacity for protection of others.
A pro-choicer values happiness, lack of pain and freedom more then a "supposed" intrinsic value of life. Outlawing abortion inhibits freedom, degrading the quality of life of the "hostess" who is forced to grow a fetus to term that she does not want, it degrades her happiness in life and the happiness of the child, by forcing her to raise a child she does not want, and forcing a child to be birthed and raised by a mother that loath her and/or lacks the resources to support her as best as the mother could. As some pro-choicers have pointed out already (in rather crankish fashion) abortion can allow a women to have a child when she wants to and feels most ready to support said child, with better income, education, a loving willing spouse, etc
If one actually values a quality, they value it in all cases in appears in.
So for instance if I say I like forests, its not an issue of whether I like forests in Austria, Africa or Australia ... and infact if I did describe my tastes in such a manner, it would indicate that using "forests" as a category to describe what I like is not entirely accurate.
So, similarly, if I talk about valuing happiness and lack of pain, yet only exclusively *my* happiness et al it tends to offer a reduced scope for the terms usage .... especially if in the act of pursuing my happiness entails the consequence of tremendous suffering (Most people who value happiness would rate being "exterminated" for the crime of infringing on the happiness of another as quite extreme)
such children are statistically better off, thus abortion takes a life from potential/eer "developing" people to give it over to more abstract potential people that are fewer but better off.
That's kind of taking morality to new lows since we don't , at least at the moment, endorse killing people statistically inclined to be criminals and saying they are better off that way.
There are other pro-choice arguments. The viability argument is useful: A fetus is not a independent life form (yet) therefor is property of the hostess to do with how ever she likes. This argument alone can't deal with "viable" fetuses or worse the potential of technology to make younger and younger fetuses, viable. This is also an argument for freedom, but like the more blatant argument that criminalized abortion inhibits a women's freedom it is open to asking "what about the fetuses freedom?"
Actually I think contingency is a poor model for granting the reins of power and actually is a notion that runs contrary to many things we hold as valuable to a sane civilization.
The pragmatic argument is also useful but can't separate what is right from what can be done: we can't declare something morally right simply because it is the more practical option, although laws can be made around pragmatism and realpolitiks and is probably a big reason why abortion has become legal, it does not change the moral consideration.
granted.
Actually I think the whole abortion issue is kind of the default position of a society that has screwed up on so many levels, ranging from the idealization of the sexual act as one of self expression that, far from bearing any relationship to responsible parenthood, is vehemently opposed to it and also economic models that postulate pregnancy as "economic/social suicide).
I think outright prohibition of abortion would probably fail along the same lines as prohibition of alcohol in the states.
At the same time though I think it should be entirely provisional and always under review. I think there is always a tension in any society between when something should be legislatively upheld and when it is controlled by social stigma and taboo. As things stand at the moment, abortion is kind of somewhere between these two states .... and I guess it stands poised there to the degree that it is supported by willing and consenting parties (regardless whether we are talking about willing consenting pro-choices pushing for mandatory legislative precedents to protect their freedom of choice or willing, consenting medical professionals pushing for mandatory legislative precedents to protect their freedom of choice to refrain from being implicated in acts they find ethically questionable)
Rather for pro-choicers to generate a sound ethical frameworks to back their stance a combination of the above arguments and more is needed. For example the happiness and freedom of the mother is of more value then the life of a fetus, another fetus can be conceived and born at the mother's discretion. Even if we give gradients to potential people, and grant a fetus higher status then zygote, fertilize embryo, sperm, ova, abstract future people, the combine value of the freedom of the full person, the hostess, and that full person's happiness is greater. The fetus can be granted more value if it is viable though and thus could be separate from the mother as a living entity but would have to be done so as to optimize quality of life, that would mean pragmatically the state would need to pay for growing the fetus to term in an incubator or artificial womb and raising the child in an orphanage if the mother does not want it.
I argue there is no intrinsic value to life and thus the properties of life that give it value, happiness, freedom of choice, favor abortion morally, not just legally.
Discussing issues of happiness and freedom does not look good if it is divorced or discussions of responsibility, consequence and obligation.
IOW we live in a world that affords freedom or happiness as contested, limited and competitive values that are controlled in a more or less civilized way by the degree that we are responsible within a certain framework of obligation and self control.
I recall some link I can't find at the moment discussing how authors of the american treatise of independence and freedom explain that this precept will only be effective amongst a moral population capable of self control .... otherwise its just a fast track to suffering.
Infact there are many discussions that happiness divorced of a service attitude to others is simply superficial embellishment of sensory activity that is incapable of establishing any sense of worth or value.
