[FoRK] A Thrive/Survive Theory Of The Political Spectrum
J. Andrew Rogers
andrew at jarbox.org
Sun Feb 22 12:29:11 PST 2015
> On Feb 22, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Reese <howell.r at inkworkswell.com> wrote:
> If you favor choice, why are you cavilling? If you really favor choice,
> your default position is to demur and withhold judgement on the reasons
> others might choose. But that isn't what you are doing here, is it?
There is a contingent of pro-choice people who (correctly) see a significant moral and game-theoretic hazard to abortion itself. Nonetheless, the legal hazards of ascribing full personhood to a fetus are deemed to create even larger systemic problems than allowing abortion. Generally, people that put this level of intellectual rigor into their opinion come down as pro-choice, not because they support abortion per se but because it minimizes the aggregate adverse consequences for a problem with no optimal solution at a system level.
It is not a religious argument but a pragmatic calculus to optimize outcomes. I have met many rationalist atheists that seem to end up in this camp. They do not support abortion but determine that prohibition likely has even worse consequences. As a matter of policy then, the optimal solution is to try to minimize the occurrence of situations with no good outcomes.
More information about the FoRK