[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]Before you say I didn't read your opening post, I did.
The somewhat vague social contract currently is non-disriminatory. Secondly, one party may not harm a another. It is irrelevant whether or not a third party is directly harmed in an action. One cannot kill a homeless fellow with no friends, even if it wouldn't harm society. Heck, there was a time when people of different races were considered unimportant to society. People conform to a social contract, to prevent parties from infringing upon one another. It essentially is the starting point of a social contract. That being said, the important question becomes about whether or not fetuses are recognized as persons under the social contract. My argument would be a resounding "YES!" However, that is another argument for another thread.
curono
q As you tell, preventing damage unto another party (that is third person, unless I am wrong) is the base of social contract. Being a.k.a.: either we stop this behavior or things would become chaotic/dangerous/abusive/agressive/self-destructive. Abortion, whether you consider it murder or not, whether you consider it a third party or not, would not create any more damage/chaos/aggresion than using a condom. You use the case of killing a bum/homeless it is a completely different case. If you allowed bumhunts, I guess bums would counteract and conflict would arise. However, with abortion such thing would never happen. The only possible thing is regret from parents, but law is not concerned about "I regret"The purpose of the social contract is what large groups of individuals gravitate towards to prevent one party from infringing on another. The third party is also taken into account, but if you do notice, laws seem to be very two party based. Society on a mass scale generally prefers a system where one party doesn't infringe on another. Otherwise as long as say the consequences of murder was restricted solely to two parties, it would be alright as long as one sticks to the prevention of harm to the third party. Theoretically, if society deemed bums as a burden to the societal third party, it would be benificial to eradicate them. Provided the non-bum populous was ok with removing all bums, it might be able to be done without much social unrest, as bums are an extreme minority. The case can be made very similarly to the abortion case, given the argument that you are using. Fact is, the social contract is not only concerned with third party effects. People collectively are willing to sacrifice some rights in order to gain security from a government to maintain social order, be it a preventing a single case of one party harming another, or the domino effect caused by such actions. Returning to abortion, would people murdering abortion practicioners count as a third party consequence? If you go solely by this argument to defend abortion, you might create a self-fulifilling problem of sorts.
Log in to comment