Tuesday, April 19, 2005

Valuing life etc.

As I had iterated on DR.Clam's blog, earlier, I do now consider myself to be *nominally* pro-life, both in a personal sense and a personal influence sense. However, I definitely don't consider myself to be anti-choice. We had only just touched on on the issue of cost-benefit analysis both specifically and in a general sense when talking about "regulation" of the unborn. This Economist Article makes a case for cost benefit analysis when talking about any regulatory change. The "Economics Focus" section of "The Economist" is my particular favourite. Basically, I think it is inevitable that we take into consideration cost-benefit analysis when we consider abortion law reform. Whether we face these costs and benefits "squarely" or not, they are inevitably there. We may argue about how much to value what, but I think the methodology should use the tools that we have to calculate costs and benefits. This might all seem a bit esoterical to some readers (not DR. Clam of course), but I think our remaining differences amount to the moral cost of abortion law the way it is.

1 comment:

Dr. Clam said...

On the other hand, I disavow the label 'pro-life'; I am anti-choice, pure and simple. It is a much better statement of my position. Lord Acton said something like: 'progress in morality is a matter of calling black what we once called white and burning the idols we once worshipped.' Limiting the range of choices that are considered acceptable is what morality is all about. I consider life as a positive good, of course, as do all sentient beings we know about; but I am not necessarily in favour of 'more life'in a quantitative way. I am certainly in favour of 'less choice' in absolute terms.

I am keen to present a general, quantifiable, model for valuation of human life that will more rigorously outline some of my thoughts- will get on to it eventually, with any luck...