Kelly McParland says that to support a woman's right to choose:
"you have to believe that a fetus is not human in the moral sense." http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/04/13/kelly-mcparland-putting-abortion-advocates-in-a-box.aspx
Joyce Arthur responds to this in a letter to the National Post.
"This is incorrect. The pro-choice view is woman-focused, and we take no view on the fetus (or should not). The status and moral value of the fetus is moot because it's a matter of subjective personal opinion, and the only opinion that counts is the pregnant woman's... But most pro-choice people do not want to ban the practice because that means removing personal autonomy in favour of society's values. Being pro-choice means supporting women's choices even when we don't agree with them -- the hallmark of a truly free and democratic society."
(First of all, notice that Arthur says "we". She is apparently speaking for all pro-choicers. I wonder if in fact she actually does speak for all pro-choicers. They might want to speak up for themselves if they don't agree with her, because what she is saying is pretty scary but that’s just my opinion.)
So let’s dissect her statements.
Arthur says she takes "no view" of the fetus. She is view-less of the fetus. It is nothing to her. Similar to an eraser I guess, as in "I have no view of this eraser".
I wonder if Arthur has a moral view of say, a duck, as in "I have no moral view of this duck so I think I’ll whack it"?
Then she says:
"The status and moral value of the fetus is moot because it's a matter of subjective personal opinion".
If moral value is a subjective personal opinion, that means if I say that murder is okay, because I say it’s okay, then it’s okay, right?
Or, if I say that it is okay for me to steal from you and therefore when I tell the judge it’s all right for me to steal your car, he’ll say "No problem, since morality is subjective, and you think it’s okay, hey I’m good with that. You’re free to go".
Next she says:
"But most pro-choice people do not want to ban the practice because that means removing personal autonomy in favour of society's values."
Now she’s contradicting herself. All of a sudden society has values. How can society have values (i.e. all society shares a value) if values are personally subjective? You really can’t have it both ways Joyce.
And the clincher:
"Being pro-choice means supporting women's choices even when we don't agree with them -- the hallmark of a truly free and democratic society."
So to back to the murder example, if a woman’s choice is to say, kill her husband, then I must support the woman’s choice to murder her husband, which then results in a "truly free and democratic society". Got it.
There you have it folks, moral relativism at its finest.