I propose a liberal solution which is to instill a proper sense of empathy that would result in a deep respect for human life. Granted my empathy based approach will still result in the loss of millions of human lives, but they would primarily be of the one-celled or few-celled variety with no human shape or form, no human functions, no ability to feel pain, etc. Absolutists will despise this approach and call it utilitarian. But it is emphatically not utilitarian, it is based on the deepest possible respect for human life which is the respect derived from the deep, ingrained emotion of empathy.
How is it possible to instill a sense of empathy in someone? I'm always amazed that bleeding heart liberals who pity death-row criminals don't think of abortion as killing a baby. Even the Protestant Mainline churces are pro-choice. I have friends and relatives who are pro-choice, and they think they have empathy. You just can't talk to these people.
First of all, I'd argue that if abortion were illegal, it might have been 23 million moral decisions or less, since there is ample evidence that the availability of abortion has an impact on how careful people are about avoiding unwanted pregnancies. The number of abortions doubled between the first abortion was legalized and a few years later, even as the availability of birth control improved substantially.
It seems that the non-liberal approach is to define a physical line and not allow anyone to cross it. Maybe save 20-30 million human beings that way. The problem is the ones that aren't saved may be fully developed or even born as we saw recently in a trash can in D.C.
No law has 100% compliance. Would you accept the argument that we should legalize rape because we'll never stop rape with laws (no matter how draconian), most rapes aren't reported anyway, the line between rape and not-rape isn't entirely clear (at least in court), and the illegality of rape causes some men to murder their victims and those victims would be saved if rape were only legal? Sure, that ignores the fact that rape could skyrocket if it were legalized but it sounds like a pretty good argument if you pretent that the legality or illegality of an act has no impact on whether people do it or not, doesn't it?
I propose a liberal solution which is to instill a proper sense of empathy that would result in a deep respect for human life.
Yes, that sure is a liberal solution. So how do we reliably or magically instill this "proper sense of empthy" in everyone? Do we wave a magic wand or use the "liberal" solution of re-education camps and execution of those who won't go along for thought crimes?
And even if the magic wand works, what does a deep respect for human life mean? Why do you think it will produce a consistent morality?
Granted my empathy based approach will still result in the loss of millions of human lives, but they would primarily be of the one-celled or few-celled variety with no human shape or form, no human functions, no ability to feel pain, etc.
So you are willing to kill millions of strangers because they are meaningless to you. And I'm supposed to trust your sense of empathy to draw the right conclusions about morality?
And how many women do you think would die if abortion were made illegal? I would guess maybe a dozen more would die from illegal abortions, though you could reasonably claim in the 100-200 range if you use pre-Roe figures. So we're traiding 1 million lives for, at most, a couple hundred? And that ignores any impact that the legality of abortion has on unwanted pregnancies.
Absolutists will despise this approach and call it utilitarian. But it is emphatically not utilitarian, it is based on the deepest possible respect for human life which is the respect derived from the deep, ingrained emotion of empathy.
Sure it is. It's utilitarianism with lipstick on it built upon the assumption that an embryo isn't a person because, well, you just don't feel any empathy for it with your "proper sense of empathy". You really should read Dr. Greene's philosophy paper. He ultimately makes a very similar claim with a very similar basis -- he's critical of utilitarianism and then proposes utilitiarianism with lipstick as an alternative. But his demolition of utilitarianism is so good that it really is worth reading.