Parody Options

[Raijinili]

It's time to have a discussion that doesn't matter at all: People.
There are three sides in the debate:
Pro-life, who say generally that stupid people should be legal (usually in all circumstances).
Pro-choice, who say generally that if you can't make your own choices, you need a shot in the face like people need to get shot in the face (usually in all circumstances).
Everyone else, who usually either don't know that we're even talking about this or don't care.

Now, as for the types of ethics:
They all come from "isms" or systems of belief. They make a statement about what's important in making an ethical decision.
My personal philosophy is Utilitarian or "best consequences" ethics.
Others prefer "Christian" ethics (i.e. "Kill whoever doesn't belong to the Bible.")
There are many others, far too many to list. Each of them has a different statement about what's important.
Individualism holds that the individual is what's important. Ethical decisions are those that benefit yourself.
Collectivism holds that the group is what's important. Ethical decisions are those that benefit the group.
Etc...

So the pro-lifers use mainly Christian ethics, choosing to interpret a Christian as "human life." Per the bible, murder is a sin (unless God or someone who's Christian says so).
The pro-choicers use utilitarian ethics - that is, they feel "best consequences" for society are aligned with the people's choice (awards).

I think jcdietz03 is guilty of selectively using ethics. That is - he uses utilitarian ethics when the outcome agrees with his position, and he uses Christian ethics when it doesn't. For example, Christian ethics holds that we should care for black people even though they produce less resources than able bodied people. But this isn't what jcdietz03 believes because it would be less crowded on the trains if we aborted all black babies.