Abolitionism vs Pro-Life

[Foxtrot]

Is it morally acceptable to vote for a bill that only protects 2 percent of babies from abortion, like the pain capable act, as opposed to supporting a bill that would protect all babies?

I am strongly moving toward the abolitionist side of the spectrum.

Any thoughts?

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

In the current political climate you’re not going to pass a law that bans all abortions. Given that, is it better to save 2% and then work at another small increment, or to save none?

 

[dmar198]

Is it morally acceptable to vote for a bill that only protects 2 percent of babies from abortion, like the pain capable act, as opposed to supporting a bill that would protect all babies?

I am strongly moving toward the abolitionist side of the spectrum.

Any thoughts?

Why not support both?

If a law said “You may not kill Jamaicans,” and another law said “You may not kill anyone,” I would want to vote for both because both are true. If only the first law passed, I would say that’s a partial good, and we still need to work on passing the more general law.

I think the same thing applies to abortion. If the bill says you may not kill pain-capable children, that seems like a true statement, and therefore we should vote for it. And we should continue to try to pass the even broader law that you may not kill any children, because that’s true too. Does that make sense?

 

[Dtmccameron]

A caveat being to examine the wording/reasoning used to abolish all-except, and see that it doesn’t act as an obstacle along the way toward abolishment in toto.

 

[Corki]

Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Is it morally acceptable to vote for a bill that only protects 2 percent of babies from abortion, like the pain capable act, as opposed to supporting a bill that would protect all babies?

I am strongly moving toward the abolitionist side of the spectrum.

Any thoughts?

It’s much more morally acceptable to vote for a bill that protects 2 percent of babies from abortion than to vote against the bill if that is the one on the table.

We got into this mess of abortion-on-demand incrementally and that’s probably how we will get out of it.

 

[Christy_Beth]

All good answers. I don’t think I could add to any of it, except to say that to start getting rid of abortion it may be necessary to work towards it in a little at a time. I’m not sure we’ll get rid of abortion completely, at least not in my life time, but if we can start on it, we’ll be all the closer to doing so.

 

[shockerfan]

There are number of “approved” moral principles taught by the Catholic Church…one of those is “Minimizing a greater evil”. The scenario you mention falls into this category…voting for a bill that only helps 2% of unborn babies would be a vote to minimize the greater evil of abortion.

 

[Contarini]

I’m afraid that I have moved more and more toward the other end of the spectrum here–not only do I think that it’s imprudent to hold out for a legislative ban on all abortions, I no longer think such a ban would be a good idea. I do not believe that there is a “right” to abortion, but I do think that a ban on all abortions would probably fall under the same category that Aquinas thought the abolition of prostitution would fall under–an attempt to ban a form of moral evil that would actually backfire and create worse problems.

I do support heavy restrictions on abortion and pushing legalized abortion back into the very early stages of the pregnancy. I hope for the day when Roe v. Wade is overturned. But I think, on the whole ,non-legislative means are the most effective across the board.

Bear in mind that I’m accepting the same definition of abortion that you guys no doubt do, including “emergency contraception.”

So I for one would heartily support the law in question. And once it’s passed, I agree that there needs to be discussion of how much further back we should go (legislatively).

The big thing, really, is to get the question of when personhood begins on the table. Prochoice people desperately want to keep it off the table (as Roe v. Wade did), because once you start asking the question most prochoice rhetoric falls to bits. An “absolutist” prolife position is, politically, self-defeating, because it makes the entire debate be about zygotes–i.e., the hardest case for prolifers to defend.

Edwin

 

[kozlosap]

From Edwin:
The big thing, really, is to get the question of when personhood begins on the table. Prochoice people desperately want to keep it off the table (as Roe v. Wade did), because once you start asking the question most prochoice rhetoric falls to bits. An “absolutist” prolife position is, politically, self-defeating, because it makes the entire debate be about zygotes–i.e., the hardest case for prolifers to defend.

You are exactly right. Each small step is a step in the right direction.

 

[Hobbes42]

An “all of the above” approach is the only way really. You pick your battles, you work smart at the local level. Whenever things go national Planned Parenthood tends to win, and win big.

 

[dmar198]

The big thing, really, is to get the question of when personhood begins on the table. Prochoice people desperately want to keep it off the table (as Roe v. Wade did), because once you start asking the question most prochoice rhetoric falls to bits. An “absolutist” prolife position is, politically, self-defeating, because it makes the entire debate be about zygotes–i.e., the hardest case for prolifers to defend.

I think that the most persuasive arguments for personhood among older embryos also apply to zygotes. What do you use to defend personhood?

 

[benotagoat]

I’m afraid that I have moved more and more toward the other end of the spectrum here–not only do I think that it’s imprudent to hold out for a legislative ban on all abortions, I no longer think such a ban would be a good idea. I do not believe that there is a “right” to abortion, but I do think that a ban on all abortions would probably fall under the same category that Aquinas thought the abolition of prostitution would fall under–an attempt to ban a form of moral evil that would actually backfire and create worse problems.

I do support heavy restrictions on abortion and pushing legalized abortion back into the very early stages of the pregnancy. I hope for the day when Roe v. Wade is overturned. But I think, on the whole ,non-legislative means are the most effective across the board.

Bear in mind that I’m accepting the same definition of abortion that you guys no doubt do, including “emergency contraception.”

So I for one would heartily support the law in question. And once it’s passed, I agree that there needs to be discussion of how much further back we should go (legislatively).

The big thing, really, is to get the question of when personhood begins on the table. Prochoice people desperately want to keep it off the table (as Roe v. Wade did), because once you start asking the question most prochoice rhetoric falls to bits. An “absolutist” prolife position is, politically, self-defeating, because it makes the entire debate be about zygotes–i.e., the hardest case for prolifers to defend.

Edwin

As far as I can make out there are late abortions in the U.S. whereas in France the max… is 12 weeks .

My aunt who had already 7 Young children in Ireland ,went to the hospital to have her check up for her 8 th child. Neither she, nor the baby left the hospital alive.
Why, because abortion of any kind was banned in Ireland,and when they found out that the baby was dying in her womb they discussed what to do over weeks,and because of this hideous regulation where they could not take out the baby ,it died in her and so did she .An abortion would have saved the life of a mother of small children, whose lives were blighted, by the death of their mother .

This has nothing to do with God’s law ,but is man created .
,

 

[Contarini]

I think that the most persuasive arguments for personhood among older embryos also apply to zygotes. What do you use to defend personhood?

I don’t think there’s only one line of argument. There is of course the genetic argument, and Don Marquis’ “future like ours” argument, both of which do apply to zygotes.

But there are also arguments that apply only at a somewhat later stage: brain development principally, but other arguments about physical development as well (heartbeat, etc.). Some of these may be emotional rather than rational, and I agree that logically the strongest arguments apply to zygotes as well. But there are difficulties with that end of the argument also: the fact that no one treats failure to implant or very early spontaneous abortion as equivalent to the death of a human person, and the difficulty of explaining twinning (does one human being turn into two? what are the philosophical implicatinos of this?). Combine these difficulties with the intuitive sense many people have that a cell just can’t be the same thing ontologically as a human being, and you have a much stronger rhetorical and political case the later you go in pregnancy.

I’m not arguing for a later date for personhood over against an earlier one, though I am relatively more certain that an 8-week-old fetus is a human person than that a zygote is, and even more that a 20-week-old fetus is, and so on. I’m saying that the case is cumulative. By the time you get to late pregnancy the evidence is overwhelming.

And politically, the side that gets stuck defending an absolutist position is the side likely to lose. That is not a reason for compromising one’s convictions, of course. But it should be noted that an absolutist position is particularly damaging for pro-choice people, because there is no coherent philosophical argument that makes the biological event of birth the point at which personhood begins. (The only serious argument I know for birth as the moment, by Mary Anne Warren, treats birth as a social event rather than a biological one and ironically winds up justifying the deeply sexist practices of many cultures that treated children as not fully human until the father had acknowledged them.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

As far as I can make out there are late abortions in the U.S. whereas in France the max… is 12 weeks .

My aunt who had already 7 Young children in Ireland ,went to the hospital to have her check up for her 8 th child. Neither she, nor the baby left the hospital alive.
Why, because abortion of any kind was banned in Ireland,and when they found out that the baby was dying in her womb they discussed what to do over weeks,and because of this hideous regulation where they could not take out the baby ,it died in her and so did she .An abortion would have saved the life of a mother of small children, whose lives were blighted, by the death of their mother .

This has nothing to do with God’s law ,but is man created .
,

This story is a good example of the complexity of the issue and why an absolutist position is not only imprudent but in certain circumstances unjust and cruel.

As for France, there’s an interesting (though now outdated) book by the Catholic legal scholar Mary Ann Glendon (funny that in two separate posts I should have cited two different scholars on opposite sides, both named some form of Mary Ann[e]–it probably has to do with the fact that many of the people most concerned about this issue on both sides in the English-speaking world are of Irish Catholic stock!) arguing that on both divorce and abortion Europe had stricter regulations (in the 80s when the book was written) than the U.S., and that this stemmed from the absolutist way in which Americans treated the concept of rights.

Edwin

 

[Manny_DeStefano]

Despite the fact that a majority of Americans do not support abortion on demand, especially after 20 weeks, it is politically unlikely that legislation will end abortion. Legislation compelling abortionists and abortion clinics to comply with ambulatory surgical standards are having an impact upon the murderous clinics. However, the most potent weapons at our disposal remain prayer and truth. Modern sonogram machines have revealed to pregnant women that she is carrying a human baby, identifiable at 6 weeks, not an indistinguishable tissue mass. The Knights of Columbus have placed more than 500 of these machines across the country.
A while back we ran a spiritual adoption. Each month we tracked the growth and development of the spiritually adopted baby in the church bulletin. I was shocked by the number of mothers and grandmothers who told me they had no idea about how babies really develop in the womb. Truth, truth, truth. That, and regular pro life mysteries of the rosary will do more than legislation. We need to change hearts, not laws.

 

[benotagoat]

This story is a good example of the complexity of the issue and why an absolutist position is not only imprudent but in certain circumstances unjust and cruel.

As for France, there’s an interesting (though now outdated) book by the Catholic legal scholar Mary Ann Glendon (funny that in two separate posts I should have cited two different scholars on opposite sides, both named some form of Mary Ann[e]–it probably has to do with the fact that many of the people most concerned about this issue on both sides in the English-speaking world are of Irish Catholic stock!) arguing that on both divorce and abortion Europe had stricter regulations (in the 80s when the book was written) than the U.S., and that this stemmed from the absolutist way in which Americans treated the concept of rights.

Edwin

There are many things that the catholic church has ignored over many many years.
I have never ever heard the Church condemn outright for example rape ,especially of children; Because of this, and forcing someone in this situation to go ahead with a birth.

A bad workman blames his Tools ,and the catholic Church blames her ex -catholics.

In China a doctor gets paid, when his patient gets better. The fault of losing people lies almost entirely within the church . She has lost the spirit of christianity,and is mired in
materialistic legalism.

It will need a rehaul from top to bottom if she is going to continue .

I think it will happen, sooner than later. The double standards have to stop.

 

[Contarini]

I have never ever heard the Church condemn outright for example rape ,especially of children;

The Church tends to focus on things that are defended by some in society. Everyone knows that the rape of children is wrong.

Now I think this is a poor policy choice on the part of Church leaders, and I think that’s why Pope Francis has taken to saying a lot of things that may seem rather obvious but which the world needs to hear the Pope saying. But it’s ridiculous to claim that the Church doesn’t condemn rape.

Arguably the idea that consent is vitally important in marriage comes from Christianity, specifically from medieval discussions of the nature of marriage based on Mary and Joseph as the paradigmatic couple, since they never had sex (in Catholic tradition). In other words, Church teaching may have played a key role in developing a clear rationale for why rape is so terribly wrong. In premodern secular culture, it was seen primarily as an offense against the man to whom the woman belonged.

Edwin

 

[Brendan]

There are many things that the catholic church has ignored over many many years.
I have never ever heard the Church condemn outright for example rape ,especially of children; Because of this, and forcing someone in this situation to go ahead with a birth…

Huh?

It is specifically mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church

2356 Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

The label of it as intrinsically evil means always ,100% , completely WRONG and an offense against God.

If you have never heard the Church teach against, the fault is yours for not listening. It is something that the Church has clearly spoken against.