Abortion: Err on the Side of Caution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Greg_McPherran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Greg_McPherran

Guest
Some may think that person can insist that a woman has the right to an abortion and still be a true Christian (Catholic or not).

Some people e.g. politician(s) have argued that since they do not know when the unborn child has a soul, they cannot justify laws against abortion. The Catholic Church teaches that human life is sacred at the moment of conception.

Even for those who claim they don’t know when ensoulment takes place, isn’t it most logical to err on the side of caution? After all, we lock our doors at night and wear our seat belts. If we do that then certainly we would err on the side of caution regarding human life and our own eternal destiny based on God’s judgement.

Can anyone understand why people would take the position that it is not necessary to err on the side of caution? Any thoughts?
 
I know abortion to be a huge topic among Catholics…

I agree that abortion is murder. Yet I don’t believe it would be well for abortion to be outlawed (although I’d like to see it), until the government gives women options. Imagine the mess if abortion were outlawed. Women would find other ways.

God Bless You 🙂
 
You would think so, but then again that is a logical statement. Many pro-abortion “Christians” do not make logical statements about the subject. We received a request yesterday to become active in saving the Sequoias, some of which are 3,500 years old. They included a picture. The trees are beautiful and a treasure, but I wondered how many folks trying to save the trees are also trying to save unborn babies lives and save their own soul.
 
Peter Kreeft boils it down to this:

Either the fetus is a person or it is not, and either we know what it is or we don’t.
  • If it is a person and and we know that, and we commit abortion, then we commit murder.
  • If it is a person and we do not know that, and we commit abortion, then we commit manslaughter.
  • If it is not a person and we do not know that, and we commit abortion, then we commit criminal negligence.
  • If it is not a person and we know that, and we commit abortion, then what we’re doing is no different from frying a fish.
So yes, we ought to err on the side of caution.
 
40.png
Vincent:
Peter Kreeft boils it down to this:

Either the fetus is a person or it is not, and either we know what it is or we don’t.
Code: 
  * If it is a person and and we know that, and we commit abortion, then we commit murder.
  * If it is a person and we do not know that, and we commit abortion, then we commit manslaughter.
  * If it is not a person and we do not know that, and we commit abortion, then we commit criminal negligence.
  * If it is not a person and we know that, and we commit abortion, then what we're doing is no different from frying a fish.
So yes, we ought to err on the side of caution.
Click to expand...
Dear Vincent,

Thank you for breaking it down into those categories. I like that kind of thinking because it makes it simple. If I were in a debate about morals, then I’d also agree with your conclusion. However, I voted “no” on the poll and here’s why. The question was posed “Is it logical to err on the side of caution if you don’t see why abortion is wrong?”

If the question were, “Is it moral to err …” then I would have voted “yes” but given the qualification that I don’t see why abortion is wrong, then it is not a moral issue. Of course, I’m assuming that “don’t know why” it is immoral implies “don’t believe that it is immoral” rather than “know it’s immoral but don’t exactly understand how.” Once the moral issue is dispensed with, it then becomes a legal issue, and as long as it is unquestionably legal it is logical to go ahead and kill the baby or not, with no bias. Legally, it is not manslaughter. There is no “logical” reason, then, to “err” on either side.

Alan
 
40.png
Vincent:
  • If it is a person and and we know that, and we commit abortion, then we commit murder.
  • If it is a person and we do not know that, and we commit abortion, then we commit manslaughter.
  • If it is not a person and we do not know that, and we commit abortion, then we commit criminal negligence.
  • If it is not a person and we know that, and we commit abortion, then what we’re doing is no different from frying a fish.
So yes, we ought to err on the side of caution.
Click to expand...
:clapping:
 
“Erring on the side of caution” is a meaningless principle. If someone is being tried for murder, but there is not enough evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt, then do we “err on the side of caution” of respecting his right to freedom by letting him go, or do we “err on the side of caution” of protecting society by imprisoning him anyway?

Pro-choice supporters probably say that we are “erring on the side of caution” by preserving a women’s right to control her own body until it is uncontestably established that the fetus has inalienable rights of its own.

I think the best approach is to follow the magisterium and avoid “erring” at all.
 
What would happen if abortion mills – that aren’t properly staffed or equipped to handle surgery, were to be shut down? Women would still find physicians who would do the procedure in their office after hours. I understand that more abortions were performed that way than the horror stories put forth by the pro-abortionists.

If there were more children born, I could maybe adopt more children. Many adoption agencies put a limit on the number of “healthy, white” infants a couple can adopt. I am working with the county this time and since we don’t have any limitations beyond human and moderately handicapped medically or mentally.

I think that when Kinsey separated sex from love a grave problem developed. With artificial birth control, the responsiblity of sex seemed to be controlled – although God has a way around most of our mortal contrivances. We could have sex with any one at any time and all was safe.

Yep until VD and HIV and the human pappiloma virus started taking lives. 😛

I would happily adopt a housefull of kids as long as they need a home and won’t harm my current child and pet.

AMDG!
Mamamull
 
Not too long ago there would be no discussion. The teaching was and still remains that abortion is murder. The Christian churches were in agreement about this. The Democratic Party supported life. Many famous Democrates supported life until they decided that it may cost them a few votes.

Deacon Tony SFO
 
The correct answer to this poll question is “no”.

The question alludes to the knowledge of the pro-abortion folks that the abortion is not ‘wrong’ - therefore why ‘err’ at all while ‘knowing’ a fact or other.

This is like asking - if you know the stop-n-go light is green do yuo err on the side of caution and slow to a yieldable speed upon approaching an intersection in you 2004 Ford Exhibitionist?
 
(Cont’d)

Please define “see why ____ is wrong” for a more complete discussion…
 
Catholic2003 said:
“Erring on the side of caution” is a meaningless principle. If someone is being tried for murder, but there is not enough evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt, then do we “err on the side of caution” of respecting his right to freedom by letting him go, or do we “err on the side of caution” of protecting society by imprisoning him anyway?
Click to expand...

One has to consider the possible outcomes in each case. Here, it’s not being proposed as a rule of thumb and it cannot be so. There’s no way to say that a murderer will will kill ever again. Thus, between condemning an innocent man and freeing a murderer, the second choice would be the right one erring on the side of caution.
40.png
Catholic2003:
Pro-choice supporters probably say that we are “erring on the side of caution” by preserving a women’s right to control her own body until it is uncontestably established that the fetus has inalienable rights of its own.
Click to expand...
Then they show their lack of morals. Between killing a person and preserving someone’s “rights”, no one with any notion of hyerarchical moral levels would choose the latter.
40.png
Catholic2003:
I think the best approach is to follow the magisterium and avoid “erring” at all.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, this approach doesn’t work with other Christians and non-Christians.
 
These poll results so far show us that there is much education needed. Only 70% understand the wrong of abortion.
 
40.png
Augustine:
One has to consider the possible outcomes in each case.
Click to expand...
I stand by my statement that “erring on the side of caution” is meaningless. One way to tell if a logical argument is valid is to substitute different premises, and see if the conclusion is still valid. If it isn’t, then the argument cannot be valid.

Well, some people believe that animals also have immortal souls, and, in particular, that cows are sacred. If this is true, then eating beef is a horrific act, on a par with abortion and murder. So someone who believes in “erring on the side of caution” will abstain from eating beef, and if they are really cautious, they will avoid eating all meat. However, as Catholics, we know that eating beef and other meat is perfectly acceptable.

In conclusion, abortion is a grave evil, but “erring on the side of caution” is not the reason why.
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
I stand by my statement that “erring on the side of caution” is meaningless.
Click to expand...
Yes you are right, but for those that use the ensoulment argument, I am trying to show that even that does not justify abortion. It is true that abortion is evil from the moment of conception on.

Maybe that’s why some pro-life people aren’t voting? They think they are endorsing the “erring on the side of caution” theory? Then perhaps this poll does not serve the pro-life purpose well.

Greg
 
These poll results so far show us that there is much education needed. Only 70% understand the wrong of abortion.

**The poll question does not imply the right or wrong of abortion. The poll question asks: “**Is it logical to err on the side of caution if you don’t see why abortion is wrong?”.

What is logical about one’s erring “on the side of caution” given that one does not see (why) (that) abortion is wrong?
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
One way to tell if a logical argument is valid is to substitute different premises, and see if the conclusion is still valid. If it isn’t, then the argument cannot be valid.
Click to expand...
No. Logic transfers the veracity of the premises to the cinclusion. A simple logical silogism is thus as good as its premises. If you change the premises, the outcome changes, although the silogism is the same. Therefore, considering the premises, your conclusion is wrong.
 
I think this poll I started can give the wrong message. I am going to ask M(r)s. Martin to delete it.

Greg
 
Why ask for it to be deleted? I think it’s an interesting discussion.
40.png
Greg_McPherran:
These poll results so far show us that there is much education needed. Only 70% understand the wrong of abortion.
Click to expand...
Oh, I don’t think that’s the right analysis. I agree that “erring on the side of caution” is the wrong question (even though I voted yes, since if it was the question the answer is yes).

The reason is that “person” is a philosophical/religious concept, so no one really thinks it’s a question of guessing right. People think they know (or that the Church does). Even ensoulment was never really the question–even people who believed ensoulment was later didn’t justify abortion on that basis (except for situations that would now fit double intent or at least the mother’s life was in danger). (The possible exception is some Jewish pro choicers who argue that there’s no ensoulment/person 'til birth.)

So the question isn’t one of erring but the relative merits of the definition of personhood, about when/why we value human life.
 
Hi Daria,
40.png
Daria:
I think it’s an interesting discussion.

So the question isn’t one of erring but the relative merits of the definition of personhood, about when/why we value human life.
Click to expand...
Yes, and that’s my concern that the expression “erring on the side of caution” implies unsurety about the evil of abortion. All human life is sacred from the moment of conception.

Greg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top