Abortion: Err on the Side of Caution?

[AlanFromWichita]

Greg,

I agree that this is an interesting discussion, even if it isn’t coming out the way you expected.

One of my jobs is as a computer programmer, and since high school I have studied Boolean algebra, the mathematics of logic.

When I think of “logic” I think of a conclusion based on expected values of random processes, or deterministic conclusions, with no feelings or morals whatsoever.

“Don’t see why abortion is wrong” does not give me any bias as to whether the person even cares whether it is wrong, or is in any way uncertain about it. Therefore, I dismissed it completely from the logical equation. On the one hand, the person could be a complete athiest and devoid of feelings for other human beings and not care at all about eternal consequences, or they may be a Christian who knows deep down that it is wrong, but is in the state of denial or actually facing a tough decision and hasn’t been convinced there is no out. If there were a “not enough information” box I would have checked it. Given there is no premise at all, I assumed no feelings or opinions or biases whatsoever and on that basis there is no such thing as evil, so the risk of evil did not sway the decision. That’s why I voted “no.”

Does that make sense?:ehh: Did anybody even read through all that drivel? – never mind I don’t think I want the truth to that last question!

Alan

 

[Catholic2003]

Augustine:

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.

So what is my incorrect premise, and what is the corresponding correct premise in the case of abortion?

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hi Alan,

AlanFromWichita:

I agree that this is an interesting discussion, even if it isn’t coming out the way you expected.

Given there is no premise at all, I assumed no feelings or opinions or biases whatsoever and on that basis there is no such thing as evil, so the risk of evil did not sway the decision. That’s why I voted “no.”

I see what you are saying but it doesn’t fit if the question is thought of in terms of unsurety of when ensoulment takes place. This question was meant to address that loophole argument that pro-abortion people try to use.

Greg

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Greg_McPherran:

Hi Alan,

I see what you are saying but it doesn’t fit if the question is thought of in terms of unsurety of when ensoulment takes place. This question was meant to address that loophole argument that pro-abortion people try to use.

Greg

Dear Greg,

Based on the premise that you do not wish to kill a human being with a soul, but you are not certain when ensoulment take place, then I’d say the only logical choice would be “yes.”

Alan

 

[Augustine]

Catholic2003:

So what is my incorrect premise, and what is the corresponding correct premise in the case of abortion?

You implied that the choice between convicting an innocent person or freeing a murderer is the same as between guaranteeing the “right” to choose or killing an innocent.

To err on the side of caution requires that the possibles outcomes be weighted as to their moral value. Someone who states that this argument is invalid because a woman’s right is more valuable than a child’s life is either mad or a liar. In these cases, how can one discuss rationally with another whose convictions weren’t reached through reasoning?

Thus, the problem is not with the statement in the subject of this thread, but in our hearts.