Abortion Questions From Pro-Choice Philosopher David Boonin

[SyroMalankara]

Who would “of thunk it”? The most effective way to avoid traffic accidents is - get rid of the cars and other vehicles. If you don’t want an accident, just walk to your destination.

By jeeves, I think (s)he’s got it.

And you seem not to be familiar with the absolutely foolproof methods practiced for thousands of years… one of them is oral sex, another one is stimulation by hand. As soon as the church will openly and vocally endorse these methods, I will join in the parade to object to abortion. As I said before, the ball is in your court.

Not sure what you mean, you are the one supporting contraception here remember? You did not initially state that you wish the Church to support EVERY foolproof method of contraception, despite it’s other theological objections. However, there is ONE method that both you and the Church agree on despite differences. Instead of dwelling on the difference, why not join the parade on the one you agree with??

Unless your REAL position is – the Church must agree with you entirely, or else I’m not joining the parade. Seems a bit… totalitarian to me.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Let me remind you of what you said. You said that we need to “learn from the animals”.

I said this in a very limited context. “Make love not war”. That is all. You immediately tried to twist it, and dragged forth the total opposite of love, which is violence. I consider this trickery to be intellectually dishonest.

And you’re wrong again. The fetus is a human being. It doesn’t have to fit your definition for it to be so. An individual human life begins at conception (and I am prepared to cite this). It isn’t simply “tissue” because, unlike skin cells or organs, it can become an independent member of the species (if you deny that it isn’t already). No matter how much time and how many nutrients you give to skin cells, they won’t become any more than that. However, give a fetus nutrients and nine months of time, and there you have it: what you would deny as being a human being eight months ago now meets your personalized definition. Mere human tissue can’t do that.

I quote you: “it can become an independent member of the species”, and I agree with that.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

By jeeves, I think (s)he’s got it.

Sure. As soon as you get rid of your car, and start walking everywhere, come back. Of course, there is not just one aim to consider (lack of accidents), there is another one: “increase the territory you can have access to, in a reasonable amount of time”. In the original scenario, the lack of pregnancy is just one aim, it is more important to have pleasure.

Not sure what you mean, you are the one supporting contraception here remember? You did not initially state that you wish the Church to support EVERY foolproof method of contraception, despite it’s other theological objections.

Contraception is preventing pregnancy. It has several methods, one of them is not having sex at all, another one is not allowing the semen get close to the ovum. I have no problem with the first one either, if someone wishes to go to that route. I will not call them “names”, it is their business. I simply call upon similar acceptance of other, equally foolproof methods, which do not try to condemn the couple to a life deprived of the pleasure of sex. To call people “sinners” and threaten them with eternal damnation is a despicable method to gain control over their actions. I remember an old saying, if you can grab someone with their “short hair”, you pretty much have complete control over them. And I despise enslaving people, regardless of the method.

However, there is ONE method that both you and the Church agree on despite differences. Instead of dwelling on the difference, why not join the parade on the one you agree with??

Why should I support the church if it does not want to support me?

Unless your REAL position is – the Church must agree with you entirely, or else I’m not joining the parade. Seems a bit… totalitarian to me.

No, it is called mutual respect.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Sure. As soon as you get rid of your car, and start walking everywhere, come back. Of course, there is not just one aim to consider (lack of accidents), there is another one: “increase the territory you can have access to, in a reasonable amount of time”. In the original scenario, the lack of pregnancy is just one aim, it is more important to have pleasure.

Pleasure is possible within the allowances of what the Church calls permissible. But, since you are not Catholic, why do you care?

Contraception is preventing pregnancy. It has several methods, one of them is not having sex at all, another one is not allowing the semen get close to the ovum. I have no problem with the first one either, if someone wishes to go to that route. I will not call them “names”, it is their business. I simply call upon similar acceptance of other, equally foolproof methods, which do not try to condemn the couple to a life deprived of the pleasure of sex. To call people “sinners” and threaten them with eternal damnation is a despicable method to gain control over their actions. I remember an old saying, if you can grab someone with their “short hair”, you pretty much have complete control over them. And I despise enslaving people, regardless of the method.

except the Church allows for non-artificial contraception as well. You just don’t want to make the effort.

Why should I support the church if it does not want to support me?

because one stance is agreeing with you partially. Its called compromise. Imagine if governments refused to compromise and politicians only allowed a full unchanged bill to proceed or nothing at all.

No, it is called mutual respect.

whats mutual about your position, its my way or the highway. No one has to be Catholic, its a free choice to be one, so how is it respectful to force the Church to be nonCatholic?

 

[Bradski]

Pleasure is possible within the allowances of what the Church calls permissible. But, since you are not Catholic, why do you care?

What the church calls permissable? Who is the church to tell me what is permissable? I am not a Catholic. So my wife and I will most definately decide ourselves what is permissable as far as pleasure is concerned. You and the rest of Catholocism can decide amongst yourselves what you can and cannot do.

I’d like to know if you consider that a reasonable position.

And another thing. Do you know the percentage of Catholic women who have used contraception during their life? How about you concentrate on getting your own house in order before you start preaching to the rest of us.

And one more. If you think abstinence on it’s own is the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies (and therefore abortions), then you must be living on a different planet to me.

The majority of people could care less about what the Catholic Church teaches. Because what the church teaches is only relevant to Catholics (despite what you may think). But if you want to cross the line in the secular arena, then expect some push back, Syro.

Correction: A lot of push back

 

[MPat]

I have been hearing for years that David Boonin is one of the best pro-choice philosophers around. Feeling strong support for the pro-life position myself, I decided to read his book and give it my consideration. I would have to agree with his reputation, and I was left with a deep appreciation for the complexity of the abortion issue. His book is titled “A Defense of Abortion” and this YouTube clip sheds life on his strongest premise: youtu.be/6RobCjM0ZLA?t=25m33s

Below I’ve listed, what are in my opinion, some of the best questions Boonin asks. He presents the pro-choice answers in his book/YouTube talk and now I am searching out the best pro-life answers. I wanted to present these questions to you to hear your (name removed by moderator)ut. Thank you for your responses!*

I. Is consent to sex consent to pregnancy?

II. Is general consent to a pregnancy consent to undergo a pregnancy which turns out to be unexpectedly abnormal, dangerous or painful?

III. Is consent to pregnancy irreversible or ongoing?

IIII. In what situations does consent become overruled by self-defense?

V. When pregnancy is not consented to (rape, ignorance, impaired judgement, coercion, etc.), acknowledging the right to live is not the same thing as the right to be kept alive by another person, does a woman have the right to unplug the child from her body without causing him any intentional harm?

VI. What is the method for establishing the value of a human being without a heartbeat or brain activity on a secular, political level?

VII. In America, parents have the luxury of adoption. Do the ethics change when mothers are forced to literally abandon their careers, passions and dreams after giving birth?

VIII. How does the concept of bodily autonomy apply after birth? Does a child ever have the right to use his mother’s body then? For example, would a woman have the right to refuse to breastfeed her child if there were no breast milk alternatives available?*

Just about all of those questions presuppose that obligations only arise when one consents. But that assumption is false.

For example, if I am a pedestrian, I had no chance to consent to an obligation to stop before the red light. But I do have an obligation to stop before the red light.

Likewise, mother has an obligation not to murder her child, even if she hasn’t consented to that.

As for questions that have other components:

VI. What is the method for establishing the value of a human being without a heartbeat or brain activity on a secular, political level?*

The question seems to be ambiguous.

Does it ask how a law forbidding abortion could come into being? Well, it can be passed by some sort of law-giver - legislature, referendum or something else. Just like any other law.

Or is the question to be interpreted in some other way?

VII. In America, parents have the luxury of adoption. Do the ethics change when mothers are forced to literally abandon their careers, passions and dreams after giving birth?

No. An obligation is an obligation. It overrides all “passions” and “dreams”.

The whole question sounds like an excuse offered by some murderer in some detective story - one can only imagine him claiming that his rich uncle’s life forced him to abandon his “passions and dreams”, so he killed him to inherit his riches thinking that “ethics have changed”.

• VIII. How does the concept of bodily autonomy apply after birth? Does a child ever have the right to use his mother’s body then? For example, would a woman have the right to refuse to breastfeed her child if there were no breast milk alternatives available?*

No, mother does not have a right to starve her child to death.

What the church calls permissable? Who is the church to tell me what is permissable? I am not a Catholic. So my wife and I will most definately decide ourselves what is permissable as far as pleasure is concerned. You and the rest of Catholocism can decide amongst yourselves what you can and cannot do.

I’d like to know if you consider that a reasonable position.

If by that you mean that you will have meat on Good Friday, sure, if you are not Catholic, you have no obligation to abstain from it.

But if you want to do something that is not just disobedient to the Church, but evil in itself, that is not permissible. And anyone can tell you that.

And another thing. Do you know the percentage of Catholic women who have used contraception during their life? How about you concentrate on getting your own house in order before you start preaching to the rest of us.

So, since there have been policemen who have committed murders, you think that police has no right to tell the people not to murder each other?

Or are Catholics singled out here?

And one more. If you think abstinence on it’s own is the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies (and therefore abortions), then you must be living on a different planet to me.

It is the best way. It is not necessarily the way that requires least effort.

The majority of people could care less about what the Catholic Church teaches. Because what the church teaches is only relevant to Catholics (despite what you may think). But if you want to cross the line in the secular arena, then expect some push back, Syro.

Correction: A lot of push back

And by “push back” you mean “persecution”?

 

[SyroMalankara]

What the church calls permissable? Who is the church to tell me what is permissable? I am not a Catholic. So my wife and I will most definately decide ourselves what is permissable as far as pleasure is concerned. You and the rest of Catholocism can decide amongst yourselves what you can and cannot do.

the Church isn’t forcing you to do anything. Its membership has chosen to be members. The whole premise here is that the Church must do X and Y for you, why, since as you stated, you are not Catholic. As you said, do whatever you want, just dont expect the Church to give you encouragement.

And another thing. Do you know the percentage of Catholic women who have used contraception during their life? How about you concentrate on getting your own house in order before you start preaching to the rest of us.

who is preaching to you; CATHOLIC forum remember?

And one more. If you think abstinence on it’s own is the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies (and therefore abortions), then you must be living on a different planet to me.

What type of argument is this?

The majority of people could care less about what the Catholic Church teaches. Because what the church teaches is only relevant to Catholics (despite what you may think). But if you want to cross the line in the secular arena, then expect some push back, Syro.

Correction: A lot of push back

Of course you generalize. Many non Catholics and non religious find relevance in anything Catholicism says, the post here prove it. One atheist want the Church to do x,y, and z before the poster feels satisfaction

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Pleasure is possible within the allowances of what the Church calls permissible. But, since you are not Catholic, why do you care?

Because I care about you (in general). This may be what you guys call “hard love”, so you should be happy to be on the receiving end.

except the Church allows for non-artificial contraception as well. You just don’t want to make the effort.

That is just a euphemism for abstinence. If someone prefers it, that is their business. But the transcendental blackmail by threatening eternal damnation is not something that should go unchallenged.

whats mutual about your position, its my way or the highway. No one has to be Catholic, its a free choice to be one, so how is it respectful to force the Church to be nonCatholic?

I do not “force” anyone… merely allow them to open their eyes and see things from a rational perspective.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And by “push back” you mean “persecution”?

Given the track record of governments dominantly atheistic, you can bet on atheist persecution of Catholics

 

[Charlemagne_III]

hat is just a euphemism for abstinence. If someone prefers it, that is their business. But the transcendental blackmail by threatening eternal damnation is not something that should go unchallenged.

Challenge away. Just remember, this is a Catholic forum, so you need to come up with reasonable assertions, not whining comments about “transcendental blackmail.”

 

[SyroMalankara]

Because I care about you (in general). This may be what you guys call “hard love”, so you should be happy to be on the receiving end.

Aw thanks!

That is just a euphemism for abstinence. If someone prefers it, that is their business. But the transcendental blackmail by threatening eternal damnation is not something that should go unchallenged.

usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/natural-family-planning/what-is-nfp/methods.cfm

What are the methods of NFP?
Each NFP method is focused on one or more signs of female fertility. They can be grouped into three categories

Cervical Mucus Methods (CMM)

The methods that observe cervical mucus are commonly called the “Ovulation Method” or “OM.” In NFP education, a woman learns how to identify the normal, healthy, cervical mucus which indicates the days that sexual intercourse is most likely to result in pregnancy. A number of NFP providers teach a variety of approaches to the observation and charting of cervical mucus (e.g., Billings Ovulation Method Association—USA, Creighton Model FertilityCare™ Centers, Family of the Americas, etc.).

Sympto-Thermal Methods (STM)

The methods that observe several signs of fertility and cross-check two or more of the signs to p(name removed by moderator)oint ovulation are commonly called the “Sympto-Thermal Method” or “STM.” STM typically combines charting of the Basal Body Temperature (BBT) and cervical mucus with other optional indicators, such as changes in the cervix and secondary fertility signs. A number of NFP providers teach a variety of approaches to the observation and charting of these signs (e.g., Couple to Couple League, Northwest Family Services, various diocesan programs, etc.).

Sympto-Hormonal Method (SHM)

The method that observes several signs of fertility and adds the use of an ovulation predictor kit (OPK) or fertility monitor is called the “Sympto-Hormonal Method” or “SHM.” Similar to the STM, this approach adds the self-detection of reproductive hormones in the urine with the assistance of an OPK or fertility monitor. Various diocesan NFP programs make use of the SHM as well as Marquette University’s Institute for NFP (Marquette Model).

usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/natural-family-planning/

I do not “force” anyone… merely allow them to open their eyes and see things from a rational perspective.

You must have missed the myriad of material available on non-artificial contraception then, or are keeping your eyes shut purposely to avoid them.

 

[Thom18]

I said this in a very limited context. “Make love not war”. That is all. You immediately tried to twist it, and dragged forth the total opposite of love, which is violence. I consider this trickery to be intellectually dishonest.

I quote you: “it can become an independent member of the species”, and I agree with that.

I was right to quote you the way I did. I asked you to clarify your position several times, asking at what point you believe we shouldn’t try to learn from animals, and it hasn’t been answered. If you care to answer it now, I’ll stop quoting it that way.

And you totally ignored what I said right after what you bolded, “if you deny that it isn’t already”. A fetus is already a human being (I thoroughly disproved your “tissue” argument). If one is a human being, there should be no excuse for killing them. You claimed that pleasure shouldn’t be sought if it means hurting others. You can’t get more “hurt” than killed. How do you justify your position in light of this?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I was right to quote you the way I did. I asked you to clarify your position several times, asking at what point you believe we shouldn’t try to learn from animals, and it hasn’t been answered. If you care to answer it now, I’ll stop quoting it that way.

I already did. Very clearly, too.

And you totally ignored what I said right after what you bolded, “if you deny that it isn’t already”. A fetus is already a human being (I thoroughly disproved your “tissue” argument). If one is a human being, there should be no excuse for killing them. You claimed that pleasure shouldn’t be sought if it means hurting others. You can’t get more “hurt” than killed. How do you justify your position in light of this?

If you believe that a zygote is a human “being”, your are irrational to be taken seriously. Without a working brain there cannot be a human “being”.

 

[SyroMalankara]

If you believe that a zygote is a human “being”, your are irrational to be taken seriously. Without a working brain there cannot be a human “being”.

What is Aaron Murray then? His mother clearly sees him as human, as do doctors, nurses, etc.: youtu.be/7JXiaQaAWHU

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

What is Aaron Murray then? His mother clearly sees him as human, as do doctors, nurses, etc.: youtu.be/7JXiaQaAWHU

He has a severely damaged brain. But he does have a brain. Where is the brain in a zygote?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

He has a severely damaged brain. But he does have a brain. Where is the brain in a zygote?

Your definition of human is “brain”?

You destroy an acorn just planted and you destroy a tree about to emerge.

Why is destroying a zygote not destroying a human about to emerge?

You seem not to recognize that from the moment of conception we are all bound to enter various stages of our development that can be marked off, but none of which can be lopped off without lopping us off in our entirety.

The human zygote is not a disposable Kleenex tissue and no amount of treating it that way makes it so.

 

[Thom18]

I already did. Very clearly, too.

If you believe that a zygote is a human “being”, your are irrational to be taken seriously. Without a working brain there cannot be a human “being”.

Can you tell me why you believe there’s no human being until the brain is developed? And I would appreciate scientific evidence for your claim, as I have provided for mine. It sounds to me like you’re just making that claim to preserve your belief.

 

[goout]

What the church calls permissable? Who is the church to tell me what is permissable? I am not a Catholic. So my wife and I will most definately decide ourselves what is permissable as far as pleasure is concerned. You and the rest of Catholocism can decide amongst yourselves what you can and cannot do.

I’d like to know if you consider that a reasonable position.

And another thing. Do you know the percentage of Catholic women who have used contraception during their life? How about you concentrate on getting your own house in order before you start preaching to the rest of us.

And one more. If you think abstinence on it’s own is the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies (and therefore abortions), then you must be living on a different planet to me.

The majority of people could care less about what the Catholic Church teaches. Because what the church teaches is only relevant to Catholics (despite what you may think). But if you want to cross the line in the secular arena, then expect some push back, Syro.

Correction: A lot of push back

Maybe you could ask yourself this question:
“Why am I here…?”
and re-read your post.

It comes off a little silly and absurd.

 

[goout]

Can you tell me why you believe there’s no human being until the brain is developed? And I would appreciate scientific evidence for your claim, as I have provided for mine. It sounds to me like you’re just making that claim to preserve your belief.

Claims without reasoning=blind faith.

food for thought for an atheist

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Can you tell me why you believe there’s no human being until the brain is developed? And I would appreciate scientific evidence for your claim, as I have provided for mine. It sounds to me like you’re just making that claim to preserve your belief.

So obvious. Let’s play the process in reverse. Take full-blown human. Start to remove the different organs. One can be handicapped if certain organs are removed, for example legs, hands, arms, etc… but the person is essentially the same, without some functionality. The whole circulatory system can be replaced with an artificial heart to circulate the blood. The kidneys can be replaced. The lungs can be substituted with artificial counterparts… As long as there is a functioning brain, the person is the same. Death is defined by the cessation of the brain activity.

For the time being, the electro-chemical activity of the brain is irreplaceable by artificial prosthesis. In theory an artificial brain can be developed, though it is not likely to happen any time soon. We are our thoughts, our personalities. None of the other parts of our body is “necessary”. Simple, eh?