Abortion Questions From Pro-Choice Philosopher David Boonin

[CrystalMayner66]

Thank you for conversing with me Vera. We have fundamental disagreements, and I am going to leave them as is. Agree to disagree. Best wishes!

 

[CrystalMayner66]

Uh, it’s called “rape”.

Point taken, though generally “sex” implies a consensual encounter. BDSM is also worth mentioning as a pairing of sex and violence.

 

[CrystalMayner66]

Sure they do. Non-vaginal intercourse, tubal ligation, hysterectomy all guarantee that conception will not happen. And the latter two are performed only to prevent conception, not for some medical necessity.

Vera, I will just say in closing that non-vaginal intercourse is not a contraceptive: it is an act closed to conception, not a method of preventing conception. Tubal ligation has a less than 2% risk of pregnancy, and while a woman is unable to carry a pregnancy to term after a hysterectomy for obvious reasons, she has a less than 1 in 1,000,000 chance of implantation occurring which would require a termination or result in miscarriage. I generally don’t think of sterilization as contraception due to it’s permanent nature, but I grant it categorically is, so I will grant your answer of hysterectomy. I stand corrected.

verywell.com/is-pregnancy-possible-after-a-hysterectomy-3156844

answers.webmd.com/answers/1190307/can-you-get-pregnant-after-a

 

[goout]

Nothing “strange” about them. All they say that during the development the organism undergoes both quantitative an qualitative changes - egg to chicken, acorn to oak tree, medical student to doctor, zygote to fetus, etc… The rest you wrote are simply a figment of your imagination.

Right. Organisms develop.
Nice observation, but not a rational argument.

Organisms develop…and
What?

Surely you are not saying that a medical doctor is not fully human? Actually, yes, if you are going to be consistent with your argument, you would have to claim the medical student is less than human, and subject to death-by-whim. Because the full potential is not realized.

Or you could accept that human beings are first a being that exists, then a work in progress. But nonetheless are human, regardless of status in your eyes.

Seriously, you philosophy is terrifying.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Vera, I will just say in closing that non-vaginal intercourse is not a contraceptive: it is an act closed to conception, not a method of preventing conception. Tubal ligation has a less than 2% risk of pregnancy, and while a woman is unable to carry a pregnancy to term after a hysterectomy for obvious reasons, she has a less than 1 in 1,000,000 chance of implantation occurring which would require a termination or result in miscarriage. I generally don’t think of sterilization as contraception due to it’s permanent nature, but I grant it categorically is, so I will grant your answer of hysterectomy. I stand corrected.

Technically speaking you are correct. But I was looking at the “spirit of the law, not its words”. The reason is that sex is not limited to vaginal intercourse, it includes many kinds of stimulations of the sexual organs, which lead to pleasure and strengthens the bond between the couple (the unitive aspect is just as strong… maybe stronger). Some people told me that the church endorses the perfect contraceptive method: abstinence. So maybe I was not totally “wrong” calling the non-vaginal intercourse a contraception.

I also want to thank you for the conversation. I hope to talk to you some other time.

Very best wishes.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Surely you are not saying that a medical doctor is not fully human? Actually, yes, if you are going to be consistent with your argument, you would have to claim the medical student is less than human, and subject to death-by-whim. Because the full potential is not realized.

You are not the first one who misunderstand the logic of my stance. I am not going to analyze what the reason might be, especially because the result would be highly uncharitable - though thoroughly merited.

But the medical student - doctor dichotomy has nothing to do with either of them not being a human. The medical student is less than a doctor. A medical student becomes a doctor when she receives her diploma. One minute before this act she already has the knowledge to be able to open her practice, and yet, she is not allowed to do so before the diploma is in her hand.

Maybe you disagree with this practice, I don’t know. But the point is that we declare all sorts of dividing lines, and “quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi”. And it is perfectly normal and rational to treat a fetus differently than a born child.

 

[goout]

Technically speaking you are correct. But I was looking at the “spirit of the law, not its words”. The reason is that sex is not limited to vaginal intercourse, it includes many kinds of stimulations of the sexual organs, which lead to pleasure and strengthens the bond between the couple (the unitive aspect is just as strong… maybe stronger). Some people told me that the church endorses the perfect contraceptive method: abstinence. So maybe I was not totally “wrong” calling the non-vaginal intercourse a contraception.

I also want to thank you for the conversation. I hope to talk to you some other time.

Very best wishes.

1. Contraception is an act. Acts can be morally evaluated.
2. Contra-ception is an act which violates the full order of sexuality. Sexuality is ordered unitively and procreatively.
3. Abstinence is not an act, let alone a sex act, and so abstinence is not contra-ception.

Also, the unitive aspect of sex is not in contrast to and separable from the procreative aspect. They are unified. Pleasure that is non-genital leads to that fullness if it is properly ordered. Acts ordered only to pleasure are not unitive, because they are separated from the procreative aspect.

This is an instance of an inseparable both/and (which concept seems to be hard to grasp).

 

[Wesrock]

You are not the first one who misunderstand the logic of my stance. I am not going to analyze what the reason might be, especially because the result would be highly uncharitable - though thoroughly merited.

But the medical student - doctor dichotomy has nothing to do with either of them not being a human. The medical student is less than a doctor. A medical student becomes a doctor when she receives her diploma. One minute before this act she already has the knowledge to be able to open her practice, and yet, she is not allowed to do so before the diploma is in her hand.

Maybe you disagree with this practice, I don’t know. But the point is that we declare all sorts of dividing lines, and “quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi”. And it is perfectly normal and rational to treat a fetus differently than a born child.

From Post 96
…Medical student to doctor is different. These are accidental qualities being attributed to one being, who is one and the same human being as a medical student as she is when she becomes a doctor.

 

[PRmerger]

I. Is consent to sex consent to pregnancy?

I would think that all prochoicers would answer emphatically Yes!

Else, how could they sustain their view of a forced child support from the father?

If the prochoicers really embrace the idea: hey, I just wanted to have sex. I didn’t say I wanted to have a baby…

then it works both ways and the father is free to recuse himself from any financial obligation towards this baby he didn’t consent to.

Right?

 

[goout]

You are not the first one who misunderstand the logic of my stance. I am not going to analyze what the reason might be, especially because the result would be highly uncharitable - though thoroughly merited.

But the medical student - doctor dichotomy has nothing to do with either of them not being a human. The medical student is less than a doctor. A medical student becomes a doctor when she receives her diploma. One minute before this act she already has the knowledge to be able to open her practice, and yet, she is not allowed to do so before the diploma is in her hand.

Maybe you disagree with this practice, I don’t know. But the point is that we declare all sorts of dividing lines, and “quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi”. And it is perfectly normal and rational to treat a fetus differently than a born child.

One of the issues you repeatedly encounter is that you expect your words to be taken seriously while at the same time when inconsistencies are pointed out you do not want your words taken at face value. Which is it?

You said what you said. The words speak for themselves. You are evaluating humanity on the basis of a person’s potential usefulness. You make that direct comparison again in your post above. Plain and simple.

Wes just quoted you, so I will not bother.

In your way of thinking, anyone can be killed because they are not fully what your whim would like them to be.

Your position is horrifying and should be slammed dunked into history’s trash bin, along with the Nazis and the Stalinists and the Pol Pots of the world, who all uses the very same unreasoned justifications about humanity.

Seriously, think about what you are saying. Do some self reflection.

 

[minkymurph]

I agree with the OP that abortion is an incredibly complex issue.

I cannot accept the unborn are not human, and for this reason cannot accept abortion is not the taking of a human life.

The only circumstance to my knowledge in which the taking of an innocent life is considered justifiable is just war and self defense. There may be others I just don’t know what they are.

Discussing it in this context - when is ending the life of the unborn justified?

 

[Wesrock]

Discussing it in this context - when is ending the life of the unborn justified?

The Catholic teaching allows that if necessary medical treatment indirectly results in the death of the fetus, that is permissible. But killing the fetus can’t be considered as the treatment in itself.

Consider an ectopic pregnancy where the embryo has implanted in the fallopian tubes, and the tube becomes infected where the embryo is implanted. Directly killing the embryo as treatment is forbidden. The embryo is not a disease. Removing the infected tissue of the fallopian tube, even if it results in the death of the embryo, is permissible, though, as it views the fallopian tube tissue that becomes inflamed as the problem that needs to be removed. The death of the embryo is accidental to the treatment, and not the goal of the treatment.

 

[goout]

I agree with the OP that abortion is an incredibly complex issue.

I cannot accept the unborn are not human, and for this reason cannot accept abortion is not the taking of a human life.

The only circumstance to my knowledge in which the taking of an innocent life is considered justifiable is just war and self defense. There may be others I just don’t know what they are.

Discussing it in this context - when is ending the life of the unborn justified?

All you have to do to justify it is parse the word “human” and put doubt into people’s minds. Take “human” out of the realm of being and subject it to definitions and potential usefulness etc…
Jews, blacks, Arabs, native peoples, just about everyone has been subject to the degradation of their humanity.
Killing becomes easy then. As easy as culling a population of deer.

 

[PRmerger]

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

Is general consent to parenting consent to undergo parenting which turns out to be unexpectedly abnormal, dangerous or painful?

If we determine that parenting is, indeed, more painful than expected, is it permissible to:

-kill the child and thus eliminate the source of the pain

-remove oneself from the environment

noisey.vice.com/en_us/article/rq4vjd/20-great-songs-about-bad-dads
parenting.com/blogs/show-and-tell/megan-babytalk/mom-decides-parenting-not-her-and-leaves

 

[PRmerger]

III. Is consent to pregnancy irreversible or ongoing?

Is consent to parenting irreversible or ongoing?

 

[CrystalMayner66]

I would think that all prochoicers would answer emphatically Yes!

Else, how could they sustain their view of a forced child support from the father?

If the prochoicers really embrace the idea: hey, I just wanted to have sex. I didn’t say I wanted to have a baby…

then it works both ways and the father is free to recuse himself from any financial obligation towards this baby he didn’t consent to.

Right?

While I don’t believe in speaking for pro-choicers in this manner, that is a great point! It should consistently go both ways, but right now it does not.

This video, for example, makes no sense to me.

youtube.com/watch?v=nlccyaX1ueA

If consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, why is this man a “despicable human being”? The Judge is willing to talk about how they should have had protected sex, but gets outraged when he says “she should have had an abortion”. The Judge seems to think having unprotected sex is consent to pregnancy, but women are free to abort after unprotected sex. If this man had been more articulate, I think he could have made a strong case for the fact that his right to chose was being repressed in the light of the Roe V Wade decision.

Interestingly, there has been talk of allowing dads to legally abort, but I am not aware of this practice being started anywhere yet. If abortion was moral, I would support the father’s right to legally abort. It’s only fair. As it is, I believe valid consent to sex is at least consent to a normal pregnancy for both men and women, and neither have the right to abort such a pregnancy.

 

[PRmerger]

While I don’t believe in speaking for pro-choicers in this manner, that is a great point! It should consistently go both ways, but right now it does not.

Consistency is my mantra in all arguments with those of opposing views.

 

[PRmerger]

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?

Prochoicers? What say you to this?

If a woman could breastfeed her baby, and chooses not to, and baby subsequently dies due to no other food source, is this a permissible choice?

 

[PRmerger]

I have a question for Prochoicer David Boonin (and all others are of course free to respond):

Do you believe in a man’s right to take?

(This is a corollary to the question: do you believe in a woman’s right to choose?)

 

[goout]

I have a question for Prochoicer David Boonin (and all others are of course free to respond):

Do you believe in a man’s right to take?

(This is a corollary to the question: do you believe in a woman’s right to choose?)

That’s what abortion is: a taking of what does not belong to one’s self. (namely, another’s self)
So a prochoicer must believe in the right to take, if they are to be consistent and not merely arbitrary.