Arguing About Abortion

[Hume]

In order to establish liberty as the basic principle justifying human behaviour you would need to…

Whooooa. I’m looking for the moral null. I think it’s libertas. I’m open to other suggestions, but no one is making any…

present a clear depiction of what liberty is precisely and why it can form a starting point for morality.

Oh, hecky-durn, that’s easy.

It’s the absence of ethical limitations - either good or bad. “Dos” and “don’ts”. The case for those dos and don’ts hasn’t been made yet.

There are two conceptions at play here: a materialistic one and a theistic or transcendent one.

Hard to dance to this - ethics aren’t material and neither is god. Arguing that I should do something because a god I don’t believe in said so won’t get you anywhere.

There’s a god in India that says I shouldn’t eat cows. Unfortunately, a medium-rare New-York strip is delicious…

If your materialistic metaphysic is true then human behaviour is purely a biochemical process where “decisions” or “choices” are actually the effects of biochemical causes.

This area here and consciousness are kinda where the secular sciences are “at”, right now.

But in keeping with good scientific principle, until they create a hypothesis that can’t be falsified, we’re safe to go on think that when we went up to the soda machine, we actually chose the Dr. Pepper.

But here is a huge place where we differ, I think.

If the science comes out and stands up in a way that conflicts with my current views, I’ll change my views. Just like I did with gravity - it’s a push now, not a pull as when I was a kid.

The only possible way for “freedom” to be operative in the world — and therefore function as a fundamental principle of morality — is if human thought, rationality and will can rise above the causal order and make choices independent of it. Absent that there is no defence to be mustered for your “principle of liberty.”

I agree that choice appeals to an internal “ought”, but as to what can be definitively said about that ought is limited. We have several biological and learned drives. Some you may understand, some you may not.

In a secular sense, we don’t know for sure how it works. In a way, we’re appealing to “divine mystery” too.

…And that’s ok!

No, actually, “all that” DOES NOT end.

In a bodily way, oh yes it does.

In utero, mom’s the only one that can care for it.

Postpartum, anyone can shake up a bottle and change a diaper.

Except that “those folks” are offloading their responsibility onto society, which begs the question of whether society has a responsibility to care for the child once they do abandon it.

It’s easy to adopt babies off. The problem is with older kids.

There simply isn’t a bigger decision than parenthood. It should reside only - ONLY - with those who are willing to do it.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

Sure. We need to be very careful about compelling and obligating people to do things they do not want to do.

Even when they “see it through”, the lack of desire usually manifest less than optimal results.

It’s why it’s so important that the people who have kids should be people who want them.

Wild idea, right?

The other alternative is getting rid of their entire existence which sounds worse to me.

Sure. And I respect that.

But as you’ve made that choice, allow them to self-same right.

You’re no more the arbiter for mom and baby than a stranger on the other side of the planet.

Hmmm, I just have to ask this…
If a woman made the bodily sacrifices to bring a human being into the world so that it can be granted personhood when it takes its first breath, why does she owe one more moment of her existence to it?

She doesn’t. We have kids for our reasons, not theirs.

Perhaps she had it because she doesn’t want it but also doesn’t want to terminate it’s life.

Dunno. Her choice.

So my right to do what I want with my body does not supercede another persons right to life?

When their “right to life” involves your body - that’s right.

I am currently being denied my supposed ‘right’ to bodily autonomy in the interests saving the lives of vulnerable human beings.

No you aren’t. Crusade and campaign for them to choose life all you want.

You just can’t hijack mom’s bodily autonomy in doing so.

 

[MamaJewel]

There simply isn’t a bigger decision than parenthood. It should reside only - ONLY - with those who are willing to do it.

Then make men more responsible for getting a woman pregnant. no deposit = no return

In this world, men need to keep their business to themselves or step up to the plate (and not just financially by throwing some $$$ at the child like it’s some two-bit…)

Women have abortions for many reasons. Today’s fertile women sometimes see pregnancy as a burden or a parasite, etc.

If women were treated better, maybe there would be way fewer abortions.
Well, then again, nope…

to many people see other humans as an inconvenience in this society.

For as bad as people as folks here in the states say the Chinese are, one of the first Covid19 pics to show hope for humanity is a pic of hospital providers totally gowned in protective gear holding a brand-spanking new neonate fresh out of momma’s body.

Such a concept is now lost in US culture. People are giving thanks that they don’t have children as we deal with this contagion. We’re doomed!

And sadly, it’s the current little developing embryos and fetuses and their placentas that can help us turn the tide against Covid19 in the near future.

 

[Hume]

Then make men more responsible for getting a woman pregnant. no deposit = no return

I’m in favor of paper abortions on the part of men.

I think the greatest and best answer is to make abortion as rare as we possibly can by making unwanted pregnancy as rare as we can.

thank goodness, we’ve made huge strides in achieving this is the US, especially in the last generation. Modern sex-ed and the easy availability of contraceptives has crashed the teen-pregnancy rate, for instance.

Parenthood is the biggest decision we make. If not entered into with the fullest consent by both parties, personal and social problems result.

 

[HarryStotle]

In a bodily way, oh yes it does.

In utero, mom’s the only one that can care for it.

Postpartum, anyone can shake up a bottle and change a diaper.

You missed the point, I think.

Anyone can shake up a bottle, but no one has a moral obligation to do so according to your freedom principle. The newborn has no right to infringe on the freedoms of others, therefore, society would be perfectly justified to let the newborn die, if the mother chooses to walk away from any obligation to the child — given that you claim the mother has no obligation to the child in any case, given your freedom principle.

I would suggest that explored in detail, your freedom principle would justify a great deal of stepping away from what most moral individuals would consider sound moral principles currently. Basically, it would devolve to “to each his own” — it would justify an abstention from all moral demands on the part of all moral agents — essentially justifying amorality as “…the absence of ethical limitations - either good or bad.”

it isn’t that the case for dos and don’ts hasn’t been made, it is that any such case cannot be made if your “absence of moral limitations” or “moral null” is accepted as the starting assumption for morality.

 

[HarryStotle]

MamaJewel:

Then make men more responsible for getting a woman pregnant. no deposit = no return

I’m in favor of paper abortions on the part of men.

I think the greatest and best answer is to make abortion as rare as we possibly can by making unwanted pregnancy as rare as we can.

Unfortunately, your liberty principle cannot be invoked to justify the imposition of “making men more responsible,” because if the woman has no responsibility (given your freedom principle) the man can claim precisely the same immunity from responsibility.

The default for the man would be: if the woman doesn’t want the child, she can choose to abort. By choosing not to, she takes full responsibility for the child’s life. We had consensual sex, but — in your own words…

The consent to sex is not the consent to pregnancy

I don’t think you have thought through the repercussions of your “principle” very thoroughly, unfortunately.

It is fine to claim “I’m in favour of…” but that personal preference isn’t based upon — nor does it derive from — what you claim to be the overriding principle of liberty.

Personally, I think it gets even worse for you, because — as I stated before — making the principle of liberty the starting point means that individual conceptions of what liberty means overrides any possible moral objections. The appeal to liberty as the arbiter of morality means liberty supersedes morality.

You might have some personal conception of how morality might limit liberty, but you cannot provide an overarching explanation for when morality limits liberty without necessarily bringing morality in as the arbiter of personal liberty. In which case morality trumps liberty and not the other way around.

 

[Neithan]

The catechism denotes “Direct abortion…willed either as an end or a means”, which creates some moral difficulty if abortion is intended as a means to save the mother’s life. There is a fine line to separate an abortion as a means and indirect abortion.

 

[openmind77]

…I am currently being denied my supposed ‘right’ to bodily autonomy in the interests saving the lives of vulnerable human beings. …

Nobody is denying you your bodily autonomy. Nobody is saying you need put something in to your abdomen or keep something there. All they are saying is stay at home and go out only if necessary. I just went for a long walk and came back and nobody stopped me. They actually want you to exercise and get some fresh air, just not in a group.

 

[Hume]

You missed the point, I think.

Anyone can shake up a bottle, but no one has a moral obligation to do so according to your freedom principle.

No, no. I got the point. I just counter that parenthood is for the willing and absolutely no one else.

Unfortunately, your liberty principle cannot be invoked to justify the imposition of “making men more responsible,” because if the woman has no responsibility (given your freedom principle) the man can claim precisely the same immunity from responsibility.

I think that’s exactly right.

If a woman has the right of an abortion, then in keeping with equality, men should have the right to engage in “paper abortions” before the child is born as well.

I don’t think you have thought through the repercussions of your “principle” very thoroughly, unfortunately.

You keep saying that and here we are, umpteen posts later.

It’s the default. The blank. We can and do constrain it with dos and don’t.

After the Enlightenment, premising an ethic on Divine Command theory was no longer good enough.

Your god may have told you x, but my god said y. And HIS god said anti-x and anti-y.

So now we have to come to rational consensus on our rules. And when in doubt, don’t make one.

It is fine to claim “I’m in favour of…” but that personal preference isn’t based upon — nor does it derive from — what you claim to be the overriding principle of liberty.

Oh no, you’re quite wrong here.

The default is liberty as it regards to the law and advocacy.

The government didn’t need to make Dr. Pepper specifically legal for you to drink. You were free to drink it from it’s creation as there was simply no law against it - no constraint on your liberty concerning Dr. Pepper.

Personally, I think it gets even worse for you, because…

It’s alright. If you end up being correct, my failure to submit to your particular god and derived worldview will result in my punishment.

But until then…

In which case morality trumps liberty and not the other way around.

Who’s morality? Mine? Ok!

Apropos, we default to liberty when in doubt.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Lion_IRC:

…I am currently being denied my supposed ‘right’ to bodily autonomy in the interests saving the lives of vulnerable human beings. …

Nobody is denying you your bodily autonomy. Nobody is saying you need put something in to your abdomen or keep something there. All they are saying is…[snip]

All they are saying is I do not have the right to do what I want with my own body - something which I neither expect nor demand as an absolute right. (Unlike the abortion-on-demand lobby.)

And it’s blatant special pleading for you to appoint yourself as the arbiter of who is and who isn’t being deprived of their bodily autonomy. You wouldn’t let a pro-lifer define bodily autonomy, would you?

So kindly stick to the actual argument which is whether this supposed (abstract) idea
of “bodily autonomy” is;

a) Real. Demonstrable. Scientifically falsifiable. Empirically true. Etc.
b) Morally sufficient/superior justification to override the competing moral (ought) claim that the unborn human being has a right not to be murdered (whether using anaesthetic or not.)

 

[Elf01]

And it’s blatant special pleading for you to appoint yourself as the arbiter of who is and who isn’t being deprived of their bodily autonomy. You wouldn’t let a pro-lifer define bodily autonomy, would you?

Granted I’ve never been pregnant, but the corona virus restrictions basically imprison us and we’ve done nothing wrong.

At least if I was pregnant I could go where I wanted when I wanted, assuming both mother and child are in good health. I really do think this is worse than 90% of crisis pregnancies.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Well, one can think of several scenarios where society imposes regulations on pregnant woman.(Drinking while pregnant. Smoking while pregnant.)

Similarly, many jurisdictions recognise that the unborn are entitled to a common law duty of care. (Prenatal medical malpractice for example.) They also confer other rights on the unborn such as the right to retain future ability to identify their biological parents.

 

[Elf01]

Well, one can think of several scenarios where society imposes regulations on pregnant woman.(Drinking while pregnant. Smoking while pregnant.)

Society, at least here, not the law, and I know of women who have smoked and drank while pregnant.

 

[openmind77]

So kindly stick to the actual argument which is whether this supposed (abstract) idea
of “bodily autonomy” is;

a) Real. Demonstrable. Scientifically falsifiable. Empirically true. Etc.
b) Morally sufficient/superior justification to override the competing moral (ought) claim that the unborn human being has a right not to be murdered (whether using anaesthetic or not.)

I was merely pointing out that nobody is physically invading your body under current restrictions, the government is just restricting your external movements. That is not same as telling a woman that she should carry something inside her body regardless of her own wishes. In any case, I don’t really want argue the morality of abortion - it is a pointless, unwinnable debate.

However, I think we may be very lucky and blessed quite soon. It really looks like the endtimes are finally here. In which case, the Christ will be returning very soon. He can explain to us all what the merits of each argument are. I personally think that he will advise everyone not to cast any stones and learn to mind their own business. But who am I to presume - still I don’t think we have to wait very long to learn the truth.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Society (in places where abortion is restricted) technically doesn’t place limits on what the woman does with her body, it places restrictions on what someone else can do to her body and that of her unborn baby. If anyone should be protesting about having their liberty constrained it should be people who are legally prevented from performing abortions.

In Australia, for example, it would be illegal for me to perform an abortion.

 

[Lion_IRC]

It really looks like the endtimes are finally here. In which case, the Christ will be returning very soon. He can explain to us all what the merits of each argument are. I personally think that he will advise everyone not to cast any stones and learn to mind their own business.

MYOB morality would see unmarried mothers left to fend for themselves. Her body. Her choice.

MYOB morality would make it easier for ppl to ignore the beaten and bruised robbed man laying there on the Road to Jericho.

How often we see the secular State telling our Church to mind its own business.

 

[openmind77]

MYOB morality would see unmarried mothers left to fend for themselves. Her body. Her choice.

I was referring to MYOB when you want to cast stones (accusations etc). Help is always welcome.

 

[Hume]

Well, one can think of several scenarios where society imposes regulations on pregnant woman.(Drinking while pregnant. Smoking while pregnant.)

I’m not actually aware of any jurisdiction that has laws like that on the books.

Not saying they don’t exist, just that they’re exceedingly rare in the US.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

But as you’ve made that choice, allow them to self-same right.

You’re no more the arbiter for mom and baby than a stranger on the other side of the planet.

I don’t buy that reasoning at all because there is more to just choice in this scenario and wiping out a life is not a valid or ethical option. I don’t see any reason to value the choice of the mother over the life of the fetus so until you present an argument for that it the premise won’t do.

 

[HarryStotle]

…premising an ethic on Divine Command theory was no longer good enough.

The problem here is that you are using a straw man argument to support your view of what theistic morality looks like.

This Divine Command thesis of yours is basically you projecting YOUR liberty principle into the heavens.

Your “argument” presumes the divine will is as arbitrary and capricious as any human libertarian. Ergo a capricious divine will has no more authority to impose its will on human beings than any human being would have to impose their will on others.

Your liberty principle would argue that the divine fist merely stops where your human nose begins, and therefore the divine will has no more “right” to impose itself on you than you have to impose your will on others.

The problem is that you are presupposing something about the the moral landscape, i.e., that there is none, and that there is no objective right or wrong, good or bad.

This is clear from your depiction of the moral battle between “gods.”

Your god may have told you x, but my god said y. And HIS god said anti-x and anti-y.

The assumption behind that statement is that there is no God, but merely conceptions of “gods,” which are mere projections of human moral thought into the heavens. There isn’t a concession there that there could be a God — you are merely begging that entire question to begin with by assuming God (and morality) are human inventions.

You have to start with that assumption BECAUSE your “null hypothesis” requires you to nullify morality and pretend that it is nothing more than free wills mutually working out an accord regarding their libertarian behaviour.

In effect, you are saying NOTHING is objectively good except liberty, and that liberty (aka free will) allows those who actively possess that endowment the unique privilege of creating morality.

The problem with that view is that it REQUIRES, and presupposes, the non-existence of God and morality as an objective reality. Which is question-begging the issues of both morality and theism.

If God exists as depicted in classic theism, then your entire theory is shot to pieces because an ontological ground for morality defeats your assumption that there is no such ground except libertarian free will.

Besides the fact that you haven’t shown how a truly free will can even be operative within a materialistic and causally determined universe, you haven’t proved atheism to be necessarily true, either. In order for your liberty principle to even be possible as the “null hypothesis” in morality you have to demonstrate libertarian free will is possible within a causally ordered universe.

Since you haven’t done that we have no reason to think your materialistic atheism supports the metaphysics that are required to underpin the liberty principle.

If morality merely amounts to human beings “projecting their views” onto divinity, then YOUR OWN conception of the “liberty principle” and the “null hypothesis” amounts to you projecting what you will to be the case into the moral landscape.

Continued…