Arguing About Abortion

[Hume]

?

There wasn’t a theistic reference in either of our replies there (unless you later edit them in)…

I think the fruitfulness of our chat has stalled for now. Last word is yours for the moment.

 

[JimG]

Where Peter is woefully wrong is that the fetus’s dependence on it’s mother’s person ends at birth. Ergo, her ability to abort it in the name of self-preservation ends.

Someone else can care for the child after that.

That’s a very compelling reason, which is why Mr. Singer is wrong.

I think that most mothers would affirm that their children remain quite dependent for many years after birth, even past the age of majority, and that the demands on her mental and physical resources can be even more difficult than pregnancy. Of . course, one can transfer this responsibility via adoption if it has been arranged ahead of time.

But Singer’s point was that even a mom who deems herself ready to accept a child may change her mind after birth. The child may be more difficult than she expected, or have unexpected physical or mental problems. He proposed giving new parents at least six months extra to decide on termination.

 

[Hume]

I think that most mothers would affirm that their children remain quite dependent for many years after birth, even past the age of majority, and that the demands on her mental and physical resources can be even more difficult than pregnancy. Of . course, one can transfer this responsibility via adoption if it has been arranged ahead of time.

This is correct. And as you identified, someone else can do it.

But Singer’s point was that even a mom who deems herself ready to accept a child may change her mind after birth.

And she can adopt it off or surrender it to the foster system.

Barring a disability, kids are pretty easy to adopt off until they hit prepubescence.

 

[Stephen168]

?

There wasn’t a theistic reference in either of our replies there (unless you later edit them in)…

I think the fruitfulness of our chat has stalled for now. Last word is yours for the moment.

I thought it might when I asked you to prove your assertion.

 

[JimG]

Well. Professor Singer also proposed that severely disabled infants ought to be aborted. This ultimately led to a meeting between him and Harriet McBryde Johnson, a severely disabled lawyer. That meeting was covered in a rather compelling piece published in the New York Times magazine by Ms. McBryde Johnson, under the headline “Unspeakable Conversations,”

It begins: “He insists he doesn’t want to kill me. He simply thinks it would have been better, all things considered, to have given my parents the option of killing the baby I once was, and to let other parents kill similar babies as they come along…”

Unspeakable Conversations - The New York Times

 

[Rau]

… which is why most folks in the US support choice at some level.

I think not. Most who favour abortion have likely never heard of “bodily autonomy”. They see little wrong in getting rid of “something” foreseen to be a great inconvenience.

 

[Rau]

You’re forcing her to undergo pregnancy. You can deny that, sure. But that’s still the reality of the thing.

The law requires parents to undergo parenthood too. That’s far more impactful than pregnancy! Or at least it does not permit parents to escape it by lethal means.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Those things have enormous weight in making our own personal decisions. But it’s a different animal to say that your personal value judgements should be binding on another person .

This is why I’ve said repeatedly that the most ethical path is one where choice reigns and we pro-lifers do as much as we can to systematically eliminate the reasons a mother would choose to abort the fetus.

That premise is flawed because it is already possible for value judgements to be binding on everyone.

You’ve offered fiat. Which is religion, or at least authoritarian ideology.

That’s not true. I based my arguments on the life of the fetus being more important than bodily autonomy and also on the responsibility that the mother has for bringing it into existence in the first place. Neither has anything to do with religion and don’t need religion in order to function.

Since there is no clear rational answer here, we must default to choice.

We default to liberty which also allows abortion to be banned anyways so no one has the upperhand.

If I can maybe uncharitably add a little barb here, it’s interesting to see a lot of the pro-life/pro-birth crowd balk when they’re asked to put their money where their mouths are.

I don’t mind giving money if that’s what it takes.

We HATE to admit it, but a big part of the crime crash of the early 90s was that it was 16 or so years after Roe. A lot of the unwanted problem children that were destined to “graduate” into the next generation of petty criminals simply weren’t there. They had been aborted shortly after Roe became law.

We can also atomic bomb everyone out of existence and there will never be poverty, war, or suffering on earth.

 

[Stephen168]

No, I’m just taking the same liberty as you.

Scroll up and read, I’m literally matching theistic reference to theistic reference.

There wasn’t a theistic reference in either of our replies there (unless you later edit them in)…

I think the fruitfulness of our chat has stalled for now. Last word is yours for the moment.

First you claim you are matching a theistic reference, then you claim there wasn’t a theistic reference.

You were right the second time. Just because I use the word God doesn’t mean I’m making a theological argument.

I sure would not want to try and be smarter than God. While reproduction might not be the only purpose it is the only purpose unique to copulation. After 44 years of marriage, reproduction is the only thing I have NEEDED copulation for.

Not at all. It has multiple purposes and you’ve biologically evolved to need all of them.

Appeal to the stone.

List the multiple purposes that are unique to intercourse

The “need” I refer to is a physiological drive. It’s in your genes and much older than any god you or I have ever heard of.

Yes, the need I refer to is physiological, so basically, you got nothing. You can’t list one other physiological purpose unique to intercourse let alone multiple purposes. You could not refute the main point of my post to someone else, yet you felt a need to respond to it.

Yes, this is not a theological argument; it is a biological one.

Second guessing God would be to use artificial means to eliminate reproduction from a reproductive act and then claim its designed purpose is no longer unique.

My god said it’s totally “ok”.

Your god said what is OK? I never said God said anything. I said just because you decide to use birth control, it doesn’t change the one unique physiological purpose for intercourse.

Yes, it is not a theological argument.

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

Each one must face that each of us came into the world in the same way.
Science calls consciousness, ‘the hard problem.’ Since near death experiences by the preponderance of the evidence, (note: for a source please explore Magis Center by Fr. Spitzer), with so much anecdotal evidence whereby while stone cold dead - objects and conversations were described accurately by the person who died and was revived.
~
Besides the increased call for brutal late term or just born survivors of a late term abortion (killing of the child) exterminating them as expendable - shows the callousness of the pro choice for terminating a human being coming into the world the same way each of us did.
~
Since cell respiration, unique DNA, and more revealing human life at the moment of conception - no one can disprove a human being.
~
None of this is unique in history. As personal lives seeming solutions,
or collectivist social engineering solutions - classifying one group as expendable or less than human has been done over and over.
~
Through JESUS The Beloved Redeemer, only GOD impartially knows hearts & minds of each of us. But the position that some human beings (or classifying them as less than human beings) as expendable is objectively morally reprehensible. And this mass murder does not solve any problem common in humanity. It only creates, by the seeming logical propaganda of autonomy over the right to life, by honey speech wise in one’s own eyes playing at heart strings of the impressionable or difficult situations a psychological sense of denial. Those who have not absolutely refused Divine Favor for a conscience often have the inner pain anesthetized by the justifying denial.
GOD impartially knows those who sold out their consciences that are a betrayal to Salvation by The Merits of JESUS The Beloved Anointed One.
“But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” - Matthew 18:6
Peace.

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

BTW, The Church teaches that necessary medical procedures for things like cancer, blighted ovum, or ectopic pregnancy(with child);
are for mercifully treating the condition. If the child dies, it is an extremely sad side effect.
The mass murder going on at the rate of 120,000+, over 40 million per year shows the depths of human heinous depravity. Just as heinous as what happens to many missing and exploited children.
GOD help the world to have a wake up call!

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

Arguing human opinions in an of themselves does not get at truth.
~
Here is a clue as to why there is even an argument regarding
the fundamental Creator given self evident right to life being
over-shadowed by some with more powerful person(s) using
autonomy to extinguish human beings which they cannot disprove
that these boys and girls are human beings.
Every atrocity in history is based upon redefining a group of human beings as expendable, less important, or sub-human.

"Truth is eternal

This dethronement of truth includes several grave errors. First,
there is the error of replacing the never superannuated and Nobel
impact of truth, especially the fundamental metaphysical and religious
truth, with the short-lived sociological efficacy and the historical
fashionableness of an idea.
The eternal unchanging nobility and attraction of truth, of which
St. Augustine says, ‘Quod disiderat anima fortius quam veritatem?’
(What does not our soul desire more than truth?), is no longer
understood. It has been forgotten that compared with this
intrinsic life of truth, the mere sociological reality of an idea is a
one-day fly, un ephemeral being destined to be replaced by other
ideas, other than currents and attitudes, after a longer or shorter
passage of time.
: source: “Trogan Horse in the City of GOD: The Catholic Crisis Explained,” 1993 Printing by Dietrich von Hildebrand, authorized by his wife Alice von Hildebrand with a foreword by John Cardinal O’Connor.

Dietrich & Alice von Hildebrand, even way before the Democratic Social Workers Party joined with other parties showing the monstrous atrocities, and many saw successes such as
jobs, building roads & other things - stood up to the rising regime.
They, by the Divine Favor of GOD saw through the collectivist
community organizing social construction seducing the public all along.
At this time in history, we have a seduced public with powerful oligarchical factions having over the 20th century into the 21st century
in education (using the authority of professors to be thought police, i.e. before a speaker comes with eternal truth announcing that they have counseling in a place of exchange of ideas for the emotional psychological damage possible by exposure to such a person; and other biased techniques being so convinced of human logic ‘being right,’ over Eternal truth), media, and political factions. They are excellent at propaganda that they care about the poor and marginalized with their opponents being heartless.
GOD only knows the end result of the demographics of so many youth and impressionable being seduced, even in the Church, where so many are blinded that unbridled collectivism helps the poor. Bishop Sheen foresaw before 1950 that a so-called new humanitarianism would sweep much of The Church as a counter-Church with way less focus on letting Divine Favor (Grace) help individuals & families grow in virtue. Which makes no sense since these make up the venues of society. Peace.

 

[HarryStotle]

If I can maybe uncharitably add a little barb here, it’s interesting to see a lot of the pro-life/pro-birth crowd balk when they’re asked to put their money where their mouths are.

How about we have those who support abortion be taxed to pay for women who have them, while pro-life people be exempted from paying those kinds of “user” fees?

I would suppose the pro-abortion side would also discover an increased amount of balking going on.

What you appear to be missing is that an underlying principle of many conservatives is the idea of personal responsibility. We ought to be accountable for our own actions.

What you are advocating is that someone else (those who work and pay taxes) ought to fund others (either to abort or to provide for the child) who choose to become pregnant when they are unable or unwilling to raise the child.

What you are doing is incentivizing irresponsible behaviour by putting the burden of funding it on those who are NOT making the choice to become pregnant (or risk doing so). So pro-life people will end up paying for it either by being taxed to fund abortions or through higher taxes to fund a system that incentivizes women engaging in risky sexual behaviour when they cannot afford the price and will not be held responsible.

A nice tidy lose-lose — along with bearing the characterization of “uncharitable” — for those on the pro-life side.

You have it all figured out.

 

[HarryStotle]

For unwanted pregnancy, that force is “abortion”. For a home invasion, you can use your shotgun. For someone being pushy at a bar, you can simply leave.

A home invasion presumes the “invader” entered your home “by force” or some other invasive manner, An unwanted pregnancy is more akin to leaving the door open in a neighborhood where the probability of some innocent child wandering in off the street is very high, or at least predictable.

So you wouldn’t advocate using “your shotgun” on every innocent being that came into your house after you left the door open, are you? Hmmm. Sounds like you are.

As to rape, your “home invasion” analogy isn’t exactly apt because the rapist isn’t the “home invader” precisely. A more fitting analogy would be some adult stranger pushing an innocent child into your house. So you would advocate using “your shotgun” on the child who got involuntarily “pushed in” rather than on the rapist who did the pushing?

Sounds like an incredibly twisted view of justice you have there.

 

[Servant31]

Not really. This is a life your responsible for bringing into existence. The argument that it could cause “bodily harm” is one of potential. But your the one in control of that potential. We know how children are created. Two parties have sex, and open up the possibility for life.

You go to a gun range and another shooter fires a round which ricochets and returns back and strikes you. That’s an unfortunate and unlikely event. However you don’t get to shoot the other person first to remove the potential. That’s the risk you take going to a gun range in the first place. If you don’t want that risk, then don’t go to the gun range. And if that other person that fired is your child, and your responsible for bringing them in the first place, then you still don’t get to shoot them first.

 

[jochoa]

Hello Hume,

I would appreciate reading some of your rebuttals to my thoughts.

No, because you can do a number of things much less severe than killing him to remove him from your property.

-But make no mistake - if you don’t want him there, he’s gotta go!

Same with a woman. If there was a way to remove the fetus from her body without killing it, I’d probably support outlawing abortion. But until then… Your house is your house. Her body is her body.

I agree that there should be laws encouraging homeowners to remove unwelcomed visitors with patience and kindness, and laws discouraging the impatient and unkind act of killing them, even though the patient and kind manner may cause some unjust pain and suffering on the homeowner. Therefore, I agree that there should be laws encouraging an unloving mother to remove her unwelcomed children with patience and kindness, and laws discouraging the act of killing the children, even though the patient and kind manner may cause some unjust pain and suffering on the mother.

Furthermore, there are two ways of emptying a child from a womb without killing the child. The first is natural childbirth, and the latter is surgically.
Knowing that, will you support laws discouraging abortion?

Thanks for your time and consideration, and thanks be to God! I look forward to where discussion takes us!

 

[Stephen168]

The “river” keeps women in poverty, causes them a near-certain amount of lasting bodily harm and still kills them everyday all over the world. They still die on that river here in the well-lit and well-stocked United States of America.

You have correctly identified the river as the nine month period in which a woman cares for her unborn child. The river does not keep women in poverty. While a woman can die on the river, she can also die trying to get out of it (abortion.) And her passenger will die every time she gets out.

It’s a perilous river and if no one wants to take any unnecessary passengers upon their raft on that dangerous trip, their right to “life, liberty and happiness” (per you) demands that they have that right of refusal.

Now you have changed the river to mean something else which makes no sense. If you are on the river, you have a passenger. You have the right to refuse to get in the raft. Stay out of the raft, no passenger will join you, and you won’t be on a river that you don’t want to be on.

 

[Pattylt]

I understand that it’s extremely uncomfortable to be very pro life and yet pay taxes that pay for abortion benefits. May I also be uncomfortable with my taxes being higher to compensate for the tax free status of religion?

I’m not stating that I actually want to eliminate the tax free status of religion but it is true that if religion were taxed, the burden on everyone’s taxes would be less.

How about those that object to monies paid to our military due to being anti war or conflict?

Everyone pays some portion of their taxes that benefit something they object to…often on religious grounds or personal worldview. I don’t want to pay for abortions. I also don’t want to pay for religions to have tax free status. Just something to think about.

 

[HarryStotle]

Religious arguments, imo, are useful if the other person is already making the claim that Christianity does not oppose abortion. If we’re talking about a general discussion, it seems more fitting to keep it secular.

Let me start by providing a “religious argument” against abortion that, in a manner of speaking, puts it all on the line.

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. 34 Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ (Matt 25:31-36)

If Christianity is true and the Son of Man will indeed come to judge all mankind at the end of time, the criteria by which we will be judged is laid out very specifically in the above verse and sharply addresses the question of abortion.

Let’s break down those who did right and those who did not.

1. I was hungry and you gave me food
2. I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink
3. I was a stranger and you welcomed me
4. I was naked and you gave me clothing
5. I was sick and you took care of me
6. I was in prison and you visited me.

Jesus, in his teachings, was both cryptic and pointedly clear. There are individuals in the realm of our existence who might fit one or more of those criteria for judgement, but I can only think of one case where someone fits ALL SIX of the criteria for being in need — the fetus in the womb.

Think about it.

The fetus is…

1. Hungry and completely reliant on someone else for food.
2. Thirsty and completely reliant on someone else for hydration.
3. A complete stranger entering the world who is unknown and ‘strange’ to everyone currently living.
4. Completely naked both physically and metaphorically (i.e., completely vulnerable to the elements).
5. “Sick” in the sense that they are incubated, being fed and hydrated intravenously. Without this life support they would die in short order.
6. They are “imprisoned” in a tiny cell, under solitary confinement, enduring a nine month sentence.

Seems to me that Jesus, by himself (God and King) becoming a vulnerable human being in the womb took on all six of those modes of existence for a purpose — I was hungry, I was thirsty, I was a stranger, I was naked, I was sick, I was in prison — in order to exemplify the most vulnerable state of human existence that we all ought to be most empathetic to.

When we lose that sense of identifying with the most vulnerable, we lose something of our humanity.

Continued…

 

[HarryStotle]

Now it isn’t so much what we, as individuals might happen to think about religion or religious beliefs, but what the reality or truth of the matter really is.

If atheism happens to be true, then really what we do on earth is inconsequential in the bigger scheme of things. Hitler murdered and tortured but he died and that is it — nothing else will come of it. Justice is something of a chimera.

If theism (specifically Christianity) is true then our behaviours on earth are consequential, and as the above teaching of Jesus indicates, everything we do or don’t do will matter enormously.

So, it isn’t a question of what we think — because the reality is not determined by what we happen to believe — it is a question of what is true.

Certainly, that is a gamble, of sorts.

However, it seems to me that a moral person would not rely on the gamble, but on being a good moral agent regardless of what comes about at the end.