Arguing About Abortion

[Hume]

Yes, the physiological purpose of sex is one thing; reproduction.

No, physiology doesn’t deal in teleological purpose. It only deals in how your anatomy works.

Because of this category error, your objection doesn’t make sense.

Yes, climax is part of that one unique physiological purpose for intercourse, but you don’t need to have intercourse to have a climax. Scientific fact.

No, you don’t. But it’s like a case of beer - much better when shared.

Birth control or again the intent does not change its physiological purpose.

Again, no such thing.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

You only constrain individual liberty with a good argument. You’ve not made one. At least, you’ve not made one that’s convincing to people who weren’t already in your ideological bent.

I don’t need a reason because respecting others liberty comes from an axiom I can reject and not the default.

By virtue of liberty, you can choose to reject the liberty of others, yes.

This is exactly what you’re trying to do to women.

Tyranny is “ok” as long as it’s righteous tyranny, amirite, boys?
No way.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

This is exactly what you’re trying to do to women.

Tyranny is “ok” as long as it’s righteous tyranny, amirite, boys?
No way.

You have to prove its tyranny otherwise the morality is uncertain.

 

[Stephen168]

No, physiology doesn’t deal in teleological purpose. It only deals in how your anatomy works.

Because of this category error, your objection doesn’t make sense.

“That’s just your philosophy, man” is you avoiding a biology question. You can’t come up with one other physiological purpose for intercourse. Earlier you claimed there were multiple purposes, but you can’t list one.

That’s why you avoided the question when I clearly asked it as a biology question:

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.

 

[Stephen168]

Justin and I get in Jim’s raft. Suddenly, we are unmoored and moving down the river. Quickly, we find ourselves in a very fast moving river and are scared to death.

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.

The river you mention can be dangerous. I know it’s nice and peaceful in the way you framed your analogy, but since pregnancy is dangerous, my presentation of the river is much more aligned to what pregnancy holds for women.

I don’t think you read my post for understanding. My presentation of the river is the same as yours. So try again. How did the analogy breakdown?

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

" Because of the multiplication of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold. But the one who perseveres to the end will be saved.
And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." - Matthew 24:12-14
As history repeats with humankind leaning upon their own understanding
being wise in their own eyes, so does many prophesies.
One day this atrocity will end, no matter the ‘facts are from social trends & mores relativism’ social construction-ism (a form of ‘we have no king but Caesar’) using faulty human logic emotionalism with honey speech and playing at heart strings moral relativistic culture of death new world order system so pervasive world wide. Over 70 years ago, and later knowing the infiltration of The Church would fool many, Bishop Fulton J. Sheen foresaw a so-called ‘new’ humanitarian counter-Church so vast not many would see it happening or know it happened. The remnant Church would remain trusting in JESUS The Beloved Anointed One, focusing on a return to fostering and encouraging Divine Favor leading diligence in individual & family virtue that makes up the venues of society. Only GOD impartially knows the ‘duped’ as opposed to those giving themselves over to human understanding wise in their own eyes.
He foresaw a war, but also a rhetorical war. However, he did foresee complacency and humankind’s justification of massive bloodshed.
Lord have mercy! Please inform consciences of the callous ethics regarding the weak and need of protection - the least among us, that You identified Yourself with. Amen.
*note: today uses more palatable terms for the meaning of terms in what Bishop Fulton J. Sheen said.

Did Fulton Sheen Prophesy About These Times?| National Catholic Register

 

[Aquinas11]

she still gets to remove it.

So “external” to the body actually means internal to the body

Completely incoherent

Plus, per your definition the mother is an external threat to baby’s body thus mother killing baby violates bodily autonomy of baby without a threat to mother bodily autonomy (no external threat since baby is internal to mothers body).

This is all based on your definition of bodily autonomy

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Could you provide some actual evidence for your claim that “Millions of dollars of profits by these organizations are tax free”?

Petition · Remove Tax-Exempt Status for Religious Institutions, Separate Church and State in Government · Change.org
Start here to hear what the claims are (feel free to disagree)

Opinion: Churches' tax exempt status abused, manipulated for political gain
Article explaining abuses.

Whistleblower Says Mormon Church Abuses Its Tax Exempt Status : NPR
Another one regarding the Mormon church

Tax Exemption of Churches - Freedom From Religion Foundation
FFRF case explains all the rulings and arguments

Please note. Not all churches do these thing but many of the Mega churches and others do!

Note that the Change.org petition had 44 supporters before being closed.

That said, if the claims of abuse are occurring then the answer isn’t to revoke tax exempt status for all churches but to tighten the rules and prosecute those individuals and churches that abuse the tax code.

Furthermore, the claim that “… religious institutions are being granted special treatment by our government that all other citizens, businesses, and organizations are not” is untrue. There is similar kinds of tax system abuse occurring in businesses and NGOs and among private citizens.

The solution isn’t to target churches alone by revoking tax exempt status, it is to prosecute abusers and tighten tax laws so the kind of abuse described in the articles does not continue.

 

[HarryStotle]

VanitasVanitatum:

Hume:

You only constrain individual liberty with a good argument. You’ve not made one. At least, you’ve not made one that’s convincing to people who weren’t already in your ideological bent.

I don’t need a reason because respecting others liberty comes from an axiom I can reject and not the default.

By virtue of liberty, you can choose to reject the liberty of others, yes.

This is exactly what you’re trying to do to women.

Tyranny is “ok” as long as it’s righteous tyranny, amirite, boys?
No way.

Well, no, actually. You rely on “liberty” as the benchmark for tyranny, but fail to provide any moral grounds for distinguishing between liberty that is permissible and liberty that is an abuse.

The liberty you freely endow to women to kill an unborn human wouldn’t be permitted in any other context, yet for some reason (you leave unspecified) women can terminate the lives of innocent human beings for no reason other than they choose to.

Where in any other realm of human endeavour can one human being simply terminate the life of another for no reason than they choose to?

Certainly, a woman carrying a child inside her body is a unique case in all of the moral landscape, but to merely presume that the uniqueness of the case permits women free rein in terms of expressing their liberty requires a moral case to be made — not a mere assertion that the presumptive liberty of a woman justifies it. That would be you taking sides without proper recognition of the rights of the child.

Your rhetoric regarding “tyranny” merely muddles the point since you haven’t made a clear case for liberty in this instance but merely attempt to misrepresent the issue of conflicting liberties by painting one side as tyrannical. An average of a million innocent victims each year makes a clear statement concerning which side is engaging tyrannical force.

 

[HarryStotle]

Virtually never. Because they’re not “people” in the same way you and I are.

Actually they are “people” in precisely the same way that you and I are because you and I were both in exactly their position a number of years or centuries ago.

What you are doing here is taking a current slice of time as the determiner of who has standing as a “person.”

That misses the reality that being a person is a process that endures through time.

You were identifiable as a unique individual in your mother’s womb. To have killed you then would have been to have ended your existence now.

Your “slice of time” view misrepresents the reality of what it means to be a human being as an integrated developing entity abiding through time. And the only reason you invoke your view is to deny one human being the right to life when most certainly that same human being would be just as human as you think you are a few months or years from this moment that you, with your self-endowed moral right to determine who lives and who dies, choose to kill him/her.

Reality is not determined by your conceptualization of it. Your conceptualization ought to be more firmly grounded on reality.

 

[AlNg]

Your conceptualization ought to be more firmly grounded on reality.

I am definitely opposed to abortion but there is an argument that some have made that there should be exceptions. This is grounded in reality and in real life situations that have actually occurred. It would be very, very few cases. Let me explain. In times of war, rape has been used against women, even against nuns. For example, Serbian soldiers were accused of raping Muslim women. And before that in WWII, after the allies had won against Nazi Germany there were many reports of American and other allied soldiers beating and raping young German girls. Now is it right to require this young German girl who has been beaten up and raped by an American soldier to carry his child for 9 months? Or, as the argument goes, is it possible to see the child as an unjust aggressor against a young innocent German girl who after all has her own life to think about and had nothing to do with any decisions made by the Nazis. It was a dictatorship.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

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?

If they refuse to leave, call the cops. They’ll escort them out. If they refuse after that, yes, someone’s going to use force.

Right, a helpless, vulnerable, tiny creature on "life support’ is “REFUSING” to leave.

Perhaps the “cops” should send in a trained negotiator to agree to the terms of departure.

Seems your analogy has lost something in translation.

 

[HarryStotle]

… is it possible to see the child as an unjust aggressor against a young innocent German girl who after all has her own life to think about and had nothing to do with any decisions made by the Nazis. It was a dictatorship.

It is “possible” to view the child as the “unjust aggressor,” but is that a morally defensible view of the child?

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

https://www.savethe1.com/

 

[AlNg]

It is “possible” to view the child as the “unjust aggressor,” but is that a morally defensible view of the child?

What about the life of the young girl who has been beaten, raped, traumatized and psychologically damaged by an invading soldier who has placed a gun to her head? These are things that are grounded in reality since they have happened in the aftermath of WWII. Does the girl have any rights?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

It is “possible” to view the child as the “unjust aggressor,” but is that a morally defensible view of the child?

What about the life of the young girl who has been beaten, raped, traumatized and psychologically damaged by an invading soldier who has placed a gun to her head? These are things that are grounded in reality since they have happened in the aftermath of WWII. Does the girl have any rights?

The underlying assumption is that aborting the child will “make things better” for the girl, but will they? Doesn’t it merely add one more death (of another innocent being, at that) into the situation. Why would that make it better for the girl, necessarily? Wouldn’t bringing a new life into the world add something positive rather than make things worse, unless there is a presumption that the new innocent life is somehow to blame for the evil? Doesn’t that just reinforce the animus rather than seek redemption from the evil by moving beyond it?

 

[jochoa]

Hi Jochoa,

The idea here is that a woman may not want to risk the perils of pregnancy that she has to go through to get to the point where the child can be viably removed from her womb.

As it’s her body, I think she simply has the right to make that decision. There are no risk free pregnancies and the mast majority of women are permanently changed by it in a physical way.

If she’s not fine with that, we’ve no right to make her do it.

However, this principle returns to @spiritualsamurai’s point: If a mother may kill her child to avoid the risks associated with pregnancy, then it follows a homeowner may kill an unwanted guest to avoid the risks associated with an unwanted guest.

I am confident you could recognize the validity of being patient and kind with removing the unwanted persons, rather than killing them, as evidenced by your diversion to “thinking she simply has the right,” as opposed to “knowing.”

Therefore, I wonder if you have hidden a skeleton within you, and you are attempting to justify a poor decision of yours from the past.

Nonetheless, I appreciate your feedback.

Lastly, you are correct, there are no risk free pregnancies. Yet even worse, there is a guarantee that every abortion kills at least one person.

May you alter your position to advocate for the voice less sooner than later, while continuing to care for the distressed mothers.

 

[Rau]

What about the life of the young girl who has been beaten, raped, traumatized and psychologically damaged by an invading soldier who has placed a gun to her head? These are things that are grounded in reality since they have happened in the aftermath of WWII. Does the girl have any rights?

Of course. But that’s not in debate. In debate is what may she do to a baby.

 

[Pattylt]

The underlying assumption is that aborting the child will “make things better” for the girl, but will they? Doesn’t it merely add one more death (of another innocent being, at that) into the situation. Why would that make it better for the girl, necessarily? Wouldn’t bringing a new life into the world add something positive rather than make things worse, unless there is a presumption that the new innocent life is somehow to blame for the evil? Doesn’t that just reinforce the animus rather than seek redemption from the evil by moving beyond it?

Unfortunately, the reality is that it will help her in several ways. It’s true that she may accept and love the child but the odds are against it. The pregnancy will remind her every day of her ordeal and she will most likely hate the child beyond all reason. The emotional baggage that a woman deals with in a normal wanted pregnancy is hard enough. This type of pregnancy can often be beyond bearable.

We don’t want it to be that way but the reality is…it can be pure torture for her.

 

[AlNg]

Yes, I can see your point. Your questions are good ones, and there is always hope that the girl will be able to accept the child of her rapist but…

the new innocent life

Some are going to argue that the new life in the womb of the girl is not all that innocent since it is causing her to have traumatic flashbacks of the time she was beaten and threatened to be killed. And this horror will go on for nine months. It is no fault of the child of course, but all the same as the innocent victim herself, she might have a difficult time to accept this child of the man who raped and traumatized her.
Do you think that such a case is essentially different from situations that arise from casual sex between two consenting people?
BTW, Catholics are just as likely to have abortions as others. Statistics show that in the USA 24% of all abortions are procured by Catholics. No doubt the vast majority of these abortions are done because two consenting adults don’t want to be inconvenienced by having to raise a child.

Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients in 2014 and Changes Since 2008 | Guttmacher Institute

Catholics are just as likely to get an abortion as other U.S. women. Why? | America Magazine