Arguing About Abortion

[Hume]

Hume:

no longer dependent on her body

So now bodily autonomy can be exercised against threats:
(1) external to her body
(2) other than her body
(3) external and not physically separate from her body
(4) dependent on her body

four different criteria for the same thing.

I’ll make it even easier for you,

Bodily autonomy can be invoked to remove any bodily threat.

 

[Aquinas11]

any bodily threat.

So now bodily autonomy can be exercised against threats:
(1) external to her body
(2) other than her body
(3) external and not physically separate from her body
(4) dependent on her body
(5) any bodily threat

five different criteria for the same thing.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

bodily autonomy and the fitness of the mother are as close to objective as we can get.

That’s a fiat.

It’s rational. If you rationally disagree in good faith, by all means share your alternative!

It’s just super tough when your starting point is the advocacy of enslavement. Tough sledding.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

It’s rational. If you rationally disagree in good faith, by all means share your alternative!

It’s not rational, it is an arbitrary preference. The alternative would be not letting a mother having an abortion so the fetus can live and supporting them.

It’s just super tough when your starting point is the advocacy of enslavement. Tough sledding.

The government makes rules like that all the time.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

any bodily threat.

So now bodily autonomy can be exercised against threats:
(1) external to her body
(2) other than her body
(3) external and not physically separate from her body
(4) dependent on her body
(5) any bodily threat

five different criteria for the same thing.

A lot of redundancy here, but yeah. Leaving out a fetus (as to emotionally unload the exercise)…

If there’s a bodily threat to you that’s external, you can call the cops (that pretty well covers 1 and 2).
If there’s a bodily threat to you that’s external but attached, you can have it removed. Call a doctor, I suppose. (so there’s 3).
If there’s a threat that’s dependent on your body, you don’t have to offer it up as sacrifice (pretty well segues to abortion here…, so 4)
And as a matter of personal and property law, you have the right of remedy from any bodily threat (so 5, which pretty much sums all of them up anyway).

So. Yeah. I’ll hesitantly agree - given that I think you’re trying to make it seem a lot more confounding than it is simply because you don’t like it.

 

[Hume]

It’s not rational, it is an arbitrary preference. The alternative would be not letting a mother having an abortion so the fetus can live and supporting them.

Or maybe kill and/or impoverish them.

The government makes rules like that all the time.

That advocate bodily enslavement?

We actually have a big rule against that. Changed the Constitution for it.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

That advocate bodily enslavement?

We actually have a big rule against that. Changed the Constitution for it.

During the quarantine there are rules that clearly interfere with bodily autonomy.

VanitasVanitatum:

It’s not rational, it is an arbitrary preference. The alternative would be not letting a mother having an abortion so the fetus can live and supporting them.

Or maybe kill and/or impoverish them.

Then finding ways to not have that happen is the solution and not abortion.

 

[Hume]

During the quarantine there are rules that clearly interfere with bodily autonomy.

Not in America. We have rules that interfere with your mobility… somewhat.

I can still go to McDonalds. I just can’t go in.

Then finding ways to not have that happen is the solution and not abortion.

As it’s the pregnancy itself that can cause many of these problems then you have to find a way to make babies without pregnancy if you want to get rid of abortion.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Everyone’s value system is dependent upon their metaphysic, so in effect, by creating a hierarchy of values you are raising up in effigy something to the highest order in value — that is your “preferred god” whether or not you acknowledge it as such.

My preferred god is logos. It’s a very common and increasingly common god - slowly beating out all the others.

If you want to constrain the liberty of a woman over her body, appeals to the god of logos would be the best way to go about it.

Keep pursuing the logos as your “preferred god,” you might be surprised where it takes you.

However, don’t confuse your current understanding of “logos” with the complete truth of logos — the logos as it is in itself, rather than our mere conceptions of logos.

So you would agree that that will ought to be logos (or truth) driven, rather than logos (or truth) be will driven? Truth supersedes will rather than will superseding truth?

So the starting point is the truth and not “libertas,” correct?

 

[HarryStotle]

As it’s the pregnancy itself that can cause many of these problems then you have to find a way to make babies without pregnancy if you want to get rid of abortion.

No concerns about the impact on the babies with regard to the ways of “making them” without pregnancy.

Assuming they are mere “products” or “commodities” for production rather than living human beings? I see.

Kind of sums up your basic view of human existence and human love, it seems.

 

[Hume]

However, don’t confuse your current understanding of “logos” with the complete truth of logos — the logos as it is in itself, rather than our mere conceptions of logos.

Sure, and I’ll try not to confuse it with “special pleading”, either.

So you would agree that that will ought to be logos (or truth) driven, rather than logos (or truth) be will driven? Truth supersedes will rather than will superseding truth?

That’s a toughie, since moral truth seems to be relative.

So the starting point is the truth and not “libertas,” correct?

No, you’ve the freedom to accept what you think is true.

No concerns about the impact on the babies with regard to the ways of “making them” without pregnancy.

Not true. I’ve stated over and over that I want abortion to be as rare as possible - without forcing the hand of the woman.

Assuming they are mere “products” or “commodities” for production rather than living human beings? I see.

Kind of sums up your basic view of human existence and human love, it seems.

This is just grandstanding.

Got to be more careful about my language than you guys. The mods have been on me. I’m not allowed to be quite as barbed as you or the post gets deleted.

 

[Stephen168]

Teleology is the philosophical interpretation of natural phenomena as exhibiting purpose or design.

Teleologically, sexual activity has as its end the creation of a being - whether that being is a salmon, a kitten, or a human being.

I don’t know if you’ve been following along but I believe this is one of the salient points of the pro-life position. The one unique purpose (telos) of intercourse is reproduction as a biological fact.

I made our case.

The fact that the parties may not want a child, not expect a child, not think about creating a child as they begin their sexual activities has absolutely nothing to do with the teleological end of that act - the pregnant possibility that a child will be created - pun intended.

Exactly, as I’ve said, if you are not in a position in life to reproduce, don’t engage in a reproductive act.

 

[Abrosz]

Just another quick observation. If you “anti-abortionists” would like to be taken seriously, you should advocate all the sexual methods, which do not and cannot lead to pregnancy. Maybe you do not realize that sex is infinitely more varied than “bam, bam, thank you ma’am”. One of the very important part of sexual activities is LOVE and bonding. Not to mention spontaneity and achieving pleasure.

As long as all you can say: “if you do not want to procreate, practice abstinence”, you will NOT be taken seriously - with all “due” respect.

 

[Hume]

Quite right.

All primates have sex for fun, stress relief, pleasure; other psycho-social reasons.

I doubt reproduction even crosses their minds.

 

[Stephen168]

Just another quick observation. If you “anti-abortionists” would like to be taken seriously, you should advocate all the sexual methods, which do not and cannot lead to pregnancy.

Do you mean sodomy? Sodomy is generally anal or oral sex between people or sexual activity between a person and an animal, but it may also mean any non-procreative sexual activity.

Maybe you do not realize that sex is infinitely more varied than “bam, bam, thank you ma’am”. One of the very important part of sexual activities is LOVE and bonding. Not to mention spontaneity and achieving pleasure.

Yes, it can be, and should be about love and bonding, but not required. Prostitution is sex without love or bonding. We display love and bonding with our mates in many ways without intercourse. We can have pleasure and be spontaneous without intercourse. This is the way of humans as rational animals. The intent of having sex does not change that one unique biological purpose.

As long as all you can say: “if you do not want to procreate, practice abstinence”, you will NOT be taken seriously - with all “due” respect.

Pro-abortionist who reject sex as a procreative act, as a biological fact, can’t be taken seriously.

 

[Hume]

Stephen168:

Pro-abortionist who reject sex as a procreative act, as a biological fact, can’t be taken seriously.

First, it’s “pro-choice”. Not “pro-abortion”.

Second, if sex was teleologically “designed” for reproduction, I wonder why a woman is fertile for only a mere few days out of her monthly cycle

The rest of the time, it’s just practice for reproduction, right?

 

[otjm]

Exactly, as I’ve said, if you are not in a position in life to reproduce, don’t engage in a reproductive act.

Certainly I would not say that all babies are the result of a hedonistic view of life and what many demand as their “rights”. And the sexual drive is, if anything, strong in most people. It is not easy to forego intercourse; and societal attitudes do little to nothing to support continence. But for the most part, abortion is liberty run amok with no sense of responsibility for one’s choices.

 

[otjm]

Just another quick observation. If you “anti-abortionists” would like to be taken seriously, you should advocate all the sexual methods, which do not and cannot lead to pregnancy. Maybe you do not realize that sex is infinitely more varied than “bam, bam, thank you ma’am”. One of the very important part of sexual activities is LOVE and bonding. Not to mention spontaneity and achieving pleasure.

As long as all you can say: “if you do not want to procreate, practice abstinence”, you will NOT be taken seriously - with all “due” respect.

There is an attitude which says that hedonism is the great, if not the greatest, virtue. That is an appalling attitude as to what virtue consist of.

As this is a Catholic forum, one would be inclined to think that the majority of people believe in an afterlife, and that we are judged by our moral life - or lack thereof.

I would agree there are a very large number of people who would not take abstinence as a possible lifestyle/choice in relation to sexual activity. However, what is interesting is that polls have shown that there are increasing numbers of young people who are turning pro-life. So perhaps there is hope that sexual activity will be viewed more and more within its teleological aspects and consequences.

And yes, I am aware of love and bonding. In fact, the hormone oxytocin is one of the wonders of our creation, as its release during sexual intercourse is part of that bonding. To those who say that without sexual relations one cannot bond, I would suggest they have an extremely poor concept of what bonding is about.

And NFP when practiced correctly allows sexual activity between husband and wife with only a partial abstinence; it also calls for self control, and for putting the good of the other over the desire of the individual. Funny how well that fits into a solid marriage.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

So the starting point is the truth and not “libertas,” correct?

No, you’ve the freedom to accept what you think is true.

Well, that is an odd claim.

If you have the freedom to accept what you think is true above what is actually true, then the truth doesn’t matter. You have set yourself up as the judge over the truth so the truth value doesn’t depend upon anything except your determination. Effectively, that means truth is what you choose it to be.

Seems to me that what is true is not determined by whether or not we think or choose it, but on whether it is true.

The truth cannot be dependent upon our assent to it but our assent depends on whether it is true.

Another Euthyphro Dilemma: Is it true because we assent to it or do we assent because it is true.

I have had a number of posts deleted, so I wouldn’t take it personally.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

As it’s the pregnancy itself that can cause many of these problems then you have to find a way to make babies without pregnancy if you want to get rid of abortion.

Poverty isn’t stopped by abortion and giving financial aid and helping them learn how to be self sufficient makes more sense. Death is very improbable and can be detected so that would only apply in those select cases.

Not in America. We have rules that interfere with your mobility … somewhat.

I can still go to McDonalds. I just can’t go in .

Then they can just not have an abortion while their other rights are not affected.