Arguing About Abortion

[Stephen168]

When you said We “should advocate all the sexual methods, which do not and cannot lead to pregnancy,” you defined sodomy, so I assumed that is what you were talking about. I don’t care about connotation; you defined sodomy. I’m reject sodomy.

The purpose of X is Y

If X fails to function then the purpose is still Y not Z.

The biological purpose of our eyes is to see.

The biological purpose of a blind person’s eyes is to see. The biological purpose of eyes do not change to something else because someone loses their eye sight. And that is by God’s design.

The biological purpose of intercourse is procreation, sterile or not.

You still confuse sex with intercourse.

Sex is physical activity between people that involves the sexual organs. Sex includes intercourse and sodomy. You could confuse sodomy (non-procreative act) for intercourse (procreative act), but you can’t confuse sex (involves sexual organs) with intercourse (involves sexual organ).

 

[Servant31]

I n the car example getting into an accident isn’t one of the fundamental uses of a car. I think a more apt example might be if you choose to drive the car in a certain way. Let’s say speeding. It’s your choice to follow the speed limit or not. If you choose to not you can’t blame the police officer or pulling you over.

It takes two people to have sex. Saying it’s the mans fault because he is fertile 30 days a month, while the woman is fertile 3 days a month…that’s an abdication. Both parties assume the risk of the activity engaged it. We’re still responsible for the result, even if the probability is 7-10%. It takes two parts and the combined probability is the result.

I cant fire a gun in a direction there is only a 7% probability of hitting someone, then when I do, say I didn’t intend to hit someone. The result of a bulletin flying through the air has a consequence. That isn’t responsible behavior. That’s where the term negligence has developed meaning.

 

[Hume]

Read the founding fathers. None claim freedom on its own “is grand.” They speak of ordered liberty founded on individual virtue.

The founding fathers were just a collection of middle aged, reasonably well-educated 18th century elites that chaffed at being under the thumb of other elites.

I would be hesitant to deify anything they’ve produced.

They were but men, as are we.

 

[Hume]

MamaJewel:

Consent to sex is consent to sex. It is not consent to pregnancy,

One consents to the possibility of pregnancy.

First, no they don’t. It would be difficult to convince me that when a bonobo “does it” with another bonobo that both parties are cognizant of the probability to procreation.

They just know it feels good and they have an urge to do it.

Second, the woman involved has not explicitly offered any consent and consideration of pregnancy.

---

In tort law it is incumbent on the person claiming contract violation to provide proof of the contract itself.

As such, please provide proofs of these contracts!

Literally everyone before you has failed in this endeavor and you, almost certainly, will too. But I’m open to being surprised.

Where’s the contract so that impartial, uninvolved arbiters can review it?

 

[Hume]

NFP is not a good method to prevent pregnancy.

The data that shows NFP as being nearly as effective as hormonal birth control is EXTREMELY CHERRY-PICKED.

In the best studies for NFP, the women are all young with regular, clock-work cycles. Not all women are young, not all women have clock-work cycles.

In the best studies with NFP, failures are often reported as “withdrawals” rather than failures. These good Catholic girls knew they were participating in a study they knew Mother Church wanted to succeed. So instead of sullying the study with their pregnancy, they reported that they meant to get pregnant, so the study didn’t take a hit.

In secular literature, NFP trials undergone by folks who don’t have a religious reason to engage in puffery show that NFP is about as effective as sloppy birth control usage.

Bit I’ll agree that when it’s a Catholic study with Catholic girls, NFP looks very, very effective. That’s because bias is real, particularly when religion is involved.

I’m not understanding why you think a child’s life in the womb is “cancellable”.

It poses a potential threat to the mother, so as a matter of law it’s cancellable.

It poses a threat to her long term survival, so as a matter of nature it’s cancellable.

If she undergoes extreme shortage of nutrition, mammals are capable of self-terminating their pregnancies.

---

Moms gotta survive. She’s priority #1.

The contents of her womb are inherently labeled “OPTIONAL”. Mom comes first.

Therefore don’t have children. And since we know what causes children don’t engage in causal behaviors…

An answer that ignores biological drives that are much, much, much older than religion is an answer that simply can’t be taken seriously.

 

[Servant31]

First, no they don’t. It would be difficult to convince me that when a bonobo “does it” with another bonobo that both parties are cognizant of the probability to procreation.

Bonobo in you example isn’t a being with a conscience as capable of understanding to the extent that we are. If a human genuinely doesn’t know where a child comes from the perhaps God will judge that person differently. But most humans can’t claim they didn’t know what the potential consequence was.

 

[Servant31]

“As such, please provide proofs of these contracts!

Literally everyone before you has failed in this endeavor and you, almost certainly, will too. But I’m open to being surprised.

Where’s the contract so that impartial, uninvolved arbiters can review it?”
Sorry quote isn’t going…

Friend… children are not tort law. They are not property. They are human beings with dignity.

 

[Servant31]

Moms gotta survive. She’s priority #1.

The contents of her womb are inherently labeled “OPTIONAL”. Mom comes first.

Sorry for multiple replies blockquote isn’t going on the iPad today.

You decided this to be true. Who says a baby is optional? I can’t merely decide another person is optional. And certainly not subject to my ability to destroy. This is why pregnancy is a special case. If mom drinks alcohol or does drugs while pregnant that is still a liability. But total destruction isn’t?

This us often the crux of the abortion argument. By assigning a value of optional to a baby you then allow yourself to place judgements upon your ability to to determine the baby’s right to life. As Catholics we believe that this is a God given dignity, not a human assigned dignity. This fundamental error leads to licentiousness of morality which is self assigned. Not with respect or regard to the dignity of the other. Your claiming the autonomy of the mother cannot be violated, yet your violating that for the child. One persons rights can’t infringe on the rights of another. That’s not how rights work.
Further though, the right to life is higher order than the right to autonomy.

If I force someone to enter into my home when I know they have coronavirus, I can’t then shoot them and claim I was protecting myself because “my life comes first”.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

First, no they don’t. It would be difficult to convince me that when a bonobo “does it” with another bonobo that both parties are cognizant of the probability to procreation.

Bonobo in you example isn’t a being with a conscience as capable of understanding to the extent that we are. If a human genuinely doesn’t know where a child comes from the perhaps God will judge that person differently. But most humans can’t claim they didn’t know what the potential consequence was.

I don’t think there’s a god, ergo theistic arguments are not relevant to me.

Now, they are to you, and that’s great! So live by your religious code and give me the room to do the same.

Friend… children are not tort law. They are not property. They are human beings with dignity.

As are women. They are human beings with dignity and must not be enslaved for any reason.

They deserve choice over their bodies. Let’s just do what we can to make “life” the more attractive option.

Sorry for multiple replies blockquote isn’t going on the iPad today.

Yeah, this can be hard to do on tablets. For easy replies, I’ll use it. Otherwise off to the compy.

You decided this to be true. Who says a baby is optional?

Natural evolution itself. Then times get very tough, animals spontaneously abort. We have that ability too.

Additionally, when times are very tough and the young are already here, animals can and will abandon their young. They occasionally eat them as well.

Your argument is predicated in some form of human exceptionalism, which I don’t hold in a metaphysical way. We’re exceptional only in that we’re the most intelligent species on the planet.

Further though, the right to life is higher order than the right to autonomy.

This is a contradiction in that if you can violate autonomy you can violate life.

It’s her body we’re talking about. Her most sacred material possession.

If I force someone to enter into my home when I know they have coronavirus, I can’t then shoot them and claim I was protecting myself because “my life comes first”.

True. But the analogue breaks down because a woman doesn’t force pregnancy. I’ll tell you from personal experience trying for a year to have our first, pregnancy is very much a matter of chance.

Even if there are no fertility issues involved, a woman’s cycle only makes pregnancy an option for a small window of her monthly cycle.

I can’t quite recall the probability of pregnancy under perfectly natural circumstances. 1 in 6? 1 in 7? Something like that.

 

[Stephen168]

Hume:

It would be difficult to convince me that when a bonobo “does it” with another bonobo that both parties are cognizant of the probability to procreation.

Servant31:

Bonobo in your example isn’t a being with a conscience as capable of understanding to the extent that we are. If a human genuinely doesn’t know where a child comes from the perhaps God will judge that person differently. But most humans can’t claim they didn’t know what the potential consequence was.

Hume:

I don’t think there’s a god, ergo theistic arguments are not relevant to me.

An example of the ad hominem, “That’s just your religion, man” when confronted with a non-religious argument.

 

[HarryStotle]

No they aren’t. They don’t work, they don’t express ideas, they don’t have the cognitive capacity to do anything.

Again, no mystery here. Personhood is progressive. When you get to a certain age, you get certain rights. When you get older, you get more.

Sounds quite arbitrary, to say nothing of the fact that the rules are supposedly being made by those who have appointed themselves as the “arbiters” of the rules and powerful enough to impose them on the vulnerable. Sounds like might makes right.

Which is peculiar for someone who claims divine command theory is odious.

If “personhood is progressive,” as you say, then I suppose to be consistent you could not possibly take issue with an omnipotent and omniscient Person of Infinite Age declaring that “when you get to a certain age” [or certain level of personhood] you get certain rights and when you get to an infinitely older “age,” you get more.

Divine Command Theory is merely a projection of your “personhood is progressive” theory to “infinity and beyond.” No wonder you find it odious. It is in direct competition with your theory since the Divine Person, by definition and by the entailment of your own logic usurps the very ground you have for insisting on “personhood rights.”

A 3 Omni-God could just as easily say of YOU — as you do to the unborn child in the womb — “You don’t work, you don’t express ideas, you don’t have the cognitive capacity to do anything” [judged by infinite standards] — and thereby remove all standing as a “person” from you, just as you do to the unborn child.

Ain’t that special.

 

[HarryStotle]

I don’t think there’s a god, ergo theistic arguments are not relevant to me.

Now, they are to you, and that’s great! So live by your religious code and give me the room to do the same.

I’ve been thinking about your “preferred god" comment alongside your “personhood is progressive” thesis.

It seems to me that if personhood is “progressive” in the sense you imply then to “progress” in the realm of personhood implies that what such a person holds up as their highest value or “preferred god” is critical to the degree of progress towards personhood that any particular person will make.

A person that values — above their own personhood— ideas, objects or realities that are “sub-personal” will tend to become less of a person and degrade themselves in their “progress” towards personhood. I.e., they would become lesser persons BECAUSE they hold up as ideal sub-personal entities.

Which is higher in the order of being, concepts or persons? Concepts or ideas are not living, not aware, not potentially capable of progress, but are rather stagnant, fixed and unchanging as particulars or generalities.

So to have any idea as a “preferred god” would mean that a person who holds that idea as their highest value (aka "preferred god) could not possibly make progress in the terms of your “personhood is progressive.” A person who holds mere ideas — i.e., ideas such as liberty is glorious — would be stunted in the growth towards progress in personhood by the very static nature of the fixedness of the idea they hold as their “preferred god.”

Ergo, a theist who has as their “preferred god” a Person of Infinite Power, Infinite Knowledge and Infinite Goodness would be far more likely to make actual progress in terms of your “person is progressive” thesis.

 

[catholicray]

So if she doesn’t consent to pregnancy, she should have the right to evict the fetus.

Consent occurs before intercourse in our paradigm. Pregnancy is merely a consequence of intercourse. Just like prison is a consequence of murder. You have already given the consent to be imprisoned before you get to the consequence. Otherwise prisoners should be able to say they do not consent to their bodies being imprisoned.

This only deals with abortion as a contraceptive. So this applies to 95% of abortions.

 

[HarryStotle]

Rau:

MamaJewel:

Consent to sex is consent to sex. It is not consent to pregnancy,

One consents to the possibility of pregnancy.

First, no they don’t. It would be difficult to convince me that when a bonobo “does it” with another bonobo that both parties are cognizant of the probability to procreation.

They just know it feels good and they have an urge to do it.

Second, the woman involved has not explicitly offered any consent and consideration of pregnancy.

I see, so you are defending the choices of a supposedly “progressed person” by appealing to the behaviour of lesser “persons,” i.e., bonobos.

So how does the lack of cognition among bonobos justify the behaviour of higher order and supposedly “progressed” persons.

I kind of thought your “progressive personhood” was something of a rationalization for a particular moral exemption — i.e., the right to terminate the life of another person — rather than a bona fide thesis.

Why not just cut to the chase and claim bonobos and humans can kill each other because “they just know it feels good and they have an urge to do it” and be done with the pretence. That just doesn’t fit into your “progressive personhood” thesis, does it?

So why attempt to justify how “progressive persons” should act — i.e., such as human beings being aware of the possibility of pregnancy — with reference to what lesser “persons” — i.e., bonobos — might NOT cognize or might have the urge to do?

 

[Abrosz]

An example of the ad hominem, “That’s just your religion, man” when confronted with a non-religious argument.

Maybe it would be beneficial if you learned the REAL meaning of “ad hominems”. It is (in essence): “your arguments are invalid, because you are an idiot.” To say that your arguments are rejected because you cannot substantiate them is NOT an ad hominem.

You are most welcome to expound on the foundation of your arguments, by PROVING, that your god is real, and that he actually said what you think he said. With all “due” respect.

If “personhood is progressive,” as you say, then I suppose to be consistent you could not possibly take issue with an omnipotent and omniscient Person of Infinite Age declaring that “when you get to a certain age” [or certain level of personhood] you get certain rights and when you get to an infinitely older “age,” you get more.

As soon as this alleged “omnimax” someone personally comes to us and explains us the errors of our ways, we shall listen. But your word, and the words of other believers simply does not count. Sorry.

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

Blessings this Holy Saturday. This is a Judaeo-Christian Catholic
or Universal Church of Jesus The Beloved Savior, forum.
~
And, I’ve noticed that this a continuation of a discussion of the
GOD (Creator self-evident true right to life 1st, before liberty which should
never be used to take away the right to life, ref. Dec. of Independence) Given
Sacredness, Dignity, and Intrinsic Value of every human life.
~
The Creed of our Independence is a Promissory or Covenant,
not a mere contract. Besides all the attacks on conscience with
families suffering economic and extreme hardships in court battles;
against forced informing access to death camps for helpless children;
or must use their art or other things to support justifying the ailment
of same-sex attraction;
~
much of the educational system, media,
and political factions formed such a bias of honey speech
emotional false justifications, playing at heartstrings propaganda;
luring youth and impressionable against Eternal Truth.
~
I’ve read some things regarding “social obstructionism” which
uses things like; social trends are the only relevant facts.
Not many realize the extreme danger in that. This alongside
radical secular humanist moral relativism - is how things
gradually changed from the 1950s, when adoption was by far
the main acceptable thing to do when someone thought
they couldn’t raise a child - and murdering a child, especially
by government sanction was practically unthinkable.
~
Joe Biden an intellectual elite has had much given him.
Just like ‘workers of the world unite,’ as a slogan to claim
to be for the poor; claiming to be for the poor while endorsing
not only against The Holy Bible and JESUS The Savior;
but against the Creeds of our land - government-sanctioned
mass murder of the poor & other heinous things which
also are an abomination to the LORD, he shows himself
to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He can enjoy his prestige
and leaning upon his own understanding wise in his
own eyes: but it’s mercify to pray he repents;
and stops leading astray.
~
" A Tree and Its Fruit
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. 18 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will know them by their fruits." - Matthew 7:15-20

 

[HarryStotle]

As soon as this alleged “omnimax” someone personally comes to us and explains us the errors of our ways, we shall listen. But your word, and the words of other believers simply does not count. Sorry.

I suppose someone with “omnimax” powers would know who would and does listen, and who would not — prior to coming to them and explaining what they wouldn’t listen to, in any case.

God is witness of their inmost feelings, and a true observer of their hearts, and a hearer of their tongues. (Wis 1:6)

I will pour out my thoughts to you;
I will make my words known to you.
Because I have called and you refused,
have stretched out my hand and no one heeded,
and because you have ignored all my counsel
and would have none of my reproof,
Then they will call upon me, but I will not answer;
they will seek me diligently, but will not find me.
Because they hated knowledge
and did not choose the fear of the Lord,
would have none of my counsel,
and despised all my reproof,
therefore they shall eat the fruit of their way
and be sated with their own devices. (Prov 1:24-5, 28-31)

Those who trust in him will understand truth, and the faithful will abide with him in love, because grace and mercy are upon his holy ones, and he watches over his elect. (Wis 3:9)

 

[Stephen168]

Maybe it would be beneficial if you learned the REAL meaning of “ad hominems”. It is (in essence): “your arguments are invalid, because you are an idiot.” To say that your arguments are rejected because you cannot substantiate them is NOT an ad hominem.

Ad hominem means to attack the man, the fact he is religious, instead of the argument; very common among the pro-abortion folks.

You are most welcome to expound on the foundation of your arguments, by PROVING, that your god is real, and that he actually said what you think he said. With all “due” respect.

I can see why you didn’t see it, because you attacked me instead of the argument even though I bolded the argument to help make it obvious.

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

"“Many will be purged, purified and refined, but the wicked will act wickedly; and none of the wicked will understand, but those who have insight will understand.”
source: Daniel 12:10
I pray daily, sometimes with tears for my growth in purity and compassionate kindness in word & deed toward my neighbor in all Jesus The Beloved Anointed One taught. But also, for my neighbor to learn that presumption (taking GOD’s Mercy for granted, not diligently seeking GOD for Divine Favor to grow in Godliness) and
despair (the same but, I feel so sad I can’t help but sin) — can become a full act of the human will, blasphemy against The Holy Spirit - the only unforgivable sin.
~
GOD is completely benevolent and All Powerfully offers Divine Favor to each
person to turn to GOD to make it to Heaven. And GOD takes no pleasure in someone,
by their own freewill choosing to betray GOD’s Divine Favor. All objective sin is harmful, not only to one’s self but to other human beings. All objective virtue is beneficial to others.
~
Peace.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

It poses a potential threat to the mother, so as a matter of law it’s cancellable.

It poses a threat to her long term survival, so as a matter of nature it’s cancellable.

If she undergoes extreme shortage of nutrition, mammals are capable of self-terminating their pregnancies.

Moms gotta survive. She’s priority #1.

The contents of her womb are inherently labeled “OPTIONAL”. Mom comes first.

These are all requirements that you made up.