Arguing About Abortion

[Neithan]

Does Roe v Wade need to be overturned? If rights of personhood were extended to all human beings, then Roe’s right to privacy could not reasonably be sufficient to strike down abortion laws using the strict scrutiny test (in my opinion).

Common law has a kind of relentless forward momentum based on binding precedent. Since Roe has been relied on now for decades, and affirmed in Supreme Court decisions, it is practically impossible to overturn it. There is historical precedent for expanding personhood rights; and the next logical step is to expand those rights to the only group of human beings for whom they are still denied.

 

[otjm]

Roe vs. wade could be overturned (not particularly likely at this time) or reduced. And if it were overturned, that does not mean that the SC would reach the issue of right to life.

it is practically impossible to overturn it.

There is what is known as “death due to a thousand cuts”. Stare decisis is not absolute, but with the current Court, it is unlikely. Should Trump win the next election and the Senate continue with its current ratio, or increase Republicans, and one or two more Justices retire, then the Court might end up with enough conservative justices to reach such a decision.

The Democrats have already been calling for a restructuring of the Court, which is nothing more than an attempt to solidify liberal Justices.

 

[QContinuum]

No, I disagree with that and I don’t think it’s fair at all. We have a basis for morality, it’s based upon observation, trial and failure over time, and then reasoned agreement.

Just because natural law has been used does not mean it ought to continue to used. It is eligible for critique and replacement as anything else.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

We have a basis for morality, it’s based upon observation, trial and failure over time, and then reasoned agreement.

I don’t see how that would work except by disguising opinions as facts.

 

[QContinuum]

Well, from my perspective, all Catholic morality is just group-sourced morality from the Magisterium. That is, opinion that has been agreed upon by the larger group and given force of law.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Well, from my perspective, all Catholic morality is just group-sourced morality from the Magisterium. That is, opinion that has been agreed upon by the larger group and given force of law.

So you think that it has a basis?

 

[QContinuum]

Sure, for Catholics who accept it. For myself, no. I reject it because they start with a premise I don’t accept - belief in God. I can still find areas of commonality with Catholics though.

 

[Neithan]

Without an intelligent cause, then there is no teleology, and no normative principle per se. If morality is true, then there must be a real good and a true norm for acquiring it. Otherwise everything is relative to individual ethical preference and group morality is an imposed law with no basis: a complex power of the imposer to harm. In other words, might makes right.

Common law attempts to reason, not merely impose, and so it assumes at least a weak deism.

 

[QContinuum]

an intelligent cause, then there is no teleology, and no normative principle per se. If morality

Sorry, but none of this means the slightest to me. There is no evidence that the universe had an outside cause. Saying that that something was before the start of time is an incoherent statement. There is no evidence of any outside cause of the universe. Just your assertion that such a cause must exist.

 

[Neithan]

Of course, I disagree about a lack of evidence. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence.

Although, an outside cause may not be necessary for teleology. Panpsychism, for example. This is getting off topic, though.

 

[QContinuum]

Agree, though I appreciate your concise response. I will look into your teleology argument. Looks like a lot of us will have more time at home these days to research.

 

[Hume]

You haven’t presented a philosophical or well-reasoned argument above, so much as a psychological projection of self-interested egoism.

No egoism involved at all.

It’s just that you must have a default state and that default is “undefined”.

What’s the moral equivalent of “undefined” - “Libertas”.

If you disagree with the view, then please do make an argument as to what you think the null - the equivalent of “undefined” should be described as. Make your assertion.

Your basic or “null” position is, essentially, that you as a subjective ego ought to be left alone to do what you want when you want.

It’s just the default. As I’ve stated probably 10 times now, it’s a beginning. Not an end.

And it’s not my idea. Grab a freshman phil. survey text and look up “Libertas” in the glossary. You’ll find an entry.

You haven’t, then, presented a rational argument, but merely an appeal between self-centred egos to respect each other’s self-centred egoism.

No, I’ve not made an argument, really. This is a semantic on the discussion of the moral null. “Libertas” fits best. If you hold an alternative view on the moral default, please do present.

Again, that isn’t a rational nor a moral argument because it completely leaves untouched the question of what is “good for” human beings qua human beings.

Because, again, it is the default. What’s “good” and “bad” are later constructs built on the default.

Essentially, your argument…

Again, this is a semantic. If you disagree, then describe the moral null to me in your terms. In classic phil, it seems to be “libertas”.

I would humbly submit that your “science labs of philo classes” were a waste of time, effort and money.

I’m sorry you couldn’t tease the typo. I’ll correct-
“science labs and philo classes”

Both employ nulls, as a statement of fact. That’s just the reality we live in.

 

[Hume]

QContinuum:

We have a basis for morality, it’s based upon observation, trial and failure over time, and then reasoned agreement.

I don’t see how that would work except by disguising opinions as facts.

We see it all the time. “Religion” is a good example of the phenomenon - offered gently.

Like it or not, moral relativism is the “truth”. We just hide the fact under constructs in order to avoid the uncomfortable fact - a la “my prophet told me that…”

 

[Hume]

Agree, though I appreciate your concise response. I will look into your teleology argument. Looks like a lot of us will have more time at home these days to research.

To be sure, to discuss “telos” is to inherently agree that there is some sort of mystical, greater purpose.

There may very well not be.

As an example, the reason for life may very well be for it’s own sake. No outside aim, there.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

You haven’t presented a philosophical or well-reasoned argument above, so much as a psychological projection of self-interested egoism.

No egoism involved at all.

It’s just that you must have a default state and that default is “undefined”.

What’s the moral equivalent of “undefined” - “Libertas”.

If you disagree with the view, then please do make an argument as to what you think the null - the equivalent of “undefined” should be described as. Make your assertion.

Very appropriately, I thought — given your timely post — I was reading during my prayer time this morning, 1 Corinthians. One passage specifically drew my attention back to our discussion in this thread:

19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20 For you were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body. (1 Cor 6:19-20)

So what is the significance?

Essentially your claim is that a woman’s body belongs to her: her body, her choice.

There is no right to life that overrides a woman’s right of bodily autonomy.

Paul’s claim is that we do not belong to ourselves, that we are not our own property.

Let’s explore that just a bit, shall we?

For someone to have “ownership” of something, that ownership implies mastery over the thing they own. It wouldn’t make sense for me to claim that I possess or own something that I have absolutely no control over. I own that cloud up there in the sky is a claim I could make but is meaningless.

The only reason a human being can make a claim to self-possession is that each of us has a modicum of control over our actions. True, I can control when I wake up in the morning, but I cannot control THAT I wake up (or don’t wake up) in the morning. That “control” over one’s own body is something of a chimera — the actual control we have is very limited.

So to speak of “possession” in the absolute as if each of us is the final determiner of all that we are is a delusion.

If God exists — and he does (despite the delusions of some who believe simple denial is all that is required to define reality for themselves) — then complete mastery over all of his creation is his domain, not ours.

Ergo, to proclaim “My body, my choice” might be a compelling mantra for those who delusively believe they have full control over life, death and all facets of their existence, but realistically speaking a bit more Hume-ility might be in order here.

Continued…

 

[HarryStotle]

What God is doing — through Christ and Paul’s words — is offering a sobering reminder regarding who, in reality has full control. We have been “bought and paid for” (AKA redeemed) to put our understanding of reality back into right order regarding WHO is and who is not in full control, in possession, of what we have been given stewardship over — our bodies and our choices.

To be deluded into thinking we have “bodily autonomy” when we have absolutely NO control over our life, death, our coming into being, or our nature as a human being, could use just a tiny bit of reconsideration.

God is offering to set things aright and has the power to do so. I would submit that insisting — contra that offer — that each individual assert “bodily autonomy,” when they have no power to back that claim up with the capacity to underwrite it, is audacious.

One thing the coronavirus is demonstrating is that life is tenuous and claims of “bodily autonomy” are being put into perspective, as are any presuppositions or reassurances we might have had about the power of the state to protect us from reality.

We did not create ourselves nor do we — on our own — have any real capacity to dictate the terms of our existence. Perhaps we would be much wiser — before making audacious proclamations about “bodily autonomy” — to investigate deeply the conditions of our tenuous existence.

 

[Hume]

Very appropriately, I thought — given your timely post — I was reading during my prayer time this morning, 1 Corinthians. One passage specifically drew my attention back to our discussion in this thread:

19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20 For you were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body. (1 Cor 6:19-20)

That if you choose to submit to your god and the collection of texts attributed to him in some form or fashion, then you must surrender your bodily autonomy in some way to your god and those that represent it.

I think that’s a great idea if you choose to do all those things (believe in that particular god along with that particular systema some attribute to it).

Just, please, don’t make me or anyone else submit to it against their will.

It impinges my liberty in a most fundamental way in the name of religious tyranny.

If God exists — and he does (despite the delusions of some who believe simple denial is all that is required to define reality for themselves) — then complete mastery over all of his creation is his domain, not ours.

If you’d like to believe that, I’m completely fine with that! Really!

I’m just not interested in being forced to submit to your god anymore than I’m interested in being forced to submit to Islamic god.

Ergo, to proclaim “My body, my choice” might be a compelling mantra for those who delusively believe they have full control over life, death and all facets of their existence, but realistically speaking a bit more Hume-ility might be in order here.

That’s a goal-post slide. Nothing about libertas stipulates that we control “life, death and all facets of existence”.

We did not create ourselves nor do we — on our own — have any real capacity to dictate the terms of our existence. Perhaps we would be much wiser — before making audacious proclamations about “bodily autonomy” — to investigate deeply the conditions of our tenuous existence.

I’ll readily agree there, life is tenuous. From nothing life arose, to nothing it will one day return.

So enjoy it. Be free to make the decisions you want to make - and do give others the self-same right.

Where we need to limit that freedom - that libertas - let us discuss!

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Very appropriately, I thought — given your timely post — I was reading during my prayer time this morning, 1 Corinthians. One passage specifically drew my attention back to our discussion in this thread:

19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20 For you were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body. (1 Cor 6:19-20)

That if you choose to submit to your god and the collection of texts attributed to him in some form or fashion, then you must surrender your bodily autonomy in some way to your god and those that represent it.

I think that’s a great idea if you choose to do all those things (believe in that particular god along with that particular systema some attribute to it.

Just, please, don’t make me or anyone else submit to it against their will.

It impinges my liberty in a most fundamental way in the name of religious tyranny.

The opposite is equally true.

Don’t make me or anyone else submit to whatever secularist or leftist system (or dogma or collection of texts or false “gods”) that you believe in or represent.

Your claims to “impingement of your liberty” also works the other way around because whatever dogma that derives from your fundamental or null premise has its own way of dictating how everyone else ought to behave.

That sword cuts both ways.

The real question is which conception of freedom is true.

Refer back to Post #17.

Arguing About Abortion Social Justice

Here is the problem with liberty being the “null” or default: Point 1 Most atheists (and theists) argue against Divine Command Theory on the grounds that a capricious or “libertarian” will on the part of God – i.e., one that is not constrained by morality — is not an acceptably moral theology. Now, you might argue that in the case of the woman with a child in her womb, the child “infringes” on the inviolable liberty the woman ought to enjoy over her “domain,” her body. However, if you want…

You merely want to assert freedom of indifference, but have offered nothing except your null hypothesis to demonstrate that it ought to be adopted as the grounding principle.

Null hypothesis is merely a presumption, nothing else. Why would we just presume it without warrant?

Freedom for excellence is a far more robust depiction of the value of freedom situated in the context of the good.

Freedom of indifference says nothing about the good except to equate it with human will, which could mean anything. Every evil individual on earth inflicted their “will” on others, why would we think will, on its own, is an adequate starting point?

It seems to me that you will automatically run into conflicts of wills, and therefore some other principle (the good) has to take precedence over autonomy. You just don’t want to admit that.

 

[Hume]

The opposite is equally true.

Don’t make me or anyone else submit to whatever secularist or leftist system (or dogma or collection of texts or false “gods”) that you believe in or represent.

Therein lies the glorious beauty of libertas - no one is making you do anything. You can choose.

Isn’t that wonderful?

Your claims to “impingement of you liberty” also works the other way around because whatever dogma that derives from your fundamental or null premises has its own way of dictating how everyone else ought to behave.

No it doesn’t. You can be just as ardently Catholic as you want and I can be just as ardently whatever as I want.

We both get to live our lives. Libertas isn’t forcing you to do a thing.

The real question is which conception of freedom is true.

You’ve presented a false dichotomy here. Essentially, “Must we orient our wills toward the good or do we behave like animals?”.

We do both.

Behave as you wish, and if we need to constrain libertas, then we do so very carefully. One good example is the amendment that we avoid impinging the liberty of other people (no murdering, stealing, ect.).

Most folks can reasonably agree to this, which is why it’s a law that tends to transcend religions and cultures and centuries - exceptions obviously numerous and withstanding (dang relativism…). No need hide behind a supposed divine fiat to try and make it make sense.

It seems to me that you will automatically run into conflicts of wills, and therefore some other principle (the good) has to take precedence. You just don’t want to admit that.

Not at all, I admit it openly. It’s the first question libertas must tackle.

It is the beginning, not the end (for the umpteenth time). We constrain it with things like the golden rule (unto others as to you) and the inherent equality of persons.

When conflicts arise, we must find some sort of rational tie-breaker, using liberty as the guiding light.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

The opposite is equally true.

Don’t make me or anyone else submit to whatever secularist or leftist system (or dogma or collection of texts or false “gods”) that you believe in or represent.

Therein lies the glorious beauty of libertas - no one is making you do anything. You can choose.

Isn’t that wonderful?

Uh huh. Tell that to Branden Eich, the Christian bakers re: SSM, or David Daleiden up on felony charges merely for revealing that PP was selling fetal body parts for profit, or taxpayers being forced to fund abortions.

Reality has funny ways of putting to the chase the “glorious beauty of libertas.”

In your imagination there is “glorious beauty,” on the ground it becomes just a tad more muddied and murky.

Wait until those children of your grow up and begin executing the “glorious beauty of libertas” in their own lives. You might, then, look back with longing for that other view of liberty — freedom for excellence.

Teach your children well!