Arguing About Abortion

[o_mlly]

And therein lies the biggest problem with it. It’s limiting principle is, well, rather limited. …

Morally, that’s liberty. Free moral agency.

Liberty, or freedom, is not an unlimited good. In the sense of freedom as in to do as one pleases, one can have too little or too much freedom. One might say that the man has too little freedom if he is coerced to suffer serious deprivations. On the other hand, one may say that the man who uses his freedom to inure others has too much freedom.

Justice is an unlimited good. No one ever claims that there is just too much justice. Justice then is the regulating virtue of one’s freedom to act.

Does the fetus have a just right to its life? If one believes the fetus is a human being then the answer is certainly, “Yes”.

Does one who claims to not know if the fetus is or is not human have a right to kill the fetus? Does the hunter have the right to shoot at the shaking bush if uncertain whether the shaker is a deer or a man?

 

[MamaJewel]

This is the only reason women need to have sex.

You don’t speak for me.
You haven’t walked in my shoes or shared my lived experiences.
Trust me, there were times I needed to have sex with my ex. My existence depended on it.
He knew how to make my life a living hell if I did/didn’t do something he wanted. Still does, but I don’t have to “be” with him anymore.

Are you saying that the lived experiences of the women whose reasons I gave and their “need” to have sex were bogus? I hate to tell you this, but society still backs the men.
Daddy bonus, mommy penalty in the workforce.

Now, I’ve answered your question.
Please answer mine.

Why do men need to have sex, especially when they are fertile 24/7?

The church does allow and expect sexual relations will occur outside of the wife’s fertile period, when it knows she absolutely cannot get pregnant., so “to have a baby” is not a woman’s only need to have sex.

Why does a man,(Christian, atheist, Hindu, Jewish, etc) need to have sex?
Why?
Why does a God-fearing Christian man have the need, especially when his wife isn’t fertile and is in a part of her cycle where she isn’t interested in sex because her hormones and cervix aren’t going for baby launch?

And why did St. Paul place the expectation on a wife to be available for her husband, when she didn’t have a need (according to your logic on “need”).

Sorry the need for sex is not only about having babies for women.
Many times, it’s not about babies at all.
It isn’t for God-fearing Christian men either.
So imagine what it is for people who don’t believe in a God, who are atheist, or agnostic, or Hindu, Buddhist, etc?

We are arguing about the abortion argument which covers people with a wide variety of beliefs, many which do not even consider a human embryo or fetus as anything other than human tissue.

If we’re going to change people’s perspectives of human beings and abortion/euthanasia/CRISPR manipulation, we have got to show the humanity of human beings from their earliest moments until their final moment of life (and then some… because even dead human bodies deserve respect).

Food for thought:
“I just want to remind survivors you are strong and courageous”… the interviewee on national news currently speaking to domestic violence survivors to persevere through Covid19.

 

[Stephen168]

Reproduction is the only need for intercourse; only biological purpose.

You don’t speak for me.

I speak for biological science. Being forced does not change the biological purpose of intercourse. The only biological need for intercourse is procreation.

Why does a man,(Christian, atheist, Hindu, Jewish, etc) need to have sex?

The same reason women need to have sex; procreation.

And why did St. Paul place the expectation on a wife to be available for her husband, when she didn’t have a need (according to your logic on “need”).

I don’t think St. Paul was exclusively talking about sex, but he did seem to require a husband be willing to die for his wife. In the same way of thinking, a Priest told me that a wive’s responsibility was contained in three verses while a husband’s responsibility was contained in six verses for a reason.
Ephesians 5:

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”

Food for thought: There are men and women who never have sex, and live to tell the tale.

 

[Stephen168]

MamaJewel:

There is an unspoken contract between the woman and the embryo/ fetus .

True.

The mother’s implied contract exists because she had sex with the father. The natural biological purpose of sex.

The implied contract also exists between the father and the baby by his action of having sex with the mother.

The mother’s contract is enforced through biology and a father’s contract is enforced by custom & law.

MamaJewel:

They are both human beings at different stages of their existence and therefore, both have a level of autonomy to their bodies deserving respect.

I agree; human beings with their own sex, and genetic code.

MamaJewel:

And to have real recourse to liberty, one must think of others and the world in which they live when making any considerations for self. Even more so when determinations have life giving/threatening impacts on other living beings, especially humans, and our natural world.

I’m not truly free if I can destroy human life without very serious reason (ie. the immediate direct threat to my own life or to those lives around me).

If there is no unspoken human contract between myself and my fellow humans to respect human life and human dignity, then I am not free. I am living in potential anarchy and the threat of my demise/ autonomy and of those around me, at the hands of more powerful or resourceful individuals, is very real.

Exactly, true liberty and justice comes from giving that same liberty to every other human being.

Very early in this discussion, Hume was told that abortion was illegal in other countries. He responded that they were wrong, but he could never say why they were wrong. While at the same time saying the government decides what is right or wrong.

Those other countries were right because they give the same rights to all human being.

 

[Hume]

The well-being of the fetus is part of the view if the mother wishes it to be. Ergo if a woman wishes to consume alcohol during her pregnancy I think she would need to do some serious self evaluation as to whether or not she wanted to have a healthy child.

And if she doesn’t want a child at all, then for the sake of the fetus in for the sake of society at large I do recommend she consider an abortion.

 

[Hume]

You keep saying that reproduction is the only purpose of intercourse and that’s just simply not true. Primates have sex for lots and lots of reasons and for sake of reproduction probably isn’t among them except in humans.

 

[Hume]

I keep telling you that liberty is the null. Not the end.

And it appears to be pretty enduring and fairly universal idea. It ain’t “Hume’s”.

And as the default, we can move on from it with good arguments.

There just doesn’t seem to be any good arguments for forcing women to undergo dangerous pregnancies all the way to term without invoking special pleading.

 

[o_mlly]

The well-being of the fetus is part of the view if the mother wishes it to be.

In your view, precisely when does the determination of the well-being of the child go beyond the will of the mother? As the child exits the birth canal with placenta intact? Or, only after the placenta is cut?

 

[Hume]

We’ve answered this many times.

Birth.

 

[o_mlly]

We’ve answered this many times.

Birth.

Sorry, I’m entering the conversation late and did not do all my homework.

I am trying to get the principle that would allow the life of the child to be subject solely to the will of the mother. Is the principle one of dependency, that is, if the child is dependent on the mother then the mother’s will determines if the life of the child continues (which is at least somewhat true until the placenta is cut)? If not dependency then what other principle do you invoke?

 

[Elf01]

Ergo if a woman wishes to consume alcohol during her pregnancy I think she would need to do some serious self evaluation as to whether or not she wanted to have a healthy child.

Choice was made. She consumed alchol. The child was not healthy and is now an adult. Would you support them suing?

 

[HarryStotle]

The well-being of the fetus is part of the view if the mother wishes it to be. Ergo if a woman wishes to consume alcohol during her pregnancy I think she would need to do some serious self evaluation as to whether or not she wanted to have a healthy child.

And if she doesn’t want a child at all, then for the sake of the fetus in for the sake of society at large I do recommend she consider an abortion.

So the child’s interests in the matter are irrelevant and not morally incumbent on the mother?

I am sure the baby appreciates your concern for his or her interests.

 

[Stephen168]

Reproduction is the only need for intercourse; only biological purpose.

I speak for biological science.

Food for thought: There are men and women who never have sex, and live to tell the tale.

You keep saying that reproduction is the only purpose of intercourse and that’s just simply not true. Primates have sex for lots and lots of reasons and for sake of reproduction probably isn’t among them except in humans.

Yet, you have never been able to prove your assertion. I spent over a week watching you avoid proving it, in fact watching you not even attempting to prove it.

So, I am comfortable in my claim.

 

[Abrosz]

Let me make a suggestion.

1. God is the ultimate authority.
2. God allows abortion (and also the Holocaust).
3. God could prevent them if he so desired.
4. God does not.
5. Therefore the only logical and rational conclusion is, that God does NOT mind them.

Savvy?

 

[Hume]

The principal is pretty easy to ascertain. It is that of bodily autonomy.

 

[HarryStotle]

I keep telling you that liberty is the null. Not the end.

You haven’t explained what liberty consists of in order for your proposition to be taken seriously.

You assume, for example, that an individual’s actions are necessarily reflective of their liberty while not taking into account that internal compulsions and constraints are often more powerful than external ones.

Why would you ignore the fact that impulses, appetites, compulsions, predilections, etc., reduce the personal liberty of human agents from within? In those cases, the person is not “free” to act but moved to do so my overwhelming (to them) emotional and physiological forces.

To be free in the relevant sense, a person ought to be uncompelled by irrational forces and effectively base their autonomous actions/decisions on a full and complete rational assessment of grounds and consequences. I.e., they freely survey the behavioural and consequential landscape and determine — with what approaches sufficient knowledge — what is the best decision for them, free from irrational internal and compelling external forces.

Unfortunately, in your calculus, you are merely concerned with the external constraints and not the internal ones. Therefore, your promotion of “liberty” is misinformed.

A badly reasoned and impulsive decision is just as harmful to the individual (and their true liberty) making the supposedly “free” decision as a forced external one is. Your depiction doesn’t begin to properly take that into account seeing that you assume all internal considerations are merely a part of “liberty” in your calculus. They clearly are not.

Ergo, you need to revise the basis for liberty to properly include the well-being of the truly autonomous individual qua individual and what that means as far as individual choice is concerned.

However, you don’t seem to be at all concerned with the well-being of the individual but merely that they are left alone to create their own hell or heaven — neither of which is of any concern to you. Beyond the fact that you have nothing to say in terms of why liberty would be of any value but merely presume that it is the basis for determining value.

 

[Hume]

No, I wouldn’t.

Besides as she was an alcoholic during pregnancy, I doubt she has much to sue for.

 

[Hume]

I’ve said repeatedly that Liberty is free moral agency. and that we can constrain it with good arguments. We’re repeating the same things over and over and over and over and over.

However, you don’t seem to be at all concerned with the well-being of the individual but merely that they are left alone to create their own hell or heaven — neither of which is of any concern to you.

BINGO!

They don’t have to wear anyone’s bridle other than the one of their own making.

You’ve got it!

 

[Hume]

I understand we probably have different beliefs but I would use your correct identification here as evidence that God either doesn’t exist or if it does it doesn’t have complete control over creation or it’s not good in any way we understand.

 

[HarryStotle]

Let me make a suggestion.

1. God is the ultimate authority.
2. God allows abortion (and also the Holocaust).
3. God could prevent them if he so desired.
4. God does not.
5. Therefore the only logical and rational conclusion is, that God does NOT mind them.

Savvy?

There are missing premises here.

Essentially, this is a rendering of the logical (as opposed to the evidential) problem of evil.

What you are missing is that God may know of outcomes (owing to his omniscience) and have the power to bring them about in his own time (owing to his omnipotence) that far outweigh what we (owing to our limited knowledge and power of how the universe works) can conceive.

Ergo, what we as human beings “logically” determine (based upon limited knowledge, limited power and a limited conception of the good) does not constrain God because his knowledge, power and goodness are infinite.

Even on a purely human level, your premises (2-5) are faulty.

1. A parent allows their child to suffer.
2. The parent could prevent much of that suffering if they so desired.
3. The parent does not.
4. Therefore the only logical and rational conclusion is that the parent does NOT mind that their child suffers.

Allowing or permitting a loved one to suffer evil does not imply a tolerance (not minding) for evil. It implies that the moral landscape is complicated and that suffering immediate and lesser evils might (for one reason) help form the child into a moral agent that can better respond to greater evils in the future. Moral formation of children is a tricky business that merely creating bubbles to protect them during development does not magically resolve.

This is even more complicated when attempting to apply it holus-bolus to God who must take into account — as the ultimate assayer of morality — the repercussions of human actions down through all history and across the entire moral landscape. Being the “ultimate authority” implies that we — limited by time, space and capacity — are in no position (owing to our limited capacity) to LOGICALLY determine what God “minds” or doesn’t “mind” merely because stuff happens.