Arguing About Abortion

[catholic03]

Relativism holds dominion over those things that cannot be objectively demonstrated. Like whether this god is more better than that god.

No, objectively and logically the God we know is the one True God.

The woman involved has the same right to life as well, no?

You repeat the argument that a foetus, being dependent on the mother, doesn’t have the right to life.

Why should something more vulnerable not have the right to life? WHY is the mother’s life worth more than the child’s.

None of your arguments have any sustenance whatsoever.

 

[HarryStotle]

goout:

In relativism, it doesn’t matter if everyone can agree that 1+1=2. It is simply irrelevant, because the truth of the matter has no compelling call to be recognized.

Not quite right.

Relativism holds dominion over those things that cannot be objectively demonstrated. Like whether this god is more better than that god.

‘Better’ implies an objective set of values — ergo, a ‘best.’ That would be God.

No need to argue which god is better, we just need to properly define what value is better than all — that which none greater can be conceived — objectively speaking.

The problem is that such a conception relies on our limited human capacity to conceive — which is inherently incapable of conceiving anything beyond its own capacity to conceive greatness.

Which is why my bet is on revealed truth — God knows our inherent limitations which is why he reveals to us what we need to know. Hence, the reason why revelation is necessary. And he does it in a way that human beings can apprehend — which is why his Word (Logos) became flesh - to reveal God but also to enable from within us our capacity to fully commune with and realize God.

 

[Viaetveritasetvita]

ray:t3: ray:t3: :man_judge:t3:

 

[Rau]

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.

“She wanted…”? What about sparing a thought for the best interests of the child? Or is that irrelevant?

 

[Rau]

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

No, that’s the smoke screen. All manner of autonomy is lost when bringing up born children. Regaining autonomy is possible with all manner of limitations, eg. No killing etc. Due process to regain autonomy (Eg adopting out) takes time, and in the meantime, parents remain obligated to care for their children and to “suck up” loss of autonomy.

 

[Rau]

In the case of pregnancy, the minimus is abortion.

No it’s not - it’s wait a while and give birth, followed by adopting out.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

Sure, it’s very difficult to dislodge people from Ideology. Muslims are very confident they’re right. So are Mormons, Catholics, Druids, ad infinitum…

So is Hume.

Yeah, shame on me for advocating a view where we don’t get to bodily rule other people.

Having sex is participating in the capacity to create life.

Not solely, ergo your problem.

They didn’t have sex for procreative purposes. They had sex for unitive purposes. And as they likely employed a method of birth control (given the meteoric success of contraception in the last 50 years), they probably no more consented to having a baby by having sex than we consent to car accidents whenever we get in our cars.

The problem is that such a conception relies on our limited human capacity to conceive

Well, we’re pretty imaginative. As a species we managed to invent every god in history except yours, right?

No, that’s the smoke screen.

No, it isn’t.

People just don’t seem to have the assumed right to force other folks to do things with their bodies that they don’t want to do.

It’s really not that radical of a position. I’m merely arguing against bodily enslavement.

It’s very, very easy to do, turns out.

 

[JimG]

It should be noted that abortion does not consist in serving an eviction notice on the unborn human being. The aborted child does not specifically die frm being deprived of his or her place in the womb. No, the child dies usually be being ripped apart by a suction machine, being pulled apart limb by limb with grasping forceps, or being burned with a toxoc saline solution. No bodily autonomy there.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

It’s really not that radical of a position. I’m merely arguing against bodily enslavement.

Nobody cares about that. They care that you are willing to sacrifice human lives instead.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

It’s really not that radical of a position. I’m merely arguing against bodily enslavement.

Nobody cares about that.

Incredible.

 

[Pattylt]

No, the child dies usually be being ripped apart by a suction machine, being pulled apart limb by limb with grasping forceps, or being burned with a toxoc saline solution. No bodily autonomy there.

What about medicines that merely cause the uterus to expel the fetus. The fetus dies as a secondary effect? Is that morally different from ectopic pregnancies where the Fallopian tube is sectioned out and the fetus within dies? (I’m asking this seriously as I’m trying to understand the catholic reasoning here)

 

[Servant31]

Sure, but your theology requires that she actually be exposed to the peril in order to do it. And then it’s subject to someones discretion as to whether the case was legitimate.

First, she has no obligation to risk the peril. Period. Second, you cannot demonstrate that we’re innately subject to some other’s judgements about our actions. As stated above, I’ve never seen a god - much less yours - and I doubt that will ever change.

Friend, she doesn’t have to have sex. Pregnancy is a potential consequence to sex. It is a reality. Whether one consents to it or not really doesn’t make a difference. You can’t remove that reality by killing a child. You have redefined a child as a fetus… yes it is an acceptance medical term. But by a purely biological definition none of us are more than a bag of cells. Why have dignity at all?

And yes someone does make a determination. But you believe this is acceptable when your determination assigns the child dignity or not.

Why the pessimism about God? He’s not my God He’s God. He exists whether I choose to believe or not.

Yes the Supreme Court voted this way. But it also accepted slavery at one point…

 

[Hume]

Friend, she doesn’t have to have sex.

We have sex for lots of reasons and, typically, pregnancy isn’t among them.

Just because pregnancy is a possible outcome doesn’t mean it’s a necessary outcome - especially given how hazardous it is both pre- and post-birth.

And yes someone does make a determination.

Well, there we agree, in a way.

The woman makes the determination for herself. None other.

You and I have equal claim to represent the fetus - which is to say “none”. It’s her deal.

Why the pessimism about God? He’s not my God He’s God. He exists whether I choose to believe or not.

That which cannot be observed cannot be said to be part of reality with any real certainty. But I agree, different topic.

Yes the Supreme Court voted this way. But it also accepted slavery at one point…

Hey, you’re the guy that appealed to the constitution… the constitution says what SCOTUS says it says.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Hume:

Sure, it’s very difficult to dislodge people from Ideology. Muslims are very confident they’re right. So are Mormons, Catholics, Druids, ad infinitum…

So is Hume.

Yeah, shame on me for advocating a view where we don’t get to bodily rule other people.

He says at a time when bodily ruling over other people has become the absolute rule of law rather than the exception.

 

[HarryStotle]

Hey, you’re the guy that appealed to the constitution… the constitution says what SCOTUS says it says.

That is only the case when Democrats are in power and appoint a majority of leftists to the Court.

 

[HarryStotle]

JimG:

No, the child dies usually be being ripped apart by a suction machine, being pulled apart limb by limb with grasping forceps, or being burned with a toxoc saline solution. No bodily autonomy there.

What about medicines that merely cause the uterus to expel the fetus. The fetus dies as a secondary effect? Is that morally different from ectopic pregnancies where the Fallopian tube is sectioned out and the fetus within dies? (I’m asking this seriously as I’m trying to understand the catholic reasoning here)

Principle of Double Effect.

Formulation of the Principle. Classical formulations of the principle of double effect require that four conditions be met if the action in question is to be morally permissible: first, that the action contemplated be in itself either morally good or morally indifferent; second, that the bad result not be directly intended; third, that the good result not be a direct causal result of the bad result; and fourth, that the good result be “proportionate to” the bad result. Supporters of the principle argue that, in situations of “double effect” where all these conditions are met, the action under consideration is morally permissible despite the bad result.

Medicines that “expel the fetus” are directly targeting the fetus for expulsion and death.

The treatment of Ectopic pregnancies targets the part of the fallopian tube for treatment. That the embryo happens to be there is “incidental” to the treatment.

Medicines that cause the uterus to expel the fetus are prescribed specifically to expel the fetus and for no other reason.

The “good” in the case of the ectopic pregnancy is “proportionate” because BOTH will die without the treatment, but the woman can be saved by the procedure while the embryo very likely won’t.

In the case of the embryo being “expelled,” there is no proportionality — the embryo takes all of the harm and the woman all of the benefit at no (or very little) risk.

I could go through all four conditions, but I presume you are capable of doing so.

 

[Pattylt]

Yes, thank you for posting the definitions.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Incredible.

Obviously I meant that nobody had any problems on that aspect.

 

[Hume]

He says at a time when bodily ruling over other people has become the absolute rule of law rather than the exception.

It appears a fetus isn’t a “person” in the same way a woman is. And for good reason.

That is only the case when Democrats are in power and appoint a majority of leftists to the Court.

Bad news. Last Pew gave 90% dems are pro-choice and growing and 34% of reps are pro-choice… and growing.

And that poll has aged a little. Despite most of rep politicians being publicly pro-life (except with their mistresses, of course), I wouldn’t be surprised at all if the rep number was tickling 40%.

Politically, the issue is dead. The best you can hope for is the reversal of Roe where a woman wanting an abortion would just have to drive to the next state over or take an oral abortifacient.

 

[HarryStotle]

It’s really not that radical of a position. I’m merely arguing against bodily enslavement.

According to your biased definition. Many women see pregnancy as a joy, an honour, and a beautiful and fulfilling time in their lives.

Could you point to an actually enslaved slave who could say the same thing about slavery — i.e., that slavery is a joy, an honour and a beautiful and fulfilling time in their life?

I’ll wait here.

I suppose we can take a comparably negative view of pretty much anything — work, marriage, parenting, being a human being, etc. — if we try hard enough.