Arguing About Abortion

[Neithan]

It is morally neutral .

OK. So there is no reason to “default” to liberty in a moral argument other than mere assertion. We could also “default” to life.

 

[JSRG]

I’m not normally one to insist on a response, as I feel it’s a bit presumptuous, but I’m still very flummoxed by this post of yours:

The choice is passed on to the individual rather than the state.

As a member of the American Solidarity Party, I take it that you support the view that government actions should be taken by the smallest political entity capable of exercising the function?

What political unit is smaller than the citizen themselves?

I replied to it saying:

Why would my status as a supporter of the American Solidarity Party lead you to believe I support that idea? I don’t see any connection between these. Could you fill me in?

I’m still very confused by your remark. What is the connection between the two? I am not familiar with the American Solidarity Party having “government actions should be taken by the smallest political entity capable of exercising the function” as any particular core belief.

Furthermore, they are very strongly pro-life, which makes your remark even more confusing… unless you’re trying to suggest some kind of dissonance between their pro-life position and the fact that, in your view, doesn’t fit with the idea of “government actions should be taken by the smallest political entity capable of exercising the function”. I don’t agree with that assessment to begin with, but yet again I am unaware of this being in any way an important belief of the party, so no contradiction would be created.

 

[Neithan]

Then it would seem I’m right. In that model, liberty is the default. And we only restrict it with good reason (and good arguments).

Alright so here’s this contradiction from another angle, maybe this will make it clearer.

Neutral space.

If the woman consents, then there is no violation.

Their actions fundamentally impinge the liberty of their victims.

If liberty is null, neither good nor bad, right or wrong, then what is the “violation” or what does “impinge” mean?

 

[Hume]

Alright so here’s this contradiction from another angle, maybe this will make it clearer.

Hume:

Neutral space.
If the woman consents, then there is no violation.
Their actions fundamentally impinge the liberty of their victims.

If liberty is null, neither good nor bad, right or wrong, then what is the “violation” or what does “impinge” mean?

We’ve answered this repeatedly. It is the beginning point, not an end in and of itself.

Seriously at least the 4th or 5th time I’ve posted this.

We take these starts and build on them, employing other, reasonable premises. Take, for instance, my reference to Harry above about Augustine’s and Auquinas’ “Divine Simplicity”.

Then compare that to a table straining under copies of the lastest Catholic Catechism, the canons of every church council the Catholic Church has ever recognized, all papal encyclicals and bulls through history in addition to all promulgations issued by the Holy Office/Office of the Inquisition.

It’s not a contradiction in the same way those hundreds of pounds of Catholic documents aren’t supposed to contradict Divine Simplicity.

 

[Hume]

The idea is super-simple.

When in doubt, free will reigns.

 

[Neithan]

Liberty is ethically good, or else it’s ethically irrelevant. The whole moral null thing doesn’t work. You cannot violate or impinge neutral space. A null does not need to be defended. I see why you’re trying to deny this because you want to maintain relativism, but you can say it 4, 5, 100 times: it’s a contradiction.

And divine simplicity: what other things do about something does not change that something. I can write a million books about the number 1. That doesn’t change anything about the number.

Why not just take a page from H.L.A. Hart? Liberty is the primary natural right. At least that’s consistent and makes sense that limiting it requires justification by some other good.

 

[HarryStotle]

We take these starts and build on them, employing other, reasonable premises. Take, for instance, my reference to Harry above about Augustine’s and Auquinas’ “Divine Simplicity”.

Yes, but just to declare it is “the beginning” is simply to assert THAT as YOUR foundational premise. You do couch it in terms of the “null” hypothesis, but that is just cover language to make it appear that you are stating something significant. From where I stand, it is merely a tactic to absolve you of the need to defend it as a premise…

Earlier you denied belief in God (or gods as you put it.)

The problem, for you, then becomes how to carve “liberty” out of a purely materialistic world since you deny any transcendent reality whatsoever.

It seems rather odd to hold ‚ on the one hand, that all mental functions (including willing) are the result of the causal determinations of brain chemistry and physics, while on the other, claiming human liberty is the axiomatic first principle of morality.

Now you can resort to some heretofore unexplained compatibilism as grounding your bridging of that chasm, but again you seem to have a penchant for just avoiding all of the sticky issues by merely assuming your “null” hypothesis as a starting point.

Well, let’s just avoid all of that messy philosophizing, then, and begin with a bald assertion to skirt the hard work.

 

[Lion_IRC]

If liberty is null, neither good nor bad, right or wrong, then what is the “violation” or what does “impinge” mean?

Exactly.
If the unborn human being has no viridical, objectively true rights (life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness) then how does any human objectively demonstrate to me that they have the supposed right to something called ‘bodily autonomy’?

 

[Hume]

Liberty is ethically good, or else it’s ethically irrelevant.

It’s just a default - one we limit with additional developments like religion - which is classically defined by one fellow as “a return to bondage”.

Your faith, if you fully submit to it, limits your liberty in astounding ways - ways one would only rationally consider if they thought it was necessary to avoid eternal torment.

If you want to call liberty “good”, I’m ok with that, I guess (I don’t particularly believe in objective “good”). But then how do you reconcile a man who can’t consummate his marriage not being allowed to marry in your faith? Is his loss of that liberty - which is a loss of a “good” in your description - a “good-er” “good”?

I’m going to be charitable and not cry “contradiction!”, but that’s a concern that requires harmonizing with liberty being good. And this is just one example of hundreds, maybe thousands.

The whole moral null thing doesn’t work. You cannot violate or impinge neutral space.

You’re not considering that at the point where we’re defending people from having their liberty impinged by other people, we’ve employed other premises, like the Golden Rule and “all people being inherently equal”. An argument was made, starting with the null and employing those other premises to create an ethic - don’t impinge the liberty of others.

shrug. You build with these things. That’s what premises are existentially for.

A null does not need to be defended.

You outta see the guy above claiming the null can be “nihil or nothing”. If correcting him isn’t a defense, then I guess people need to be educated on what nullity is.

And divine simplicity: what other things do about something does not change that something. I can write a million books about the number 1. That doesn’t change anything about the number.

Of course.

 

[Hume]

Neithan:

If liberty is null, neither good nor bad, right or wrong, then what is the “violation” or what does “impinge” mean?

Exactly.
If the unborn human being has no viridical, objectively true rights (life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness) then how does any human objectively demonstrate to me that they have the supposed right to something called ‘bodily autonomy’?

It’s a conflict, sadly. The baby will develop (it doesn’t want to, it’s incapable of want), and the mother doesn’t want to undergo the perils of pregnancy - which include death, we often forget.

We need a tie-breaker. And it goes to mom, for an ocean of reasons we could start a thread on.

As I’ve said numerous times, if you want to be pro-life, then attack the reasons a mother would seek an abortion.

 

[Hume]

Why not just take a page from H.L.A. Hart? Liberty is the primary natural right.

I don’t think we’re really saying anything different there.

Yes, but just to declare it is “the beginning” is simply to assert THAT as YOUR foundational premise.

Not at all. I’m searching for the null - whatever that may be.

It seems to be libertas, liberty, free will - whatever you want to call it. Much bigger and older idea than little ole me.

You do couch it in terms of the “null” hypothesis, but that is just cover language to make it appear that your are stating something significant. From where I stand, it is merely a tactic to absolve you of the need to defend it as a premise…

Not at all. You guys have attacked it repeatedly and so far no decent lance strikes.

Look at the post counts, for Pete’s sake.

Earlier you denied belief in God (or gods as you put it.)

Sure. Reality must be observable in order to be said to be “real”.

The problem, for you, then becomes how to carve “liberty” out of a purely materialistic world since you deny any transcendent reality whatsoever.

I don’t require any supernatural figure to make mine “go”. The fox has liberty. The whale. The whatever. They be and do as they wish, following their drives and urges until they die.

It seems rather odd to hold ‚ on the one hand — that all mental functions (including willing) are the result of the causal determinations of brain chemistry and physics — while on the other claiming human liberty is the axiomatic first principle of morality.

It’s just where you seem to find yourself before adding god and government to your worldview - before adding all the other constructs you’ve decided you like (or were just impressed upon you by your “tribe”).

Now you can resort to some heretofore unexplained compatibilism as grounding your bridging of that chasm, but again you seem to have a penchant for just avoiding all of the sticky issues by merely assuming your “null” hypothesis as a starting point.

No, like any reasonable man I’ve asked you guys repeatedly what an alternative could possibly be?

The laws of Yahweh? Which ones? Per Catholics? Evangelicals? Mormons? Why should a Hindu, with an older religion, be convinced of that? So on and so forth…

But I’ll ask again, what is our default moral state if not libertas? if not free-moral agency? (a phrase you may be more familiar with)

Well, let’s just avoid all of that messy philosophizing, then, and begin with a bald assertion to skirt the hard work

Coming from a guy who’s faith is rooted firmly in Divine Command theory

 

[Lion_IRC]

No.
I don’t need to rebut every single excuse a person might have for murdering an unborn baby. Why?

Because they are philosophical red herrings in the exact same way as the abortion-on-demand lobby says they don’t need to make any concessions to the bed rock of their case.

The abortion lobby says it doesn’t need to counter my arguments about whether unborn babies feel pain. They say their right to bodily autonomy trumps every other consideration.

If I were to offer them a concession and agree to abortions for rape pregnancies and pregnancy stages prior to some (contested) ability of the foetus to feel pain, the abortion lobby won’t 'negotiate that. They will (rightly) say that abortion on demand means exactly what it says.

So, no. I don’t need to provide a case-by-case rebuttal of every scenario where a woman claims she wants to have an abortion.

 

[Hume]

No.
I don’t need to rebut every single excuse a person might have for murdering an unborn baby. Why?
Because they are philosophical red herrings in the exact same way as the abortion-on-demand lobby says they don’t need to make any concessions to the bed rock of their case.

The abortion lobby says it doesn’t need to counter my arguments about whether unborn babies feel pain. They say their right to bodily autonomy trumps every other consideration.

If I were to offer them a concession and agree to abortions for rape pregnancies and pregnancy stages prior to some (contested) ability of the foetus to feel pain, the abortion lobby won’t 'negotiate that. They will (rightly) say that abortion on demand means exactly what it says.

So, no. I don’t need to provide a case-by-case rebuttal of every scenario where a woman claims she wants to have an abortion.

A thought experiment!

Let’s say a woman got pregnant. Let’s also say she had a magic crystal ball that is never wrong (she’s tested it a few times, we’ll say).

A month into her pregnancy, the crystal ball suddenly tells her “at 20 weeks you’ll suffer a sudden case of preeclampsia so severe that it’ll dislodge a plaque that will travel to your brain and kill you.”

Well, in order to avoid dying a few months from now, she wants to have an abortion, but she has to get your permission.

Would you grant it?

 

[Lion_IRC]

My response is always going to be save both lives if possible.
If nothing you do can save both lives then saving one over the other is no more or less moral than the opposite choice.

 

[Hume]

My response is always going to be save both lives if possible.
If nothing you do can save both lives then saving one over the other is no more or less moral than the opposite choice.

Either way, hairy situation, right?

This is a risk all women face, maybe not at 20 weeks. Even in the US, otherwise healthy women go in to deliver that child and don’t leave alive.

So since it’s just a messy, emotional and delicate matter, let’s not tell the ladies what to do.

Let’s just let them make their own choice and let them live with it.

 

[Lion_IRC]

No.
"all women" do NOT face this risk.

…also, this is not secret women’s business.
The value of a human life doesn’t change depending on whether their life or death is in the hands of a man or a woman. Women don’t get a hall pass.

 

[Lion_IRC]

A thought experiment!

Let’s say a woman got pregnant. Let’s also say she had a magic crystal ball that is never wrong (she’s tested it a few times, we’ll say).

Interesting pro-abortion reasoning from someone I thought was a secular atheist.

A magic crystal ball?

The Christian pro-lifer would never be allowed to get away with invoking a moral argument from omniscience.

 

[HarryStotle]

To your question, no. The overshadowing of a fetus’ autonomy by the mother’s ends at birth.

Why does the mere journey down the birth canal create an intractable human right?

My own son was born five weeks premature. One of my grandsons was two weeks premature.

Here you are claiming that outside the womb they have full right to life but inside they would not have, yet they are exactly the same being inside or outside the womb.

 

[HarryStotle]

Coming from a guy who’s faith is rooted firmly in Divine Command theory

You really don’t understand my faith, nor do you properly comprehend the auspices of God to create and maintain.

I noticed that you completely skirted the issue of how you derive free will out of a fundamentally materialistic universe.

A simple gesture towards “The fox has liberty. The whale. The whatever,” doesn’t exactly establish the point you want unless you now want to include those ‘whatevers’ in your moral calculus? I mean, are you prepared to defend the “glorious liberty” of the fox or “the whatever” against a human being’s actions that might infringe that liberty?

Are you a meat eater? Any concern that that steak you had last week may have drastically infringed the liberty of the cow (a whatever?) that formerly thought of it as part of its own ‘bodily autonomy?’ Some beings are a little more ‘free’ than others, I guess?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

This is because “nothing” is actually “something”. It’s an identifiable thing (er, well, lack of things).

Liberty is just the freedom to do something so it is identifiable too. Aside from that there doesn’t have to be a default in the first place.

As I’ve said numerous times, if you want to be pro-life, then attack the reasons a mother would seek an abortion.

For most non-lethal pregnancies the new life is more important than a temporary period that can have medical assistance.