Arguing About Abortion

[Neithan]

Of course I suspect that you will object to this, but I also doubt that you can substantiate your objection on purely secular / philosophical grounds.

It’s easy to substantiate that objection by pointing out the inherent contradiction. If liberty is truly neutral and there is no normative principle — no reference point — for measuring good or bad, right or wrong, then it’s contradictory to argue that it’s somehow a violation of a person to limit their liberty. What is violated? Liberty makes no sense unless there is a “who” even though we don’t know who that is: a person with free will is necessarily involved. The golden rule at least depends on liberty being good, otherwise why is it bad or wrong to do something to someone that you would not want them to do to you?

A “moral default” — indeed calling anything ethical or moral, and then saying that it is somehow necessarily objective rather than subjective — is saying that something is good, basically, or naturally, or a starting point for the good. So we have at least some natural law, and not relativism. Otherwise it’s merely asserting what one wants, which is the very definition of caprice. And there is no need to defend caprice or whimsy.

 

[Neithan]

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”?

That free will or human liberty is good is one of the essential tenets of Christianity, by the way. I’ll assume you’re already aware of that. With marriage, it’s a natural impediment if someone is unable to consummate it, so it’s not that they are not free to marry, they are physically unable. Still, there is the possibility of a Josephite marriage between a man and woman at least, and they are free to do that.

And it’s not uncharitable to point out a logical contradiction, it’s necessary for any reasonable discussion where some agreement is — at least theoretically — the aim. Charity is not the same as avoiding anything and everything that might irk someone’s feelings, it is willing the good of the other for their own sake. If you see me making a contradiction please point that out and I will gladly concede the point. I’m here to learn as much as share my thoughts.

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

In that case like Hart, I’d propose that there is at least a minimal natural good: life, or survival. So we can dispense with relativism, since we know that something is good. Liberty is the starting point or default for law and human life is the end or reason for law.

Moving on. I’d say a law is just insofar as it promotes the survival of human lives, while maintaining the most liberty for the most lives. So a law that allows two human lives, one free and one temporarily limited, is better than a law that allows one free life that ends another free life permanently. Add to that the innocence of both lives under the law.

 

[Neithan]

There is no contradiction.

The contradiction is this: Liberty is neutral. Limiting it requires justification.

And as for the minimal natural good of Professor Hart, that is evidently human life, not just life as a generic concept for organic matter.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Freedom or liberty is the basics for ethics. It is not the final “word”. It is what ethics can be built upon.

You can build an ethics system with whatever you want and liberty does not need to be considered at all.

there is only ONE ethical principle, which is held by all societies (that we know of) and that is the idea of reciprocal altruism - in other word the “golden rule”.

That’s not true whether it be the Mayans, and cannibals in primitive lands or communists and Nazis more recently. There is also slavery in the Romans times and in Europe and America.

So to use it as the default is not capricious or arbitrary.

Liberty in the sense that it is the list of actions that can be performed is the default in the sense that it includes all the actions which are moral or immoral. But that is all you can take from it objectively.

 

[Hume]

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

Oh yes they do. Oh yes they do.

A woman assumes a probability of each and every possible outcome of pregnancy when she undergoes it, ranging from the ultra, ultra rare outcome of no lasting consequences whatsoever all the way to rare outcome of death.

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.

But they do get control of their bodies. You have no more right to tell my wife what to do with her body than I do.

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

I doesn’t. It’s just at that point the fetus is no longer dependent on the body of it’s mother. It’s rights are no longer fully overshadowed by hers.

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.

This issue isn’t just about the baby - it’s also about the woman.

Frankly, you can only be ardently pro-birth by completely ignoring the woman involved. This reality is where my “side” gets most of its converts.

My side is very interested in considering the rights and choices of the woman, which is why we’re pro-choice. We’re also not “pro-abortion”. Abortions saddens the great majority of us “choicers”.

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

Well, in fairness, no one does, right? Divine mysteries and all…

Point is, you don’t have access to some secret information that I don’t have access to.

You just believe what you want, and I’m fine with that. Really.

Just don’t try to govern my actions with your religious views. Convert me to your religion first , then we can talk.

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.

There’s always a default. The first argument/hypothesis had to start there.

 

[Hume]

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

This is another downplay of the peril to the woman, winning me more converts…

Even when it goes well, there’s lasting damage. My wife had 3 very normal pregnancies. She still likes to joke about the effects to her body.

Not so lucky for my grandmother. She had 13, no issues either. And then in her later years she suffered from a profound prolapse in a time where there wasn’t a whole lot to do for it.

Why did it happen? Pregnancy.

Women who have no long term effects from pregnancy are like Panamanian Golden Frogs. We’ve heard of them, but almost never seen them.

That free will or human liberty is good is one of the essential tenets of Christianity, by the way. I’ll assume you’re already aware of that.

I’m not a Christian. If you are, that’s great! But you’ve no right at all to subject me or anyone else (including women) to your preferred interpretation of Christian tenets.

 

[Servant31]

Hey Hume, sorry for the late response. I’ve been offline for a few days.

Sure, and the ultimate gist of the counter is that you should happily be Catholic, but also give people the room to not be Catholic - particularly in a nation where church and state are divorced as a constitutional matter.

But If your going to argue rights and the constitution, you have to carry that argument through universally not selectively. One parties rights may not infringe upon the rights of another. That’s the nature of rights.

The right to freedom of speech doesn’t allow someone to cry fire in a crowded theater. The right to private property doesn’t allow one to take the property of another.

Catholics believe that at conception a child has the full rights and dignity due any human being. Being inside the mother doesn’t allow a negation of those rights. So the “right” of a mother to “choose”, is an infringement on the rights of the child to exist. Yes it is her body, but what she does affects, terminally, the body of the child.

Although not a perfect analogy, If you exist on my property, I don’t have the right do with you as I please, you have innate dignity, given by God, to your own rights which I may not deny.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

This is another downplay of the peril to the woman, winning me more converts…

It’s not a downplay if I choose the lesser evil among two bad options.

Not so lucky for my grandmother. She had 13, no issues either. And then in her later years she suffered from a profound prolapse in a time where there wasn’t a whole lot to do for it.

Having 13 children sounds more than usual and certainly isn’t anywhere near the norm now. And this happened in a time with older technology so it isn’t a case that represents the problems today.

 

[Servant31]

Yeah sorry Hume I agree. It’s not a downplay to the peril of mothers, it’s a complete negation of the peril to the child.

 

[Hume]

Hume

Hey Hume, sorry for the late response. I’ve been offline for a few days.

Not a problem! I do other stuff too

But If your going to argue rights and the constitution, you have to carry that argument through universally not selectively. One parties rights may not infringe upon the rights of another. That’s the nature of rights.

Sure. What we have here is a conflict. It’s between a mother’s right of bodily autonomy and the supposed “right” of the child to live.

For a myriad of reasons, will always go to mom.

she is a “person” in a way the unborn isn’t and out constitution forbids her enslavement.

Catholics believe that at conception a child has the full rights and dignity due any human being. Being inside the mother doesn’t allow a negation of those rights. So the “right” of a mother to “choose”, is an infringement on the rights of the child to exist. Yes it is her body, but what she does affects, terminally, the body of the child.

And I think you guys should have the right to preach that.

But since neither I nor my wife are Catholic, we are not and will not be bound by Catholic law (separation of Church and state).

Although not a perfect analogy, If you exist on my property, I don’t have the right do with you as I please, you have innate dignity, given by God, to your own rights which I may not deny.

But, in keeping with your analogy, if you are unwelcome on my property, I have the right to have you removed - forcibly if necessary.

It’s not a downplay if I choose the lesser evil among two bad options.

What you must realize is that you’re not involved in the choice.

You’re not mom.
You’re not the baby.
You have no more right to speak on behalf of the baby than a beggar in Timbuktu.

Yeah sorry Hume I agree. It’s not a downplay to the peril of mothers, it’s a complete negation of the peril to the child.

No, most of us realize the peril to the child. We just also recognize the peril to the mother in addition to her fundamental right to govern the body her consciousness inhabits.

On the theological end, it’s really not a bad deal. If they don’t go to heaven, then they likely enjoy a Beatific Vision - “diet heaven”, if I may be so crude.

They don’t have the opportunity to endure human suffering and doom themselves through their misguided actions, like we do.

Just an aside.

 

[Lion_IRC]

You have no more right to tell my wife what to do with her body than I do.

Take a look at the Covid-19 world around you at the moment Hume.
There’s an entire planet full of people being told what they can and do - with their body.

 

[Hume]

Sure, for good, rational reason.

“Because Allah told me” doesn’t cut the mustard. I don’t believe in Allah. I bet you don’t either.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

What you must realize is that you’re not involved in the choice.

You’re not mom.
You’re not the baby.
You have no more right to speak on behalf of the baby than a beggar in Timbuktu.

That doesn’t matter, a grave reason is enough to overide them and the termination of the fetus is a a grave thing since it is an irreversible decision to end a life.

 

[Hume]

That doesn’t matter, a grave reason is enough to overide them and the termination of the fetus is a a grave thing since it is an irreversible decision to end a life.

Your argument only works if you’re Catholic. Most of us aren’t.

Keep your religion out of the wombs of those that don’t willingly submit to it, please.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Your argument only works if you’re Catholic. Most of us aren’t.

Keep your religion out of the wombs of those that don’t willingly submit to it, please.

Sorry but I haven’t mentioned religion at all. I assume you refer to calling the fetus a life, but even a potential life that has been created through no fault of its own does not deserve to die when there are other alternatives that aren’t irreversible.

 

[Neithan]

I don’t believe in Allah. I bet you don’t either.

Allah is Arabic for God. We don’t believe Muhammad is a prophet, but we believe in the God of Abraham.

I just think it’s important to clear that up, it’s an annoying misconception that atheists/agnostics/nones like to bring up a lot. Carry on.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

Your argument only works if you’re Catholic. Most of us aren’t.

Keep your religion out of the wombs of those that don’t willingly submit to it, please.

Sorry but I haven’t mentioned religion at all.

No?
You said “grave matter” - a distinctly Catholic term.

I assume you refer to calling the fetus a life, but even a potential life that has been created through no fault of its own does not deserve to die when there are other alternatives that aren’t irreversible.

And a mother doesn’t deserve to carry a child she doesn’t want - also subject to irreversible outcomes.

So let’s let the ladies choose for themselves.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

And a mother doesn’t deserve to carry a child she doesn’t want - also subject to irreversible outcomes.

So let’s let the ladies choose for themselves.

She is responsible for her deeds and I am not talking about rape. She took the risk so now its on her.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

I don’t believe in Allah. I bet you don’t either.

Allah is Arabic for God. We don’t believe Muhammad is a prophet, but we believe in the God of Abraham.

I just think it’s important to clear that up, it’s an annoying misconception that atheists/agnostics/nones like to bring up a lot. Carry on.

That’s not particularly fair.

I think most of us understand “Allah” as the god of Muhammad.

Oxford gives it as “The name of god among Muslims”.

If it’s a misconception, boy it’s a common and established one…

 

[Neithan]

It’s a misconception. You can read Nostra Aetate if you’re interested. Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God. Arabic Christians also call him Allah.