Arguing About Abortion

[Abrosz]

If a woman doesn’t want to get pregnant it’s on her to make sure she doesn’t get pregnant.

Why do you object to non-procreational sex - IF you do, of course? Or having her tubes tied? O having a hysterectomy? This last one has an added HUGE advantage - by preventing very painful menstrual cramps. A win-win situation.

 

[Elf01]

Why do you object to non-procreational sex - IF you do, of course? Or having her tubes tied? O having a hysterectomy? This last one has an added HUGE advantage - by preventing very painful menstrual cramps. A win-win situation.

All legal options that don’t involve murder.

Of course legal does not mean moral, but if somebody is not going to listen to Church teaching I’d far prefer they got steralized than killed a child

 

[Hume]

I thought they were just saying people know where sex leads and to proceed is to accept the potential outcome. [Which is to say nothing of what one might do should that outcome arise!]

Or are u suggesting we’d need a written contract before we can draw that “deep” roll_eyes conclusion?

Well, yeah. If someone wants to make the argument that there’s some sort of contractual obligation to see pregnancy through - especially given the dangers of it - then yeah. Like any other claim, the claimant must present their proof.

Of this claim I’ve never seen any. Leads me to think it likely does not exist, but I’m open minded.

I suppose you can prove it?

The behavior of animals is not an argument.

It’s precedent. We can observe it, which gives it a certain strength over arguments based on notions we can’t observe.

That doesn’t mean you are free from obligation when something happens otherwise a reckless driver can just say they didn’t consent to hitting someone.

There are consequences to everything. The idea that a woman who had an abortion is somehow free from consequence is a little childish and hard to take seriously. Virtually no one is happy they had one, trolls aside.

Perhaps my brothers and sisters disagree with me here but I observe the wise saying “you can not fix stupid” as fact.

Stupid isn’t the issue.

For many of these women, pregnancy is a statistically insignificant outcome just like the car crash. When it occurs, it was unexpected and we want the ill effects to go away as quickly as possible.

95% of abortions are not deserved for the sake of liberty change my mind.

Oh I agree, they never consented to pregnancy in the first place. There is no mind-changing going on.

My views are not dependent on the existence of God they are merely logical deductions given certain assumptions

But they are dependent on ideals similar to god. They die by the same lance.

As such, liberty is the only real recourse when consensus cannot be commonly reached. The individual must choose for themselves as the fetus is not the only object worthy of consideration - the great blunder of most pro-life arguments that win me most of my growing support.

Your views differ vastly from mine.

They do!

So in the name of liberty, she shall have hers, you shall have yours.

If ever you get pregnant, deliver the child in accordance with your views. Afford @MamaJewel the same, please.

How about we steralize her too. In fact if I wasn’t Catholic I’d be OK with that.

Goodness me, I think sterilization ought to be a government-provided service. Unwanted children are such a cultural blight - upon individuals, families and society at large.

Especially for males. Much less invasive than sterilizing females.

 

[Stephen168]

That’s excuse making. Women know what causes babies just as well as men do. When man and women have sex they know and accept the inherent risks.

Where man and woman freely choose sex, they ought equally to bear responsibility for the consequences. The law (perhaps dependent on jurisdiction) generally seeks to work to that end, though that is not straightforward and only imperfect solutions exist.

In law, it would be an implied contract. Making a contract by your actions.

 

[DENNYINMI]

There is the essential Truth that all persons have intellect and will, and when we choose something which is considered a bad choice, be it gravely immoral or otherwise, free will remained.

The argument comes into play when the intellect is not informed or aligns itself with conscience alone, which is the difference between one choosing one way, and another choosing another way.

God does not take “the choice” away from us, He sends us Grace which He will not force upon us, it must be freely accepted even if it should mean a great cross in that moment.

If He was a puppet master holding all the strings of our actions there would have been no need for a Good Friday.

The arguments over abortion can appear to downplay the fact that God Himself will not remove the free will given to each of us, and being that this is so it can rightly be said HIs mercy is infinitely purer than our own…Some of the greatest advocates of Life are those that have experienced that mercy.

Happy Easter everyone.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Why do you object to non-procreational sex - IF you do, of course? Or having her tubes tied? O having a hysterectomy? This last one has an added HUGE advantage - by preventing very painful menstrual cramps. A win-win situation.

Objecting to them doesn’t matter since people do what they want anyways.

This is about reality. It’s misogyny to put the fault on women all the time for unwanted pregnancy. And our society does just that. She has to keep her legs closed and he is free to spread his seed 24/7.

I think men should be accountable too.

It sounds vindictive.

Putting all of the responsibility of the mother is base and unhelpful.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

It’s precedent. We can observe it, which gives it a certain strength over arguments based on notions we can’t observe.

Animals also cannabalize each other so whatever precedent there is hardly has any weight.

There are consequences to everything. The idea that a woman who had an abortion is somehow free from consequence is a little childish and hard to take seriously. Virtually no one is happy they had one, trolls aside.

I didn’t say that, I said that she is responsible for the life she caused through her own actions. If she didn’t want to be pregnant there are other things she should have done instead.

 

[Stephen168]

Putting all of the responsibility of the mother is base and unhelpful.

Which was never my point.

Sometimes a mirror makes a point.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

It shows that other species will spontaneously abort, abandon or eat their young when times are tough.

We’re animals too, Van.

If a woman isn’t ready for pregnancy, she doesn’t need to be pregnant.

We can just discard whoever we want then and times are tough now, but a survival of the fittest morality is not ethical at all.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

It shows that other species will spontaneously abort, abandon or eat their young when times are tough.

We’re animals too, Van.

If a woman isn’t ready for pregnancy, she doesn’t need to be pregnant.

We can just discard whoever we want then and times are tough now, but a survival of the fittest morality is not ethical at all.

If you don’t look out for yourself, there is no future generation.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

If you don’t look out for yourself, there is no future generation.

Abortion is destroying the future generation and looking out for yourself doesn’t neccesitate abortion when other options are avaliable. Since the precentage of death is low that is not a valid argument practically speaking.

Hey, if you guys are right, she doesn’t get away scott-free. The baby enjoys a Beatific Vision (or “diet heaven”) and the woman goes to hell, right?

Your god will get her, Van.

That type of indifference isn’t applied consistently.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

You’re right the proposition was not the best way to go about it and extreme when other more ethical options present themself.

 

[Hume]

Van I think we both agree that nobody gets to determine the acceptable risk of death for anyone other than themselves.

And death isnt the only risk.

Even safe pregnancy is typically permanently damaging, both immediately and chronically. My dear old mother had a prolapse and needed radical hysterectomy.
The cause? Having 7 kids. Normal births, all.

A women doesn’t owe it to anyone, Van. She is hers and no one else’s.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Van I think we both agree that nobody gets to determine the acceptable risk of death for anyone other than themselves.

The alternative is terminating another life so it isn’t as clear cut.

y dear old mother had a prolapse and needed radical hysterectomy.
The cause? Having 7 kids. Normal births, all.

7 children isn’t the norm here.

 

[HarryStotle]

A women doesn’t owe it to anyone, Van. She is hers and no one else’s.

I suppose by that logic no one owes anything to anyone.

The problem with this view is that it depends entirely upon whether your metaphysics are true.

If materialism is all there is no one owes anything to anyone. If God exists and is the underlying reality then we all do owe something to Someone. Merely denying that possibility is insufficient to relinquish the responsibility.

Again, it all depends on what is true vis a vis the reality underlying our existence.

 

[HarryStotle]

I was demonstrating that primates have sex for all sorts of reasons. As far as I can tell, we’re unique among primates in including reproduction as a deliberate aim.

Well, no. For you to argue that primates have sex “for reasons” you would have to argue that primates have the intellectual capacity to actually think about their reasons in a cognitive manner. Which is what you imply here…

First, no they don’t. It would be difficult to convince me that when a bonobo “does it” with another bonobo that both parties are cognizant of the probability to procreation.

Sounds like you are pulling a fast one here by equating human reasoning ability with that of other primates in order to claim our purposeful behaviour is equivalent to theirs, which isn’t true by any stretch. Thus my point…

I see, so you are defending the choices of a supposedly “progressed person” by appealing to the behaviour of lesser “persons,” i.e., bonobos.

So how does the lack of cognition among bonobos justify the behaviour of higher order and supposedly “progressed” persons?

Whether or not other primates are capable of comprehending the purpose behind mating or reproduction does not imply there isn’t a biological purpose for it.

The purpose for wings on a bird is to enable flight. Birds may not be cognizant of that reality, but human beings have the intellect to apprehend that purpose.

Merely because birds or bonobos do not comprehend purpose does not mean there isn’t one. You may not want to acknowledge that but that would be because it threatens your metaphysical world view. Thus you are able to rationalize away purpose to salvage your worldview.

The capacity to rationalize exists in rational beings, but likely doesn’t in bonobos or birds.

Thus a bonobo will not try to rationalize away some sexual behaviour or drive but merely follows the urge to procreate without thinking on whether or not it fits the purpose for which it plainly exists.

 

[Hume]

The alternative is terminating another life so it isn’t as clear cut.

Agreed! So since no one can make a clear case as to what the woman must do, I guess we ought to just let her decide for herself!

7 children isn’t the norm here.

Since the advent of birth control, you’re quite right.

 

[Hume]

I suppose by that logic no one owes anything to anyone.

If they don’t agree to it, not really. The only exceptions are typically death and taxes.

To argue otherwise is to argue some sort of necessary slavery.

Best of luck with that.

The problem with this view is that it depends entirely upon whether your metaphysics are true.

Nothing in metaphysics can be shown as demonstrably true. That why we hide it behind “meta” and smirk.

Gotta default to the null (liberty) when we can’t make a good argument.

If materialism is all there is no one owes anything to anyone. If God exists and is the underlying reality then we all do owe something to Someone. Merely denying that possibility is insufficient to relinquish the responsibility.

Soon as you (or someone else can) prove that god, it’ll have my fullest submission.

Until then…

Well, no. For you to argue that primates have sex “for reasons” you would have to argue that primates have the intellectual capacity to actually think about their reasons in a cognitive manner. Which is what you imply here…

I think all the apes demonstrate cognition and most of the monkeys. So, no big problem here.

Unless, that is, you’re one of those that mistakenly believe cognition is a solely human trait…

Whether or not other primates are capable of comprehending the purpose behind mating or reproduction does not imply there isn’t a biological purpose for it.

It doesn’t make any argument at all other than what it says - they do it for lots of reasons and reproduction probably isn’t among them.

That “sex being fun” is extremely beneficial to reproduction is very true. But it’s probably not why they do it.

Sex has lots of functions. Reproduction’s just one of them.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

So since no one can make a clear case as to what the woman must do, I guess we ought to just let her decide for herself!

There is no incentive for that either.

 

[Rau]

If someone wants to make the argument that there’s some sort of contractual obligation to see pregnancy through

You’re making stuff up now. I (and I don’t think anyone else?) has suggested that the decision to have sex implies a commitment to deliver any resulting child. One can know pregnancy can result from sex without that implying an intention to refrain from killing the child. And if you have sex, you accept that’s a possible outcome. What you do when found to be pregnant is a new choice in a new circumstances (as I’ve said).