Catholic Position Extreme Case of Abortion

[QContinuum]

My impression was that you consider all philosophical “persons” to be worthy of their own inalienable right to live, which may be forfeit as a result of their own conscious decisions. If I’m wrong, let me know, so I can change my argument.

I dislike the term “persons” in this context because it means different things to different people. To be clear, I consider that all human life has value, and should have full legal protection from the moment of birth. Before birth, protections should increase concomitantly with the gradual emergence of nascent human consciousness and increasing complexity of the fetus.

Most human life has value to me, including the embryo, because even in its most basic state, it is human, and represents a potential future. Therefore, I’m not blase about the thought of destroying it. But I do place more value - that point in its development - on the rights of the woman, the costs to her, than I do on the nascent human’s right to exist at her expense.

Now if you’re wondering what the exceptions are to the “most,” I do not feel compelled to value the lives of people like Ted Bundy or other similar predatory humans. I don’t agree with the death penalty as practiced in the US, but I never mourn when such individuals are put down like rabid animals by someone in self-defense.

Does this clarify my current position?

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Yes. My only response is a question: Why do you have the right to determine who gets what rights, and when?

 

[Anesti33]

To be clear, I consider that all human life has value, and should have full legal protection from the moment of birth.

Why does birth matter? Why should infants have full legal protection and human rights? They are excessively dependent on adults for their food, shelter, clothing, hygiene. Why should teenagers have full legal protection and human rights? They are unable to work for a living or support themselves. They can’t vote, can’t drink, can’t serve in the military. They are dead weight on society.

 

[QContinuum]

Why do you have the right to determine who gets what rights, and when?

I never claimed to have the right to determine any of these things. That is typically never up to any single individual, except in certain autocratic societies. Rights are man-made constructions, and vary as such from society to society, and are usually the amalgamation of a society’s customs, history, culture, and philosophy.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

So, if one society, say, decided that a certain group had no rights, would you be okay with that?

 

[QContinuum]

Why does birth matter? Why should infants have full legal protection and human rights? They are excessively dependent on adults for their food, shelter, clothing, hygiene. Why should teenagers have full legal protection and human rights? They are unable to work for a living or support themselves. They can’t vote, can’t drink, can’t serve in the military. They are dead weight on society.

I am willing to have a separate conversation with you later, after Captain Prudeman and I have finished. It is too confusing to try to answer fastball questions to someone while thinking about another person’s latest response. Some of the answers to your questions I have already addressed in previous posts, so please read them to get an idea of where I’m coming from.

 

[Anesti33]

Rights are man-made constructions, and vary as such from society to society, and are usually the amalgamation of a society’s customs, history, culture, and philosophy.

Actually, “rights” as understood by Christians and the framers of the Declaration of Independence, are granted by God and must be protected and defended by governmental structures, lest they be infringed. Other rights may be “man-made constructions”, but the right to life has been endowed in us by our Creator. That much is clear. I am sad that you cannot accept this, because even the barely-Christian Deist Founding Fathers were certain of these self-evident truths.

 

[Anesti33]

Anesti33:

Why does birth matter? Why should infants have full legal protection and human rights? They are excessively dependent on adults for their food, shelter, clothing, hygiene. Why should teenagers have full legal protection and human rights? They are unable to work for a living or support themselves. They can’t vote, can’t drink, can’t serve in the military. They are dead weight on society.

I am willing to have a separate conversation with you later, after Captain Prudeman and I have finished. It is too confusing to try to answer fastball questions to someone while thinking about another person’s latest response. Some of the answers to your questions I have already addressed in previous posts, so please read them to get an idea of where I’m coming from.

Well, this is a forum, where conversations in one thread interleave each other. If you want to start a separate thread for your conversations, then we could entertain serial service. Otherwise, I will reply as I see fit, thank you very much.

 

[QContinuum]

So, if one society, say, decided that a certain group had no rights, would you be okay with that?

It isn’t about whether I am “okay” with it. It’s a simple recognition of fact. Rights are legal constructs that differ from society to society. This is self-evident.

In some societies, it is perfectly acceptable to throw a homosexual off of a cliff. I find that regressive, and also deplorable. If individuals in my country wanted to introduce a law allowing people to throw homosexuals off of tall buildings, I would oppose it, because I have a different moral system. The “rights” I am exercising in opposing them, such as the right to protest, the right to vote, are rights granted by this country’s particular constitution.

 

[Anesti33]

In some societies, it is perfectly acceptable to throw a homosexual off of a cliff. I find that regressive, and also deplorable.

A person with same-sex attraction, or a person who has committed sodomy?

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Are individuals free to make laws as they please within their own countries?

 

[QContinuum]

Well, this is a forum, where conversations in one thread interleave each other. If you want to start a separate thread for your conversations, then we could entertain serial service. Otherwise, I will reply as I see fit, thank you very much.

I am more than willing to have such a conversation with you, as stated. My declination of discussing it during this particular polite debate with Captain Prudeman merely made reference to my own limitations to holding two separate conversations at once in a fast moving thread. I made no comments about any limitation of your posts. You may post as you see fit, only I won’t be able to answer lists of questions.

 

[Anesti33]

Once again, this is a forum, not a conversation between you and another user. This is where we all participate collaboratively in a conversation. So you are not sitting at a coffeehouse, at a table for two, with me standing over you, peppering you with questions. I am sorry if you misunderstand the basic nature of this format. You may use “DM” (Direct Messages) to converse with a single forum user if you wish to conduct a private conversation.

 

[QContinuum]

Are individuals free to make laws as they please within their own countries?

Clearly, that is dependent upon their own countries’ laws. Some utilize participatory and democratic government, and others don’t. Some countries, especially repressive states like North Korea or Iran, most individuals have no say at all in their legal system. So these citizens would not be free to make laws they approve of.

 

[QContinuum]

I don’t believe I made any reference to others and their conversations on the thread. Have a good day!

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Let me rephrase. Is a country, as a unit, free to make laws within that country, regardless of who makes those laws, whether it be democratically elected bodies or monarchs?

 

[Gorgias]

As you see, this naturally excludes food.

Pharmacology and law? That’s how deep you have to dive to find a supporting source?

Ok.

I suggest that we both stick to decaf for the remainder of the evening.

 

[QContinuum]

You are asking about each country’s government. What is government, ultimately, but a monopoly on violence in a discrete area? If a country has established its sovereignty within a given area, then that means they make the rules. They make the rules, because they have the power to do so (I think this is what you mean by “freedom”). North Korea makes rules that allows for the starvation of many of its people. Iran makes rules that allow its theocratic rulers to terrorize and torture its own people. China makes rules that allows it to repress religious minorities, be they Muslim, Catholic, or Buddhist. They make such rules because they want to and clearly, they can.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

So you wouldn’t have stopped the Holocaust?

 

[BornInMarch]

I’m not sure, but either way the “hard cases” doesn’t justify an affluent woman who gets an abortion because she thinks pregnancy is too much of a hassle.