How Quickly Should We Overturn Roe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kkerwin1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Augustinian said:
When I was a young man, homosexuality wasn’t considered in such high regard as it is today. Do you think that the fact that homosexuality is now considered to be respectable, more people are adopting the lifestyle?
Click to expand...
I know you didn’t address your question to me, but I don’t feel more people are adopting it because, like Pope Francis, I do not feel it’s a choice. I think more people are not seeking to hide it.
 
Why “but?”

It’s pretty obvious to me, and this will not be popular among some of my Catholic friends here, that there were the local mores of Biblical writers, and then the overall morality of God.

Biblical writers lived in real harsh times, and had harsh views on things. We, at least in the west, live in much more temperate times, and have less harsh views on things.

This applies to the Church, which is after all made up of people, but we cannot believe that God Himself has changed his mind about homosexuals. Instead, we are gradually adapting in understanding and tolerance to accept all of creation, including the people in it.

That doesn’t mean we condone homosexuality, but it certainly means that we should lead with love and compassion, rather than vitriol and indictment of others’ weaknesses.
 
Here’s the thing. At what stage a fertilized egg becomes a human being is a matter of much philosophical debate. No matter how strong your feelings on the issue, there is no non-arbitrary cut line there without an appeal to your religious tradition-- specifically, the idea of a soul infused into the egg upon conception.

People have strong feelings about all kinds of things, and would love to impose their cherished beliefs on others. Some believe that circumcision is barbaric baby torture, for example, and that anyone involved with it should be jailed. Others believe that church is institutional brain-washing-- akin to forcing children to believe in Santa Claus under threat of eternal torture.

Now, I don’t believe those things, but I’ve heard them. My point is-- how would you like it if someone else’s “obvious truth” went against you, and you found yourself the target of legislation because of it? What if they made churches illegal?
 
benjamin1973 said:
At what stage a fertilized egg becomes a human being is a matter of much philosophical debate.
Click to expand...
No, it’s a matter of simply biology. Once an egg is fertilized, it is a human being. It will grow and develop, certainly, but it won’t change magically from some non-human entity into a human being.

But even if we grant that it’s ambiguous and up for philosophical debate, what is the most prudent thing to do with regards to the law? If I’m a demolition man, and I’m about to demolish a building, is it right for me to proceed with the wrecking ball if there might be someone inside? No. Indeed, if I proceeded and it turned out there was someone inside, I’d be criminally liable for their death.

So with regards to the unborn, unless we can prove that the entity is not a human being, we should err on the side of protecting the unborn. If it’s at all possible that they are human beings, the only sensible, reasonable thing is to give them the benefit of the doubt. Of course, it can never be proven that the unborn are anything but human beings as it would fly in the face of biological facts.
 
Last edited:
Joe_5859 said:
No, it’s a matter of simply biology. Once an egg is fertilized, it is a human being. It will grow and develop, certainly, but it won’t change magically from some non-human entity into a human being.
Click to expand...
It seems to me like you and @benjamin1973 are really talking about two different things. Of course a fertilized human egg will grow into a human being. I think Benjamin was saying we don’r really know when it gains an immortal soul.
 
It is even a matter of great faith whether a human being HAS a soul. I don’t think it’s a trivial social problem.

Christians are so sure that human beings have a God-given soul, and the consequences of that fact are so grave, that taking any chances at all is incomprehensible. If there’s ANY chance even a fertilized egg has a soul, then that soul needs every chance to be brought into the world to participate in the balance between good and evil through the agency of developed free will. This is understandable.

Secular folk, however, believe the Christian faith to be essentially mythological, so they have no fear of issues of the soul-- hell included. To them, humanity starts with the capacity for experience-- which requires at least a partially developed nervous system. This is understandable, too.

I don’t really have an answer to the social question. However, I think the battle for ideas has to be won in the court of ideas, not legislated by Christian insiders (read: GOP supreme court in the government. That’s a good way to further divide the country.
 
Last edited:
A human being walks around, talks, and has social relationships. “Being” means, at the least, the capacity for subjective agency.

For example, if someone is on life support but is brain dead, are they a “human being” in any sense that matters? I don’t think so, and for a similar reason-- this “person” is really an organic machine, without the ability to experience, to make decisions, or to exercise free will.
 
The existance of a soul unless proven has no impact on secular law.

I agree that the prudent choice is to assume for the sake of law that a zygote is a human being absent proof to the contrary.
 
All of this sounds like an extension of Pascal’s wager. Given almost any religious idea or preference, you can say, “Well, the consequences of being wrong are so infinitely grave, that you might as well just go along with the religious idea.” For example: we can’t prove there’s a soul, but we think there is one, so abortion is murder and may lead to eternal damnation.

The problem with this is it’s binary: it works if the choice is between a specific religion and a secular position. It seems much less convincing if you accept that OTHER religions might have it right. What, for example, if the Hindus are right, and a fetus if aborted will free the soul to instantly move on to another body? Those seem like very much less serious consequences than eternal damnation.

There are also some scenarios where the secular position makes NOT aborting a very grave decision. What, for example, if a fetus is badly damaged by drug and alcohol abuse in the mother, who is also extremely poor and unfit as a parent? If there’s no soul, then it will spend maybe ten or twenty years in intense suffering, both physical and psychological, for nothing. In that case, not aborting is simply causing unnecessary suffering.
 
Last edited:
Xystus said:
Also, I am assuming that by “overturn Row v. Wade” @kkerwin1 really means “make abortion illegal” (correct me if i am wrong). Overturning it will just means the Fed Govt will no longer force each State to have legal abortion. the debate will then be at each of the 50 States level where they will be free to have legal abortion or not.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. It depends on HOW the Supreme Court ruled.

If the Supreme Court extended basic human rights to include the unborn, that would invalidate any local abortion laws.
 
Elf01 said:
I agree that the prudent choice is to assume for the sake of law that a zygote is a human being absent proof to the contrary.
Click to expand...
Considering that the common biological tests would confirm that it is of the human species, that would be a valid determination,

I know of no biologist that holds that the fetus changes species when it passes through the birth canal. the scientific evidence of it being a human is pretty well established.
 
benjamin1973 said:
It’s clearly not nearly enough. America has very high crime and drug rates, and these are clearly due to poverty.
Click to expand...
I remember hearing this rationale in the past. It was about 80 or ninety years ago but I couldn’t understand the entire position because it was written in German.

Edited to add. You will get nowhere with the Church on your position (not that you care I assume) because it is the position of the RCC and those who faithfully believe that life is not equated to monetary concerns. One of the bases of pro life, abolition of the death penalty, and other favs of the culture of death you so happily espouse.
 
Last edited:
Quickly, as soon as possible, not one more child aborted in this country.
 
benjamin1973 said:
What, for example, if the Hindus are right, and a fetus if aborted will free the soul to instantly move on to another body? Those seem like very much less serious consequences than eternal damnation.
Click to expand...
I heard a rational for abortion once by a regional representative of some pro abortion group, saying that why should Christians be concerned about a baby being aborted. They believe that the soul will go to heaven. I think it took about 10 minutes to shut her up and bury her somewhere in a back room stamping pamphlets.
 
That’s right. However, we are not talking about Catholic laws, but rather Secular ones.

If Catholicism were the official state religion, then fine. It would be a very easy decision to make, and the OP wouldn’t exist.
 
The only thing I’m espousing is that the support offered to people should scale with the degree to which they are compelled by others’ rules.

If you want to force a woman to have a baby, then you need to provide well for both the woman and the baby. If you want to allow the woman the liberty to control what happens in her body, then you have to allow her the free will to make her own decisions.

Remember that? Free will? It’s that thing God gave us all to make choices about how we live our lives.
 
benjamin1973 said:
That’s right. However, we are not talking about Catholic laws, but rather Secular ones.

If Catholicism were the official state religion, then fine. It would be a very easy decision to make, and the OP wouldn’t exist.
Click to expand...
I’d say Catholics realize that. I do. But that doesn’t mean I am going to acquiesce to the secular culture of death mentality that supports and embraces any rationale for the chose and deliberate killing of a human being, actual or potential. That position taken to its extreme will justify the destruction of life that, as someone may judge, has no potential. Just load all those cripples, dementia patients, and others the hoi polio of society consider beneath them.
I will continue to work for the day when all life, from conception to natural death is valued and protected, Whether you like it or not.
 
benjamin1973 said:
Remember that? Free will? It’s that thing God gave us all to make choices about how we live our lives.
Click to expand...
Your free will to impose on me your judgment that pro life is on the wrong side of modern society’s headlong rush to choose who will live and who will die? Is that the free will you are talking about?
benjamin1973 said:
If you want to allow the woman the liberty to control what happens in her body, then you have to allow her the free will to make her own decisions.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the RCC or any of its faithful adherents contend that we should have a right to deny a person a right to their free will. I do think we should do all we can to support a program where life and not death is the more desired value.
 
I have little interest in judging you. The OP is about overturning Roe. It is my position that in a secular society, the free will of individual citizens is more important than the legislative expression of religious ideas.

If the Hindus have cherished beliefs, can they impose them on you? Can American Muslims declare that women not covering their heads is likely to condemn them to Hell, and therefore demand that all women should have to follow their beliefs?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top