If "pro-choicers" are really so "pro-choice" then why are they against the choice to be pro-life?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well actually there’s several problems with that statement. It doesn’t resolve the issue of abortion.
 
logic_oriented said:
I’m curious about something. If I say to you (or anybody), “You can have chocolate ice cream or vanilla ice cream,” which of them do I support?
Click to expand...
Why are you trying to interject logic into this argument? Clearly you support the death of chocolate ice cream! 😃
 
fix said:
Oh, people misperceive reality all the time. The point is such misperception is not justification for holding such distorted views. I mean people can be obstinate for many reasons.
Click to expand...
In your view, in the Church’s view, there’s a great deal of misperception of reality in the general (especially non-Catholic) public. The problem again is a philosophical one. The general public does not accept, has not adopted the philosophical underpinnings of the Catholic Church, one of which holds to an “objective” truth. That’s not what the public buys, and they’re not likely to do so any time soon. Society considers many truths to be relative, and also sees rights as relative to other rights. (And yes, they’re obstinate about that, just as religious institutions have a right to be obstinate, and are, about their own views.)
 
Elizabeth502 said:
In your view, in the Church’s view, there’s a great deal of misperception of reality in the general (especially non-Catholic) public. The problem again is a philosophical one. The general public does not accept, has not adopted the philosophical underpinnings of the Catholic Church, one of which holds to an “objective” truth. That’s not what the public buys, and they’re not likely to do so any time soon. Society considers many truths to be relative, and also sees rights as relative to other rights. (And yes, they’re obstinate about that, just as religious institutions have a right to be obstinate, and are, about their own views.)
Click to expand...
And in fact, the more RCs try to tell the general (especially non-Catholic) public how to think, how to act, and how to live, the more “obstinate” they will because the more the Church tries to take away individual rights, the harder people will hold on to them. Relativism is purely a religious teaching. Those who don’t follow that religion, aren’t going to hold those views. They’ll live by their own values.
 
Doc_Keele said:
Newbie2 - yes, I believe that there are some situations where abortion is morally permissible where the mother’s life is in serious danger. There certainly are situations where this is the case.
Click to expand...
Not if you believe in protecting the life of an innocent.
 
Doc_Keele said:
That’s not an argument, that’s just a statement of your opinion. You don’t attempt to justify it in any way.
Click to expand...
Abortion is MURDER. You do not murder the child to save the mother.

Apart from the 5th Commandment: you shall not kill if you want something more specific read the Didache (commonly known as the teachings of the Apostles) which was written around 70AD to 100AD:

“Chapter 2. The Second Commandment: Grave Sin Forbidden. And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born. You shall not covet the things of your neighbor, you shall not swear, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge. You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued, for to be double-tongued is a snare of death. Your speech shall not be false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty. You shall not take evil counsel against your neighbor. You shall not hate any man; but some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life.”
 
Again you make a statement without proving it. If abortion was viewed by all people as murder, then clearly abortion could not be legalised. Abortion and murder are not identical.
 
Doc_Keele said:
That’s begging the question.
Click to expand...
Doc_Keele said:
That’s not an argument, that’s just a statement of your opinion. You don’t attempt to justify it in any way.
Click to expand...
Doc_Keele said:
Again you make a statement without proving it. If abortion was viewed by all people as murder, then clearly abortion could not be legalised. Abortion and murder are not identical.
Click to expand...
You ask all the pro-life supporters to post arguments to support their claims but all I can see in your posts is your own naked opinion. I’ve asked you as one who “loves a formal argument” to give us one but you decline. The little snippit you’ve provided on the last post (just a porposition, not an argumnent) is pretty lame. Positive law never determines morality. Remember Nazi Germany? Their death camp operators broke no laws.

What’s your point Doc? Merely that you disagree with Catholic teaching?
 
No, not naked opinion.
I can present a formal argument, and I have started, but a lot of people here believe that the only valid approach is an deontological one.
I have posted an argument by analogy on the ectopic pregnancy thread, perhaps you want to have a look at that.
You don’t seem to understand that part of formal argument is analysing other arguments.

Ones personal view is not relevant to formal philosophical arguments, it’s what you can “prove”. I have no problem with people stating what they believe, but I do have a problem with them claiming that anyone else has no moral basis for their position on abortion. That can be proved to be wrong. If you find that a problem, what can I do?

Does it offend you in some way that people want a robust argument for Church teaching? I will happily stay in ignorance if you find it so massively offensive 👍
If you can’t defend your position and it upsets you to see it challenged, then I shall cease.
 
Doc_Keele said:
That’s a case of false alternatives. The mother’s life is worthy of protection too.
Click to expand...
So let’s discuss a specific scenario. You mentioned ectopic pregnancy. I didn’t see the thread, but I assume the scenario was hashed out quite well there. The moral conclusion should be that every attempt should be made to transfer the embryo into the uterus. Such is not always possible, but that is the moral solution. Try to save the baby and the mom.

In any case, since that one has been hashed out, how about a more polar mom vs. fetus scenario?
 
Newbie2 said:
So let’s discuss a specific scenario. You mentioned ectopic pregnancy. I didn’t see the thread, but I assume the scenario was hashed out quite well there. The moral conclusion should be that every attempt should be made to transfer the embryo into the uterus. Such is not always possible, but that is the moral solution. Try to save the baby and the mom.

In any case, since that one has been hashed out, how about a more polar mom vs. fetus scenario?
Click to expand...
I don’t think your solution without problems, but that’s a different thread.
Go ahead, present your scenario. Or do you want me to come up with one?
 
Doc_Keele said:
No, not naked opinion.
I can present a formal argument, and I have started, but a lot of people here believe that the only valid approach is an deontological one…
Click to expand...
May I suggest then that you start a thread posting your argument for virtual or consequential morality as superior to a deontological morality?

…
Doc_Keele said:
You don’t seem to understand that part of formal argument is analysing other arguments…
Click to expand...
Quite true. But absent an argument pro or con preceding the critcism, we call such analysis kibitzing.
Doc_Keele said:
Ones personal view is not relevant to formal philosophical arguments, it’s what you can “prove”. I have no problem with people stating what they believe, but I do have a problem with them claiming that anyone else has no moral basis for their position on abortion. That can be proved to be wrong. If you find that a problem, what can I do?.
Click to expand...
No problem. All I’ve asked is that you do just as you suggest: prove your claims by formal argument.
Doc_Keele said:
Does it offend you in some way that people want a robust argument for Church teaching? I will happily stay in ignorance if you find it so massively offensive 👍
If you can’t defend your position and it upsets you to see it challenged, then I shall cease.
Click to expand...
To exactly the opposite: I am not offended and will argue robustly for Church teaching but so far you’re dismissive responses (unless I’ve missed a posting) have been without argument.

You’re making my point: we want a robust argument but you haven’t given us one that challenges Church teaching, only denied it. It’s hard to argue against just an opinion. You are certainly entitled to yours. We invite you to defend your claims. We may very well learn from your expertise.
 
I’m not sure you can prove that one approach is superior to the other as such. Each approach leads in some situations to conclusions that are intuitively wrong. I amnot arguing for virtue ethics or pure consequentialism. I favour proportionalism.
What have I claimed so far? Not very much. Tell me which claim you want me to prove by formal argument, I’ll happily try.
I haven’t challeneged Church teaching? I disagree.
 
Doc_Keele said:
I’m not sure you can prove that one approach is superior to the other as such. Each approach leads in some situations to conclusions that are intuitively wrong. I amnot arguing for virtue ethics or pure consequentialism. I favour proportionalism.
What have I claimed so far? Not very much. Tell me which claim you want me to prove by formal argument, I’ll happily try.
I haven’t challeneged Church teaching? I disagree.
Click to expand...
Argue the affirmative: Proportionalism is superior to deontology as a moral guide.

May I suggest you begin by defining both terms – proportionalism and deontology – to insure we understand your position?
 
You think I can prove that in a single post???
I tried to address this to a limited extent on another thread but was told that the original poster has the right to rule on what was and wasn’t relevant:shrug:

There’s various thought experiments that demonstrate for me the problems with a deontological approach -
Sophie’s Choice
Sam and the Indians
 
If my (name removed by moderator)ut is indeed unwelcome (as my dictionary defines “kibitzing”) then I will happily withdraw:thumbsup:
If I’m not welcome I have no wish to stay.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top