Issues other than abortion

[Vonsalza]

And there it is. Personhood is whatever the law allows; it is not determined by characteristics of the “person” at all.

The hard reality there is that any “right” you claim that the state doesn’t defend is a right that you don’t effectively have.

So slaves really weren’t “persons” because the law did not recognize them as such.

And we disagreed and changed the laws, thank God.

Thus there is no such thing as a natural right; there are only legal rights, which also means that what the law decrees - whatever it is - is right and acceptable.

No, it means that it is the reality in which you live. We change the law every time congress meets.

The standard on which we can most often agree is that when in doubt, may liberty prevail.

A fetus could be a “person” in Mississippi,

AFAIK, Roe v. Wade was a federal determination, so there can be no variance by state on the issue.

Accepting the fiction that “personhood” exists only as defined by law removes all restraints on government and leaves us protected by…nothing at all.

In a representative democracy such as ours, the government is what we vote it to be. It’s not some sentient third party. It’s a derivative of you and me.

The elderly and infirm would merely be the first to experience what today is being played out only with the unborn.

Slippery slope. The basis on which the personhood of a fetus is challenged does not apply to an elderly man. He was separated from his mother’s body decades ago.

 

[Vonsalza]

Don’t worry, I’m sure when President Pence is running for re-election in 2028, we’ll finally be getting around to killing Roe v Wade.

As an aside, if and when Roe gets thrown out, that doesn’t make abortion illegal. It just throws it to the states.

While abortion would probably go illegal in Utah and a few states in the southeastern US, it certainly wouldn’t in most states.

I’m not trying to be smug here, but the abolition of abortion everywhere is simply an impossible goal. The northeast and pacific coast are both, fundamentally, too progressive.

 

[Bluebright]

That’s likely because of the time… NY just did this thing with their crazy law and now other places are considering the same so this insanity is spreading so of course it’s in the news… that’s topical not exclusive. A while back there was a lot of chatter about homelessness and poverty/foodbanks etc. cos it was Christmas/winter and shelters were opening and bad weather in the northern hemisphere anyway…so these topics fluctuate with the seasons and news topics. You may think it is all about abortion, I think it is very American centred (doh! it’s an American forum) my point is it is all dependant on your position… so I wonder is abortion or baby loss an issue for you. February is also baby loss month ( I do not know if this is worldwide) in the UK and we have countless masses and support groups for it. It’s also come up re the abuse stuff in Ireland due to the stuff that went down with mothers and babys. I wont go into that cos that was a big topic too. I am just saying, some may say that went on, it was all relevant to what went on in parts of the world. Those were some of the reasons why abortion stayed on topic worldwide I think and stayed discussed here. I am sorry if anything I say offends. How about starting a topic on what you wish to discuss.

 

[graciew]

The basis on which the personhood of a fetus is challenged does not apply to an elderly man.

Excuse me… it was you who said agency meant the ability to make decisions…
That can apply to you or your children the minute the mind drifts away for a while…
It will be boomerang against you, Vonsalza. We aren t forever young, forever healthy, forever safe in those hands…
Teach your children well, and it will be them who won t allow anyone closer than a mile of their elderly parents with those ideas when they start fading.
It is sinister. And a boomerang for those who think today they will be exempt…
We do not want that to happen to anyone…

 

[Vonsalza]

Excuse me… it was you who said agency meant the ability to make decisions…
That can apply to you or your children the minute the mind drifts away for a while…

You’re right. But let’s also remember that I mentioned agency in the context of the fetus being a part of its mother. Agency, there, serves as a final test as to whether you could consider something inside a woman’s body as separate from her (with the existence of agency providing evidence for yes). But the fetus has no agency. And it’s inside of her, part of her, living off her body.

Thus it’s part of the mother in the way an elderly man clearly is not.

It will be boomerang against you, Vonsalza. We aren t forever young, forever healthy, forever safe in those hands…
Teach your children well, and it will be them who won t allow anyone closer than a mile of their elderly parents with those ideas when they start fading.
It is sinister. And a boomerang for those who think today they will be exempt…

You’re quite right. If you do a great job as a parent, it’ll be up to your kids to take good care of you when you start to fade out. Especially diseases like Alzheimer’s or dementia - you lose much of your independence and someone must care for you. Let’s hope those people are your grateful children.

Otherwise you’re at the mercy of an anonymous stranger in a low-cost nursing home.

 

[graciew]

Let us pray…
Beyond the physical there is a bond of love…

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Abortion has been around since civilization began. It’s never been seen as a “good” thing, but it wasn’t considered murder until after movement was detected in the womb. Why was it considered a “bad” thing?

• Male property rights over the baby
• Preservation of social order—the family
• Duty to produce citizens for the nation

In the early 19th c. (around 1820) laws making abortion illegal in the US and Europe began to appear. This trend continued throughout the 19th century. (It’s estimated that number of abortions in the 19th c. was about 25% of births.) Now the question is, why was there this 19th c. movement to criminalize abortion?

• threatening to the health of the mother
• doctors (all male…) opposed it because they were becoming more professional, and most of those providing abortions (usually women)— were not doctors; i.e., they wanted to eliminate competition
• as medical knowledge improved, “quickening” (movement of the baby in the womb) was seen as just another stage in development, not a crucial transition
• in the later 19th c. making abortion illegal was a backlash against the various women’s movements like women’s suffrage

But what about the Catholic Church? Despite continual protests about not being influenced by the surrounding culture, etc., the Church fell in line with the prevailing legal thinking about abortion.

In 1588 Sixtus V had written an encyclical, “Effraenatam,” that dropped the distinction between a partially developed fetus and a fetus that had begun to move in the womb. Both were now to be treated the same. But this was reversed by the next pope, Gregory XIV, who went back to the “quickening” distinction. That stayed in place until 1869, when Pius IX issued a bull, “Apostolicae Sedis Moderationi” that was essentially a Church penal code. It now officially declared that the moment of conception was the beginning of a new human life. Abortion was declared equivalent to murder and would incur the same penalty: excommunication. The Church had fallen in line with the trends of the time.

Now the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was proclaimed in 1854. Notice the term “conception.” Was there an influence there? A new emphasis on “conception”? I don’t know, but it certainly seems likely. If Mary had to be without sin from the moment of her conception, it would be logical that conception was the moment human life began.

Re-read the early reasons abortion was seen as a “bad” thing and the reasons governments in the 19th c. began making abortion illegal. You might have noticed a “small” detail: there is nothing whatsoever about the “rights” of the fetus. And although abortion was now officially “murder,” there was no outrage or concern about the numbers of abortions for that reason. This is a modern notion.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

So when did this trend to criminalize abortion begin to reverse?

The Soviet Union legalized abortion on request in 1920. Legalized abortion was now associated with Communism. This connection still lingers–it’s a liberal, leftist idea.

Other countries, particularly after WW II, also began de-criminalizing abortion. Usually there were restrictions on the reasons (health or life of the mother, mental health of the mother, age of the mother, rape, incest, fetus had a major health issue, economic or social issues). Some allowed abortion on request, with no reason necessary. Other restrictions were placed on the timing of the abortion (usually not allowed in the 3rd trimester).

And here we are. The point of all this is that the point where we now are has not been immovable and permanent throughout history. It has shifted back and forth. To think, for example, that the Catholic Church has always held the same position on abortion is simply wrong. It hasn’t. Augustine, Jerome, Aquinas, and many others would have disagreed with today’s policy. To think that everyone always considered abortion to be murder is simply wrong. Very few people—if any—thought it was murder before the 3rd trimester. And the notion that abortion is abhorrent primarily because it kills “babies” is a modern idea.

 

[goout]

And here we are. The point of all this is that the point where we now are has not been immovable and permanent throughout history. It has shifted back and forth. To think, for example, that the Catholic Church has always held the same position on abortion is simply wrong. It hasn’t. Augustine, Jerome, Aquinas, and many others would have disagreed with today’s policy.

False.
In times past the idea of state-sponsored killing of children was not an issue. It’s just like corporate pollution. Wasn’t an issue, why would Augustine speak about it?

In times past science did not reveal the unique humanity which begins at conception in the womb. Now we know: a unique human being is formed, and the denial of that reality is abject superstition.

To think that everyone always considered abortion to be murder is simply wrong. Very few people—if any—thought it was murder before the 3rd trimester. And the notion that abortion is abhorrent primarily because it kills “babies” is a modern idea.

Very few people saw slavery with modern eyes either.

Your assertions continue to be vacuous and out of step with the Magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. That ought to be clear to those readers you might want to confuse.

 

[blackforest]

Why was it considered a “bad” thing?

• Male property rights over the baby
• Preservation of social order—the family
• Duty to produce citizens for the nation

I would add a fourth bullet point: Advances in science enabled us to learn more about human development . . . and that life began well before feeling the first kicks.

doctors (all male…) opposed it because they were becoming more professional, and most of those providing abortions (usually women)— were not doctors; i.e., they wanted to eliminate competition

Doctors can and did perform abortions. There were certainly anti-midwifery campaigns, as there still are today, but abortion is only a small part of those.

It is disingenuous to say that they were not all motivated by bioethical concerns. Elizabeth Blackwell On Abortion - ClinicQuotes

Despite continual protests about not being influenced by the surrounding culture, etc., the Church fell in line with the prevailing legal thinking about abortion.

The Church was influenced by scientific knowledge in prenatal development.

Re-read the early reasons abortion was seen as a “bad” thing and the reasons governments in the 19th c. began making abortion illegal. You might have noticed a “small” detail: there is nothing whatsoever about the “rights” of the fetus. And although abortion was now officially “murder,” there was no outrage or concern about the numbers of abortions for that reason. This is a modern notion.

I’m sorry to inform you that this is completely false. https://www.pdcnet.org/collection/fshow?id=cssr_2014_0019_0287_0294&file_type=pdf

in the later 19th c. making abortion illegal was a backlash against the various women’s movements like women’s suffrage

And yet we have all of this evidence that the suffragists were in fact pro-life.

 

[goout]

Abortion has been around since civilization began.

Yep, murder has been with us for a long time. But hey, virtue is hard, and there are so many excuses available.

Hey, stop! What’s that sound?

Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground

Knowing how God sees injustices like this, that scares me just a little, in fact it scares me more than a little when I think about my past.
It ought to scare you also, since you are a Catholic and ought to know better. God knows every drop of blood we spill, and we are all accountable for it in various ways.

 

[Ender]

AFAIK, Roe v. Wade was a federal determination, so there can be no variance by state on the issue.

New York: “Person,” when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who has been born and is alive.
Alabama: … “person,” for the purpose of criminal homicide or assaults, to include an unborn child in utero at any stage of development.

This is precisely the problem when legislatures can simply define who is or is not a person based on their whims at the time.

And we disagreed and changed the laws, thank God.

This makes no sense. You have allowed no criteria to determine good and bad other than what the law allows. The law allowed slavery before so it must have been good. Now it doesn’t allow it so (only) now it is bad.

Slippery slope. The basis on which the personhood of a fetus is challenged does not apply to an elderly man. He was separated from his mother’s body decades ago.

Yes, a slippery slope is exactly what it is, and the personhood of the elderly could be based on some particular criterion unique to them. It could hardly be less artificial than whether a fetus is or is not attached to its mother. Whatever the law defines is what is allowed.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Advances in science enabled us

Sorry, you’re introducing a totally new thing–I’m taking about historically. Taken in context (please!) I’m clearly talking about pre-19th c. So “advances in science” have nothing to do with my point.

they were not all motivated by bioethical concerns.

Who said they were? Not me.

The Church was influenced by scientific knowledge in prenatal development.

Sure. And a lot of other things. I don’t think it’s possible to determine the exact motivation. However, it’s not just a coincidence that the Church made this proclamation in 1869 and not 1769 or 1669.

I’m sorry to inform you that this is completely false. https://www.pdcnet.org/collection/fshow?id=cssr_2014_0019_0287_0294&file_type=pdf

Ah, an unbiased source! The Catholic Social Science Review! But an interesting article. I shouldn’t have said “no outrage or concern”–there was some. But it wasn’t a major issue, although it was to some individuals. Today it’s virtually the only reason to be against abortion. That’s a modern idea, as I said.

And yet we have all of this evidence that the suffragists were in fact pro-life.

That, I’m afraid, is irrelevant. Whether the suffragists were pro-life or flat earth doesn’t matter. The point is that opponents of the various women’s movement saw making abortion illegal as a counter to making women more independent. Keep them barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

First of all, greeting to all my old friends from previous threads. So happy to see you haven’t changed your opinions one iota!

Now let’s summarize the pro-life positions on this thread:

First, hands up all those in favor of killing babies and committing genocide! What? No one? Huh. Everyone agrees with pro-life supporters on that one. So why are we arguing?

Absolute truth and morality exist, and pro-life supporters know exactly what that is. Anyone who disagrees is therefore, by definition, immoral.

Being “pro-choice” in the abortion debate must logically mean you are “pro-choice” in any imaginable hypothetical situation. Robbery? Pro-choice–let the robber decide if it’s a crime. Rape? Let the rapist decide. And so on.

And naturally “pro-choice” = “pro-abortion.”

The question of “personhood” or “human being.” Since the fertilized egg has human DNA, and since it can only develop into a human being and not another species, it is, ipso facto, a “person” or “human being.” There is no distinction between a fertilized egg and a 30-year old accountant or a 2-year-old baby. So the words “person” or “human being” are irrelevant to the subject. There are no such distinctions.

If you say a fetus is not a human being, that’s the equivalent of being like people who said black slaves or Jews were not human beings. In other words, if you say “A fetus is not a person/human being” then, by analogy, you could say “Black slaves/Jews are not human beings.” In other words, you are drawing a completely arbitrary, discriminatory line between groups of people. Abortion, as one poster said, is a human rights issue.

The best way to end abortion is to make all abortions illegal.

And of course my personal favorite, “Science supports the pro-life position.”

Finally, the original point of this particular thread: is abortion the only (or the major) ethical issue of our time? To which pro-life supporters would generally say “Yes.” As we’ve seen here. Other issues are either irrelevant or secondary.

Let’s briefly deal with these points.

No one is in favor of killing “babies.” But what pro-life supporters call a “baby” is a clump of cells to most people. But pro-life supporters think they have the “truth” and therefore any other position is by definition not only wrong, but immoral. This ignores history and the fact that it’s not just individuals who disagree, but most world religions: Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism—among others. They also think they have “the truth.”

Is a just-fertilized human egg a “person” or a “human being”? Pro-life supporters would say yes. But most people would disagree and see some distinction. Of course there is no common point at which everyone agrees the fetus is just a bunch of cells on one side and a “person” on the other. The ancient, and most common, dividing line was movement in the womb, since you could detect it. But there are numerous other points:

• unique DNA (only present after about 4 days)

• cells implant themselves on the wall of the womb (1st week; up to 80% never make it and die)

• formation of nervous system

• formation of brain

• formation of heart

• it “looks like” a human being

and so on.

 

[Vonsalza]

[New York]…
[Alabama]…

This is precisely the problem when legislatures can simply define who is or is not a person based on their whims at the time.

I won’t make an argument that it’s a perfect system. It’s not.

But it’s the best we have, since I’m not going to bow to your views and you aren’t going to bow to mine. Moreover, as the issue has been federally decided, what individual states may think is irrelevant.

This makes no sense. You have allowed no criteria to determine good and bad other than what the law allows.

No, my criteria is and always will be personhood - before birth a baby has very little. Not enough to override the will of the mother it inhabits.

What doesn’t make sense is your desire to change the law despite your insistence that the law doesn’t matter.

Yes, a slippery slope is exactly what it is, and the personhood of the elderly could be based on some particular criterion unique to them.
It could hardly be less artificial than whether a fetus is or is not attached to its mother. Whatever the law defines is what is allowed.

It’s about personhood, as I’ve repeated over and over and over.

It is a progression. It’s a positive progression throughout most of life and for many its a negative one at the end.

I understand if you don’t like that. It’s reasonable, reflects reality and difficult to argue against. And worst of all, it supports my view and not yours.

You simply do not have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body.

 

[Vonsalza]

Any government with the ability to ban an abortion has the ability to order one.

Amen. This means that we should make no law concerning it and let the women decide.

 

[goout]

If you say a fetus is not a human being, that’s the equivalent of being like people who said black slaves or Jews were not human beings. In other words, if you say “A fetus is not a person/human being” then, by analogy, you could say “Black slaves/Jews are not human beings.” In other words, you are drawing a completely arbitrary, discriminatory line between groups of people. Abortion, as one poster said, is a human rights issue.

Very well said. Good to see that you are understanding.

 

[lagerald24]

What gives a person a right to life? Passing through the magic birth canal? Is the right to life determined by the mother’s personal opinion or objective reality? Oh, I forgot, no objective truth…

 

[Erikaspirit16]

part 2…

Now almost all of these points of development can be scientifically determined, although it would take constant monitoring and would not be practical for all pregnancies.

But there is general agreement that at some stage the fetus DOES become a “baby” or “person” or “human being”—whatever term you want to use. The disagreement is when that happens.

Now let’s deal with the term “pro-choice.” This only applies to the abortion controversy. You can’t transfer it to all sorts of unrelated things. And it means exactly what it says: it’s NOT approval of abortion. It simply recognizes that this is a question best left to the conscience and religious convictions (if any) of the pregnant woman.

The specious argument that we outlaw murder, rape, robbery, etc. so we should outlaw abortion misses the point. For these other crimes there is a general consensus among not just people, but world religions, that these are wrong and should be illegal. There is no such consensus in the case of abortion. Just the opposite: there is disagreement. For those who say “What about child marriage or polygamy? We impose our morality on people who want to marry 5-year-olds or have 10 wives!” Yes we do. Because there is a general consensus that these things are wrong and should be illegal. Does that mean morality is determined by majority vote? No. But laws are.

What is a human being? This is not an easy question. It’s the essential question in this debate, as someone else pointed out early on. Does a human being have a tail? All embryos do at a certain stage. Does a human being have a brain? A nervous system? A heart? The ability to survive independently outside the mother’s womb? Free will? A soul? Some people would agree with most or all of these, others would argue over others. But that’s the point: there is no general agreement. (For example, a person has a stroke and is brain dead, but they are still alive. Is this still a person? Legally, yes.)

Science, contrary to pro-lifer supporters, is silent on this question. Science would certainly say a fertilized egg is alive and that it is human in the sense it is a product of human beings and contains human DNA. But is it morally and legally equivalent to a 30-year-old accountant or a 2-year-old baby? Science can’t answer that, and scientists (except pro-life supporters) don’t try. It’s a religious / philosophical / legal question.

But of course all of this relates to developing cells in the womb. You can’t transfer this to black slaves, Jews, etc. You CAN, of course, but it’s nonsensical.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

part 3–

Now back to the subject of the thread: is the best way to end abortion to make all abortions illegal? And should this be the only (or major) ethical of our time?

Abortion is a symptom. Making the symptom illegal does not even pretend to address the causes of abortion. If you really wanted to attack abortion, attack its causes. And someone above linked to the Guttmacher poll on the reason women gave for having abortions (and of course, like any major decision, there is rarely a single reason). But most of these reasons boil down to economics. Now you could deal with other issues at the same time you attack the causes of abortion. For example:

• free medical care during pregnancy, delivery, and until the child is 18.

• guaranteed leave for 6 months after having a baby. Your job is guaranteed.

• free pre-school day care

• subsidy for each child paid each month (Canada, for example, pays $6,500 a year—in monthly installments—until age 6; then it’s $5,500 until age 18)

and other things too—in other words, remove the financial disadvantage to having children. Virtually all other developed countries do this. And guess what? Their abortion rate is about 1/3 less than in the US.