It is a Sin to Vote for Pro-Abortion Candidates

[Black_Rose]

ensoulment is irrelevant. Life begins at conception. We are duty-bound to protect live from conception until natural death. To no be opposed to al abortions is to be opposed to the Church.

Actually, ensoulment is relevant! Most people acknowledge that “human life” does begin at conception, but the question in secular ethics is whether the human identity alone merits any ethical consideration. Modern utilitarian philosophers, such as Peter Singer, argue fetuses (they do not use the word “babies” except when discussing beings outside the womb) do not have the capacity to feel pain or possess interests so they be considered in any ethical calculus. By rejecting the materialism of utilitarianism, the notion of ensoulment sets the embryo or fetus apart from other animals who do not possess souls that have the potential to be in communion with God.

 

[CWBetts]

Actually, ensoulment is relevant! Most people acknowledge that “human life” does begin at conception, but the question in secular ethics is whether the human identity alone merits any ethical consideration. Modern utilitarian philosophers, such as Peter Singer, argue fetuses (they do not use the word “babies” except when discussing beings outside the womb) do not have the capacity to feel pain or possess interests so they be considered in any ethical calculus. By rejecting the materialism of utilitarianism, the notion of ensoulment sets the embryo or fetus apart from other animals who do not possess souls that have the potential to be in communion with God.

So you have no argument againt those who say that ensoulment does not happen at conception. My argument is that is is an individual of the human species and therefore a person. By removing ensoulment as an issue, their argument implodes.

 

[Black_Rose]

So you have no argument againt those who say that ensoulment does not happen at conception. My argument is that is is an individual of the human species and therefore a person. By removing ensoulment as an issue, their argument implodes.

My previous post implies that the secular notion of personhood is defined by characteristics such as “capacity to feel pain or the possession of interests” not membership of the human species. Why should your definition of “personhood” as human identity be used instead of the characteristic one (which excludes some humans but also includes other animals such as some other primates)? Do you think an anti-abortion argument can be support only using materialistic logic and terms?

Please read Practical Ethics! I do not expect a devout Roman Catholic to agree with Singer’s arguments and conclusions since my recommendation is based on the assumption that it is best for one to become knowledgeable about the utilitarian position. It would show that one could actually support abortion utilizing secular logic of abstract arguments and universal ethical principles without any recourse to emotion or moral superiority. At least know your ideological enemy’s strategies and tactics.
George C. Scott; never said by Patton:

Rommel, you magnificent bastard! I read your book!

 

[CWBetts]

My previous post implies that the secular notion of personhood is defined by characteristics such as “capacity to feel pain or the possession of interests” not membership of the human species. Why should your definition of “personhood” as human identity be used instead of the characteristic one (which excludes some humans but also includes other animals such as some other primates)? Do you think an anti-abortion argument can be support only using materialistic logic and terms?

Please read Practical Ethics! I do not expect a devout Roman Catholic to agree with Singer’s arguments and conclusions since my recommendation is based on the assumption that it is best for one to become knowledgeable about the utilitarian position. It would show that one could actually support abortion utilizing secular logic of abstract arguments and universal ethical principles without any recourse to emotion or moral superiority. At least know your ideological enemy’s strategies and tactics.

I have no need to fill mt head with secularist garbage. There are no valid metaphysical arguments that can be used to justify abortion.

 

[Black_Rose]

I have no need to fill mt head with secularist garbage. There are no valid metaphysical arguments that can be used to justify abortion.

Do you want the secularist perspective on abortion, so you can better understand their position? Of course, ensoulment cannot be invoked when arguing under secularist, materialistic constraints.

 

[elts1956]

Most of us do realize the evil of abortion, thanks to people like Mother Teresa who have enlightened society (not just catholics but all) on the subject (gargaro.com/mother_teresa/quotes.html). But our Bishops need to do more in guiding the flock.

Pitcharan

I feel that lack of leadership here in the US too Pitcharan. It has been over forty years of laxity on teachng absolutes. We used to call Mortal Sin by its real name. Now we call it Grave.

 

[elts1956]

Actually, ensoulment is relevant! Most people acknowledge that “human life” does begin at conception, but the question in secular ethics is whether the human identity alone merits any ethical consideration. Modern utilitarian philosophers, such as Peter Singer, argue fetuses (they do not use the word “babies” except when discussing beings outside the womb) do not have the capacity to feel pain or possess interests so they be considered in any ethical calculus. By rejecting the materialism of utilitarianism, the notion of ensoulment sets the embryo or fetus apart from other animals who do not possess souls that have the potential to be in communion with God.

This article first appeared in the Volume 23 / Number 3 issue of the Christian Research Journal. For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to:

equip.org

Peter Singer- Introduction
In 1993, ethicist Peter Singer shocked many Americans by suggesting that no newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth and that the attending physician should kill some disabled babies on the spot. Five years later, his appointment as Decamp Professor of Bio-Ethics at Princeton University ignited a firestorm of controversy, though his ideas about abortion and infanticide were hardly new. In 1979 he wrote, “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons”; therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”1

Whooeee. Great role model. Secular and all. Is this the type of person that you believe knows what he is talking about? :extrahappy::extrahappy: He and Dawkins should make great buddies.

 

[Black_Rose]

This article first appeared in the Volume 23 / Number 3 issue of the Christian Research Journal. For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to:

equip.org

Peter Singer- Introduction
In 1993, ethicist Peter Singer shocked many Americans by suggesting that no newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth and that the attending physician should kill some disabled babies on the spot. Five years later, his appointment as Decamp Professor of Bio-Ethics at Princeton University ignited a firestorm of controversy, though his ideas about abortion and infanticide were hardly new. In 1979 he wrote, “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons”; therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”1

Whooeee. Great role model. Secular and all. Is this the type of person that you believe knows what he is talking about? :extrahappy::extrahappy: He and Dawkins should make great buddies.

I am not saying that I agree with Singer, but, as an intellectually sophisticated philosopher and ethicist, he most certainly knows what he is talking about. Singer represents the strongest secular, intellectual case for being pro-choice. Other secular pro-choice positions are internally inconsistent with the exception of the Judith Jarvis Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion”. Thomson argues in favor of the primacy of the female’s bodily sovereignty where she has the right to abort an “unwelcome” fetus inhabiting her body regardless of the personhood of the fetus, while Singer just disregards the fetus in the utilitarian ethical calculus by denying the fetus personhood. Singer argues that the fetus has no interests, so there would be no competition between the fetus’ (non-existent) interests and the pregnant woman’s interests.

Most pro-choice feminists would prefer the Thomson argument to provide an ethical defense for abortion since it best reflects their self-interest instead of the Singer argument. I just wanted to point out the Singer argument since I believe it is well-developed and internally consistent. The aforementioned arguments are powerful weapons wielded by secularists if used properly that are capable of besting an intellectually ill-equipped pro-life adversary. This does not mean that the pro-life position is intellectually indefensible, just that the pro-life needs to be able to anticipate and confront the well-known and effective pro-choice arguments.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Thread closed