legislating morality

[Mumbles140]

Yes - it is a medical opinion derived by Church doctors and scientists. Those of you who don’t see the difference are looking only at the end result. This is the same example with the hysterectomy. Removing part of a woman’s anatomy that is threatening her life is a valid medical procedure. Removing the tube targets the tube, as the name would imply. Using a chemical abortion procedure targets the preborn child. Same end result - child dies and mother lives. However, HOW it is done makes a difference, and it appears you all do not recognize that.

The Church teaches there are three vital steps to an act - Intent, Means, and End. As we all know, Machiavelli famously argued that the Ends justifies the Means, but the Church does not teach us such. For an action to be truly good, it must have good intentions (non-selfish, not helping one to despair another, etc), good means (no immoral short-cuts, even to get to the same result), and a good end (it must truly be a benefit to someone). Both treatments of ectopic pregnancies have good intentions (save the mother) and good ends (mother survives), but one means is performing a treatment on the mother, and the other means aims to kill another human being.

If you choose to serve meat at your house, then that decision is yours, but the government should not force you to serve meat. Attached to the Holocaust Museum is a kosher cafe - would it be right if the government told them they had to serve pepperoni pizza or else be in violation of federal law?

The Church does not desire to play in politics, and the President has made it clear he doesn’t want to bother with any real compromising with the Church. You say there may be ways around this, but how? The President proposed that the insurance companies cover the costs, but that will only raise premiums for those plan holders. Other than that ‘compromise’, he stands firmly against the Church on this matter, even when Joe Biden (who, in the past, has been openly defiant on Church teaching) asks him to back down from the issue.

Don’t you see it isn’t about government funding - we could do without that, and the tax-exempt status is moot. It is that all employers must provide this insurance. However, for organizations that are clearly faith-based organizations, why not allow conscientious objections? I understand you can’t make the case for individuals to opt-out because anyone could come up with any reason to reject any or all of the mandate. However, when you have defined dogma, religious beliefs that have been firmly held for 2,000 years, and are proposing something in direct violation of those beliefs, you are forcing someone to go against their religious beliefs. And forcing that is infringing on their freedom of religion, which is protected by the 1st Amendment. It shouldn’t be about finding ‘ways around’ - it should be about protecting our (and, therefore, everyone’s) 1st Amendment rights.

Concerning loopholes, why don’t you share some then? You claim (and imply) that any idiot can think of half a dozen, so please share this with us. Loopholes exist because politicians make exceptions for certain groups. Look at the applications approved for exemption from the health care mandate and ask why a disproportionate number falls in Pelosi’s district. Why does the government choose to shut down charitable agencies which serve the better good just because they don’t include all of the services the government wants when plenty of other agencies do?

Lastly, so an individual should decide if they can be forced to go to war or not, but religious institutions can’t get out of a mandate? Again, why doesn’t the government subsidize additional insurance (privately bought) that covers contraception and abortion?

 

[Sufjon]

Yes - it is a medical opinion derived by Church doctors and scientists. Those of you who don’t see the difference are looking only at the end result. This is the same example with the hysterectomy. Removing part of a woman’s anatomy that is threatening her life is a valid medical procedure. Removing the tube targets the tube, as the name would imply. Using a chemical abortion procedure targets the preborn child. Same end result - child dies and mother lives. However, HOW it is done makes a difference, and it appears you all do not recognize that.

The removal of the tube in an atopic pregnancy is one method by which the child attached the tube is removed. Without the child, the tube can stay there just fine. In a case where the tube is removed, the objective is removing the child. Any other opinion is a matter of someone on the church payroll (whether they be a doctor or scientist or whatever) reverse engineering their reasoning in an attempt to back their way into a solution for an untenable position. They know the baby has to go, so they find a solution wherein they only acknowledge removing the host body part to which the child is attached, when all along the reason the part has to be removed is the child. The problem with that whole approach is that you didn’t have to pay a doctor or a scientist to come up with an opinion like that to issue as policy. A stand-up comedian could have given them the same answer for a lot less money.

Listen Mumbles, I know you’re a good person, but for us to have an open and honest dialog, we have to play straight with each other. To do that, maybe you have to play straight to yourself. You can’t cite a policy like that and at the same time look at God out of the corner of your eye, hoping He won’t notice what you’re up to. If God walked in on a procedure like that, how would the conversation go? “Oh - Hi God. What are we doing? Well, today we’re removing a fallopian tube. Why? Oh, well because sometimes down here on earth we do that. We just remove fallopian tubes. Oh yeah - you’re right - this one seems to have some sort of growth on it. Yes, it does look like a forming human. Well, yeah, removing the fallopian tube will terminate the growing human on it, yes. But, uh, that’s not the objective really. We’re just doing what we do, which sometimes involves removing a fallopian tube.”

Please Mumbles. Please. Let’s be honest wit each other or stop.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[Mumbles140]

The removal of the tube in an atopic pregnancy is one method by which the child attached the tube is removed. Without the child, the tube can stay there just fine. In a case where the tube is removed, the objective is removing the child. Any other opinion is a matter of someone on the church payroll (whether they be a doctor or scientist or whatever) reverse engineering their reasoning in an attempt to back their way into a solution for an untenable position. They know the baby has to go, so they find a solution wherein they only acknowledge removing the host body part to which the child is attached, when all along the reason the part has to be removed is the child. The problem with that whole approach is that you didn’t have to pay a doctor or a scientist to come up with an opinion like that to issue as policy. A stand-up comedian could have given them the same answer for a lot less money.

Listen Mumbles, I know you’re a good person, but for us to have an open and honest dialog, we have to play straight with each other. To do that, maybe you have to play straight to yourself. You can’t cite a policy like that and at the same time look at God out of the corner of your eye, hoping He won’t notice what you’re up to. If God walked in on a procedure like that, how would the conversation go? “Oh - Hi God. What are we doing? Well, today we’re removing a fallopian tube. Why? Oh, well because sometimes down here on earth we do that. We just remove fallopian tubes. Oh yeah - you’re right - this one seems to have some sort of growth on it. Yes, it does look like a forming human. Well, yeah, removing the fallopian tube will terminate the growing human on it, yes. But, uh, that’s not the objective really. We’re just doing what we do, which sometimes involves removing a fallopian tube.”

Please Mumbles. Please. Let’s be honest wit each other or stop.

Your friend,
Sufjon

Sufjon, if you want to be honest, than look at your own words. Removing one of the fallopian tubes is a major medical procedure - it isn’t like having a wart frozen off. There are risks to the woman’s health - it is definitely not a skate in the park. Now, again, you only look at the result and go ‘same effect’, and you are correct in that the mother’s life is saved and the preborn child dies. However, the acts are not the same.

As I explained before, a good act requires good intention, good means, and a good end. I will break out each procedure for you to see the difference.

Chemicals
Intent: To save the mother’s life in an ectopic pregnancy.
Means: An abortion is performed, directed at killing the preborn child.
End: The mother lives, the preborn child dies.

Tube Removal
Intent: To save the mother’s life in an ectopic pregnancy.
Means: One of the fallopian tubes is removed.
End: The mother lives, the preborn child dies.

The only difference is the means, and it is very simple for the means. Intent and End can be tricky, but selfishness or personal gain have a way of sneaking in sometimes, but Means is easy. Is abortion gravely disordered and morally wrong? Always. Is removing a fallopian tube gravely disordered or morally wrong? No. Each piece is examined individually.

Look, it seems like what you are trying to do is say that the Church ‘made up’ teachings on this matter because without it, it would be a sticking point for the abortion argument. However, this practice of determining ‘a good act’ has been found throughout Catholic teaching since the time of Christ, and it has been applied to medicine over that time span.

The honest-to-goodness truth is that this teaching is not a loophole in the abortion debate - it existed long before that, and your refusal to recognize the difference seems to indicate that you are the one not being honest with yourself regarding Church teaching. You don’t have to believe in it, but believe that it is real, it is consistently applied, and has been long before internal surgeries or chemical abortions existed.

 

[TexanKnight]

i understand that there are probably as many opinions on abortion as there are people on this forum. that said, why should any one religion’s opinion on the subject be forced onto people that aren’t of that faith?

so abortion is a sin in the catholic church, but why should hindus or muslims have to accept that? some do or don’t anyway, but there doesn’t seem to be any general consensus in those religions. most muslims allow it until the fourth month, and many, but not all, hindus ban it outright.

so my question isn’t on whether or not abortion is a sin. rather, i want to know is if it is ever alright to force one person’s beliefs on another person, and why or under what circumstances.

We legislate morality all the time. It is against the law to kill without legal justification, it is against the law to steal. It is against the law to drink and drive. It is against the law the take drugs.

Abortion is not a morality issue as much as it is a life and death issue. I was, in my youth, fairly ambivalent to the abortion issue. Then, my wife got pregnant with our first. Within just 2 or 3 weeks, I could hear the heartbeat. That is when it hit me. What is inside is LIVING.

Usually, the answer I get from folks who support abortion is that, “fine, but it is not a viable creature at that point, even with a heartbeat”.

My response is to say, “if viability is the issue, then let us go thru the hospitals and kill everyone who is not viable.” I was a hospital ward once with children who were simply not viable. One was a kid who was severely hydroencephalatic. His head was huge. He was retarded and could not even move his head. It was too heavy. He could do nothing on his own. Should we kill him and others like him because they are not truly viable?

The fetus is a child. It is a living being. Killing is wrong. Killing children is barbaric.

 

[Sufjon]

Sufjon, if you want to be honest, than look at your own words. Removing one of the fallopian tubes is a major medical procedure - it isn’t like having a wart frozen off. There are risks to the woman’s health - it is definitely not a skate in the park. Now, again, you only look at the result and go ‘same effect’, and you are correct in that the mother’s life is saved and the preborn child dies. However, the acts are not the same.

As I explained before, a good act requires good intention, good means, and a good end. I will break out each procedure for you to see the difference.

Chemicals
Intent: To save the mother’s life in an ectopic pregnancy.
Means: An abortion is performed, directed at killing the preborn child.
End: The mother lives, the preborn child dies.

Tube Removal
Intent: To save the mother’s life in an ectopic pregnancy.
Means: One of the fallopian tubes is removed.
End: The mother lives, the preborn child dies.

The only difference is the means, and it is very simple for the means. Intent and End can be tricky, but selfishness or personal gain have a way of sneaking in sometimes, but Means is easy. Is abortion gravely disordered and morally wrong? Always. Is removing a fallopian tube gravely disordered or morally wrong? No. Each piece is examined individually.

Look, it seems like what you are trying to do is say that the Church ‘made up’ teachings on this matter because without it, it would be a sticking point for the abortion argument. However, this practice of determining ‘a good act’ has been found throughout Catholic teaching since the time of Christ, and it has been applied to medicine over that time span.

The honest-to-goodness truth is that this teaching is not a loophole in the abortion debate - it existed long before that, and your refusal to recognize the difference seems to indicate that you are the one not being honest with yourself regarding Church teaching. You don’t have to believe in it, but believe that it is real, it is consistently applied, and has been long before internal surgeries or chemical abortions existed.

Good Lord Mumbles, this just defies all logic insofar as I can see, but you have to do what you think is best. Just because it doesn’t make any sense to me, doesn’t mean I don’t respect what you believe, so I’ll leave it at that.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

My response is to say, “if viability is the issue, then let us go thru the hospitals and kill everyone who is not viable.” I was a hospital ward once with children who were simply not viable. One was a kid who was severely hydroencephalatic. His head was huge. He was retarded and could not even move his head. It was too heavy. He could do nothing on his own. Should we kill him and others like him because they are not truly viable?

Hi TexasKnight: Actually, I don’t believe in killing anything. However, the issue at hand here is whether or not a woman has a right to protect her own health or her own life. This world is full of hard decisions. If I were a single mom with a couple of kids already and was told that my unborn child would kill me if I took it to term, I would have an abortion and not blink an eye, although I would have a lot of anguish about it emotionally. But the decision would take about a few seconds. For me it is simply a matter of right action. Would I have an abortion as a means of birth control? No.

As for that killing machine of a judicial system you have down there in Texas, I would shut that down in a heartbeat (speaking of heartbeats).

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

Sufjon, if you want to be honest, than look at your own words. Removing one of the fallopian tubes is a major medical procedure - it isn’t like having a wart frozen off. There are risks to the woman’s health - it is definitely not a skate in the park. Now, again, you only look at the result and go ‘same effect’, and you are correct in that the mother’s life is saved and the preborn child dies. However, the acts are not the same.

As I explained before, a good act requires good intention, good means, and a good end. I will break out each procedure for you to see the difference.

Chemicals
Intent: To save the mother’s life in an ectopic pregnancy.
Means: An abortion is performed, directed at killing the preborn child.
End: The mother lives, the preborn child dies.

Tube Removal
Intent: To save the mother’s life in an ectopic pregnancy.
Means: One of the fallopian tubes is removed.
End: The mother lives, the preborn child dies.

The only difference is the means, and it is very simple for the means. Intent and End can be tricky, but selfishness or personal gain have a way of sneaking in sometimes, but Means is easy. Is abortion gravely disordered and morally wrong? Always. Is removing a fallopian tube gravely disordered or morally wrong? No. Each piece is examined individually.

Look, it seems like what you are trying to do is say that the Church ‘made up’ teachings on this matter because without it, it would be a sticking point for the abortion argument. However, this practice of determining ‘a good act’ has been found throughout Catholic teaching since the time of Christ, and it has been applied to medicine over that time span.

The honest-to-goodness truth is that this teaching is not a loophole in the abortion debate - it existed long before that, and your refusal to recognize the difference seems to indicate that you are the one not being honest with yourself regarding Church teaching. You don’t have to believe in it, but believe that it is real, it is consistently applied, and has been long before internal surgeries or chemical abortions existed.

Hi Mumbles: I forgot to mention that I noticed that while we ultimately couldn’t agree, you did a great job at remaining calm and courteous throughout our discussion on a very complex and emotionally charged issue. I have a great deal of respect for that. Both of us are doing our best to reach God in accordance with our ability to reason, and I was glad to meet you along the way.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[TexanKnight]

Hi TexasKnight: Actually, I don’t believe in killing anything. However, the issue at hand here is whether or not a woman has a right to protect her own health or her own life. This world is full of hard decisions. If I were a single mom with a couple of kids already and was told that my unborn child would kill me if I took it to term, I would have an abortion and not blink an eye, although I would have a lot of anguish about it emotionally. But the decision would take about a few seconds. For me it is simply a matter of right action. Would I have an abortion as a means of birth control? No.

As for that killing machine of a judicial system you have down there in Texas, I would shut that down in a heartbeat (speaking of heartbeats).

Your friend,
Sufjon

Killing a child is never right. When my daughter was born, we were told the birth could not happen. We were told that both would not live and to get an abortion. We refused. My wife had illness and problems all 9 months of the pregnancy. We still refused. it was heart rending. I was told I would be faced during the birth with a choice. We prayed and prayed and were blessed that neither died.

I am against the death penalty. Killing is killing.

 

[Sufjon]

Killing a child is never right. When my daughter was born, we were told the birth could not happen. We were told that both would not live and to get an abortion. We refused. My wife had illness and problems all 9 months of the pregnancy. We still refused. it was heart rending. I was told I would be faced during the birth with a choice. We prayed and prayed and were blessed that neither died.

I am against the death penalty. Killing is killing.

Hi TexasKnight: I am glad you didn’t suffer any losses during your ordeal, and I am greatly encouraged to hear that you’re against killing. This is a very complicated subject for both of our faith traditions. We both have mandates not to kill others. In my faith, it extends to all living things. Then the day to day practicalities enter the picture, and things can get a bit complicated, especially in my faith, where we also have a mandate toward right action and a body is only temporary. It is not an easy subject for any person of faith. But it’s great to hear a story like yours where the outcome was a good one.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[TexanKnight]

Hi TexasKnight: I am glad you didn’t suffer any losses during your ordeal, and I am greatly encouraged to hear that you’re against killing. This is a very complicated subject for both of our faith traditions. We both have mandates not to kill others. In my faith, it extends to all living things. Then the day to day practicalities enter the picture, and things can get a bit complicated, especially in my faith, where we also have a mandate toward right action and a body is only temporary. It is not an easy subject for any person of faith. But it’s great to hear a story like yours where the outcome was a good one.

Your friend,
Sufjon

what is your faith tradition?

 

[Sufjon]

what is your faith tradition?

Hi Texas Knight: I am a Hindu who has practiced Catholicism in the past.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[TexanKnight]

Hi Texas Knight: I am a Hindu who has practiced Catholicism in the past.

Your friend,
Sufjon

Interesting. I do not know much about Hindu, What I do know I find fascinating. Right now, I am reading and studying the Koran. Also very interesting.

 

[Sufjon]

Interesting. I do not know much about Hindu, What I do know I find fascinating. Right now, I am reading and studying the Koran. Also very interesting.

My sons have read the Koran. They didn’t recommend it for me, which is only their assessment based in what they know of me and what they saw in the Koran. That doesn’t mean a negative view of the Koran, but their sense that it didn’t match the nature of my particular soul (jivatman). I always trust their judgement on such things. When they were small, I was their spiritual adviser. Now they are mine.

This is probably off base for the thread, but drop me a private note sometime, as I’d like to know your thoughts on the Koran.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[z0wb13]

this is old

1. You cannot have an abortion that is moral because the primary purpose of the procedure is the death of the fetus. It doesn’t matter if the woman was having the abortion to avoid potential health risks for herself, or for some other reason. Now, if the woman were to have a procedure done (i.e. hysterectomy) to save her life that resulted in the death of the fetus, than no abortion. You can’t add the word abortion in an make it okay because abortion is never okay. It isn’t interchangeable for ‘death of the fetus’ the same way ‘to murder’ is not interchangeable with ‘to kill’.

it’s funny that you are insisting on such precise language now. but i think that you are just rationalizing. or maybe i don’t really hear what you are saying when you type “abortion.” it seems like it has a sort of esoteric meaning to you.

is this totally off base? i honestly can’t follow your logic. you said, rewritten:
*if the woman were to have a procedure done (i.e. hysterectomy) to save her life that resulted in the death of the fetus, than no abortion. BUT It doesn’t matter if the woman was having the abortion to avoid potential health risks for herself, AND You cannot have an abortion that is moral because the primary purpose of the procedure is the death of the fetus.
*

it’s not like i’m taking what you said and twisting it, i’m pretty much playing it backwards, and i don’t think that it is internally consistent. it sounds like there is no functional difference in certain medical procedures, but if one is done for “convenience” then it is immoral. well, if that is the case, then i defy you show that what is convenient for one person is the same for another. because you are ignoring all of the complicated cases that are frankly none of our business.

and that’s another thing that you have never explained back to me, how another person’s family plan should be anybody else’s business. “but killing babies is wrong and you hate babies and you are a baby killer if you don’t agree with me” is an incoherent argument once you deconstruct it.

1. I didn’t mean to try and place your views in my worldview. I honestly don’t know the specific beliefs of Taoism, but it appears there is a lot of openness for what individuals choose to believe in. I had thought you were expressing that you believed in the human soul.

i only ever said that life began long ago, and that i believe it will continue on after i die. i never said anything about spirits. you make it up whole cloth. i only point this out because i think that it illustrates the gulf between us. but i also point out that what i believe isn’t the point. i’m more interested in how people with different beliefs can get along together.

1. So if you are stating that a preborn baby is a human being, how is abortion not murder?

this is a false equivalency. look it up.

 

[z0wb13]

i want to go on record saying that i religiously believe there are moral reasons to have an abortion.

i think that this is rather self-aggrandizing, but i’m going to invite all flames that follow.

*steps off soapbox.

sorry for wasting everyone’s time;p

 

[Mumbles140]

Good Lord Mumbles, this just defies all logic insofar as I can see, but you have to do what you think is best. Just because it doesn’t make any sense to me, doesn’t mean I don’t respect what you believe, so I’ll leave it at that.

Your friend,
Sufjon

Sufjon, I guess I’m just confused why you believe that this defies all logic. From a philosophical standpoint, I believe it holds firm, and has throughout history. That is why Machiavelli’s philosophy that “The End justifies the Means” was so shocking, and taken as an immoral philosophy. It has been understood throughout civilization that ‘at all costs’ is not a moral standing point.

To put it in contemporary examples, let me reference The Dark Knight, the second Batman film starring Christian Bale and directed by Christopher Nolan. In it, Batman is having issues dealing with the Joker, and he admits his shortcomings as the Joker does not live by rules, but Batman must. This is hugely critical because it goes to the heart of the matter: good means are a necessity of good actions. The intent is there - to stop the Joker. The end is ultimately the same - stopping the Joker. However, if Batman kills the Joker, he is a villain. But by using good means, he is the hero. Right now, can you agree that, for an act to be considered good, all three parts must be good? We’ll focus on this relating to ectopic pregnancies next as a specific case, but in general, this idea holds?

The reason I am stressing what I did above is, from my understanding of your comments, it isn’t the ‘good act requires three good parts’ philosophy (and I could be wrong about that), but rather that the issue of ectopic pregnancies is being ‘forced’ into this corner for legitimacy, and that is really the root of our disagreement (again, I could be wrong about this, but will continue for argument’s sake presuming I am not).

Now, let’s look at the general issue of women’s health versus the life of the preborn child. If a woman were pregnant and got cancer, it is likely the cancer treatments would kill the preborn child, and yet they would still be done to save the mother’s life. Now, say the woman has uteran cysts or some other reproductive issue while pregnant and requires a hysterectomy. Again, the procedure would be done, the preborn child dies, and the mother’s life is saved. All of these acts are perfectly acceptable under the ‘Good Act’ philosophy.

So, what is different about ectopic pregnancies than these other issues? Seemingly, it would be that the pregnancy is the cause of the issue, but where does causation fit into this equation? The Intent is to save the mother from a life-threatening condition, the Means is to remove the organ causing said condition, and the End is the life of the mother is saved. The only wiggle room here is in the Means, and that is where the mother must make a choice.

Look, it seems the easier, quicker, less risky move to have the chemical abortion. On the other hand, having an organ removed that will likely affect future fertility is a big sacrifice to make. But, following the will of God requires us to make the difficult choices - the choices that respect life. Whether you see it or not, there is a moral difference between an abortion, and a medical procedure resulting in the death of a child.

It has been a pleasure discussing this issue with you, as well, and I do appreciate that you also have maintained a calm manner in this often heated discussion. If you think our views truly will never cross, then we will admit our opinions are irreconilable, and let that be that for this issue.

 

[Mumbles140]

it’s not like i’m taking what you said and twisting it, i’m pretty much playing it backwards, and i don’t think that it is internally consistent. it sounds like there is no functional difference in certain medical procedures, but if one is done for “convenience” then it is immoral. well, if that is the case, then i defy you show that what is convenient for one person is the same for another. because you are ignoring all of the complicated cases that are frankly none of our business.

and that’s another thing that you have never explained back to me, how another person’s family plan should be anybody else’s business. “but killing babies is wrong and you hate babies and you are a baby killer if you don’t agree with me” is an incoherent argument once you deconstruct it.

i only ever said that life began long ago, and that i believe it will continue on after i die. i never said anything about spirits. you make it up whole cloth. i only point this out because i think that it illustrates the gulf between us. but i also point out that what i believe isn’t the point. i’m more interested in how people with different beliefs can get along together.

this is a false equivalency.

1. If you read my discussions with Sufjon, you will see the argument that a Good Act must have good Intention, Means, and End. The Means are the crux of the argument, whereas you are only looking at the Intent (save the mother) and the result (preborn child dies).

Let me break this down another level (Inception-style). Let’s examine simply the Means as an act. For removal of the tube, the Intent is to remove an organ that, if left in the woman, would rupture and result in her death. The means is a surgical procedure to remove the tubing, and the result is the mother is saved. None of those instances can be considered an immoral part, which means they are a good part. Good parts equals good act, and that makes the Means of Removing the Tube good.

Now, we examine the Means of Chemical Abortion. The intent of that act is to kill the child. Since killing an innocent human life is immoral, the act is immoral, but let us press on. The means of that action are to pump chemicals into a living being. This is actually morally neutral, as it can be used to harm (poison) or cure (chemotherapy) a human. Lastly, the result is the death of the preborn child. Again, death is a morally neutral result. So, 2/3s of the chemical abortion are morally neutral, but the intent is immoral. Therefore, the entire act of Chemical Abortion is immoral, which follows that using it as Means in the initial act (saving the mother’s life) makes that treatment immoral.

1. Family planning itself is morally neutral as a result, and unless you are a Catholic submitting to the Magisterium of the Church, I’m not going to try and force my religious beliefs as to your intentions for family planning. We are yet again brought to the means, which I will confront in #3. However, I do want to point out here that your argument is founded on a misconception. The Church is not against abortion because it wants to regulate the right of family planning, as family planning is morally neutral. However, the Church is against abortion because it recognizes abortion as murder (see #3 below). Again, you are arguing intent, but it is the Means that matter. The ‘business’ isn’t about family planning, it is about stopping that which we believe to be murder.
2. Again, you provide a Wikipedia definition without explaining how this applies to my arguments. But let’s break it down simply. Murder is different than killing - it is the intentional killing of an innocent and/or defenseless human being. This falls into “all squares are quadrilaterals, not all quadrilaterals are squares”. I think this is a pretty universal understanding of murder, but if you think my definition is unfounded, feel free to provide your own.

Now, once we have the definition, we have to see if abortion applies…

First, it is intentional: being in a car accident that causes a miscarriage is not intentional, but choosing to go to a doctor and providing consent to perform a procedure aimed at terminating the pregnancy is intentional.

Second, it is killing: successful abortions result in death, so I think this is a given.

Third, the killing is against someone innocent and/or defenseless. If someone is chasing you with a knife, and you shoot them with a gun, that is self-defense. The attacker is neither innocent nor defenseless. Now, if you see a person walking on the street with a knife and you shoot them because they ‘could’ be a threat, that victim is innocent or defenseless. Innocent or defenseless don’t apply universally (i.e. because someone had an affair with your spouse doesn’t mean they are no longer ‘innocent’ in the definition of murder). Regardless, I think we can all agree that a preborn child in the womb cannot choose to do harm, and therefore must be innocent. Furthermore, a preborn child lacks the ability to flee or fight back, so I think that qualifies them as defenseless.

Lastly, the person must be a human being. It is not murder to walk over to your neighbor’s yard and throw the fish from his coy pond into the yard. It is wrong, it is cruelty to animals, and it is punishable, but it is not murder. This is the hinge of my argument above - IF you accept a preborn child as a human being, then abortion is murder.

I have laid out the specific qualifications for murder, applied them to the scenario of abortion, and it appears that the only logical conclusion is that abortion is murder. So where is the false equivocation? How is abortion not actually murder under these circumstances when you accept a preborn child as a human being?

 

[Mumbles140]

i want to go on record saying that i religiously believe there are moral reasons to have an abortion.

i think that this is rather self-aggrandizing, but i’m going to invite all flames that follow.

*steps off soapbox.

sorry for wasting everyone’s time;p

I’ll step up to the plate on this. I agree, there can be moral reasons (I prefer the word Intentions for the sake of my argument) to have an abortion. However, when you are discussing reasons, then the Act in question is not abortion, abortion is rather the Means.

Allow me to give an example. You and your spouse are expecting, but you do not think you will be able to afford what the child needs, and are unsure about the availability of public assistance. Therefore, your Act is to preserve your family’s financial stability (i.e. making ends meet).

The Intention of that Act is to provide for your family. That is very noble, as parents should strive to keep their children out of need. It is also moral - parents are responsible for looking after their children until the children reach the age where they can do that for themselves.

The Result of the Act is also good - your family does not fall into financial crisis, and you are able to feed and provide for them.

But, we have to examine the Means. I’ve argued that preborn children are human beings, and you have, thus far, been able to logically disprove my argument. I also argued that, accepting preborn children as human beings means accepting that abortion is the murdering of them (I concede here that you have not yet been able to respond to this argument, as I just posted it prior to this response). Murder, a specific definition of killing, is morally wrong, and can never be morally neutral (unlike killing, which can be, such as in war). Therefore, the abortion as a Means is always immoral, which makes any Act using abortion as its Means is immoral, regardless of how noble or morally justified the Intention and Result are.

You are asking that which Machiavelli proposed - we ignore the Means so long as we like the Results, but that is asking for two things: first, the rejection of all moral and/or legal codes, and secondly (which follows from that) - anarchy. Not quite the Utopian society we are striving for…

 

[Sufjon]

I’ll step up to the plate on this. I agree, there can be moral reasons (I prefer the word Intentions for the sake of my argument) to have an abortion. However, when you are discussing reasons, then the Act in question is not abortion, abortion is rather the Means.

Allow me to give an example. You and your spouse are expecting, but you do not think you will be able to afford what the child needs, and are unsure about the availability of public assistance. Therefore, your Act is to preserve your family’s financial stability (i.e. making ends meet).

The Intention of that Act is to provide for your family. That is very noble, as parents should strive to keep their children out of need. It is also moral - parents are responsible for looking after their children until the children reach the age where they can do that for themselves.

The Result of the Act is also good - your family does not fall into financial crisis, and you are able to feed and provide for them.

But, we have to examine the Means. I’ve argued that preborn children are human beings, and you have, thus far, been able to logically disprove my argument. I also argued that, accepting preborn children as human beings means accepting that abortion is the murdering of them (I concede here that you have not yet been able to respond to this argument, as I just posted it prior to this response). Murder, a specific definition of killing, is morally wrong, and can never be morally neutral (unlike killing, which can be, such as in war). Therefore, the abortion as a Means is always immoral, which makes any Act using abortion as its Means is immoral, regardless of how noble or morally justified the Intention and Result are.

You are asking that which Machiavelli proposed - we ignore the Means so long as we like the Results, but that is asking for two things: first, the rejection of all moral and/or legal codes, and secondly (which follows from that) - anarchy. Not quite the Utopian society we are striving for…

Hi again Mumbles: We understand what you are saying. We just don’t see how in this case one means is inherently better than the other. From a moral perspective they look the same to me. From a practical perspective, removing a tube to remove a fetus is like robbing a bear’s den to get a jar of honey. Messier, less efficient and a whole lot more dangerous.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

You are asking that which Machiavelli proposed - we ignore the Means so long as we like the Results, but that is asking for two things: first, the rejection of all moral and/or legal codes, and secondly (which follows from that) - anarchy. Not quite the Utopian society we are striving for

Hi again Mumbles: It’s kind of ironic at least to me that you would bring up Machiavelli. I see it much more Machiavellian to say you are removing a tube, when the reason you are removing the tube is to remove a baby. A rather clumsy Machiavellian scheme, because it doesn’t even fool people, much less God. Although I think the people who issued that decision know it is sometimes easier to fool people you’ve frightened in a number of other ways into buying into some rather convoluted thinking. Besides, removing a tube when all you have to remove is what’s attached to it is not right action or right means, because it causes more harm than necessary. It could also impede further pregnancies, which is counter productive, especially when considering the birth race that some of you believe you are in engaged in with Islam. It is wrong action by medical standards to take a more radical approach than is necessary and wrong by practical standards. It is also wrong by moral standards not to be direct about your intents and purposes. If my objective is to eat ice cream when my dogma tells me it’s wrong to eat ice cream, it doesn’t serve me well to eat the bowl with the ice cream in it just so I could say I was eating the bowl. To do what you say and say what you mean, and be direct about it is the way to go about things for me. Even when I am doing something that I think is wrong, it’s best for me to be direct about it. It gives me the opportunity to gain a truer introspect into my intentions and actions, and from there I can make the right adjustments. I can’t make the right adjustments if I am fooling myself all the time about what I’m doing. This is how it works for me at least, and it’s one of a thousand reasons that I couldn’t belong to faith tradition where rigid dogma causes me to take diagonal approaches to day to day practicalities.

Your friend
Sufjon