Poll: Contraception, abortion, infanticide

[mapleoak]

Note that the mother, in removing the child, does not kill it, but rather denies it sustenance.

Further, this is a strawman argument because the reality of abortion is not the mother removing her child and killing it through neglect. Rather abortion is the hands of a butcher mutilating, dismembering alive, scalding, stabbing the brain of, and sucking out a living baby.

 

[Shredderbeam]

mapleoak:

Go to the apologetics forum for such questions. They do not belong here. You have stated a godless principle and have nothing to back it up. The principle is unknown to anyone but you. As seen on this forum, your principle doesn’t even hold up to successive questioning.

I’ve already been there. I remain unconvinced.

Might I add, the burden of proof is upon you. The default position is lack of belief.

mapleoak:

There is no such thing as the principle of self-ownership, even in the mythical godless world. Step out of the fairyland.

Say that God does not exist. Say that self-ownership does not exist. Since you do not own yourself, you do not own your left kidney. Can I have it?

mapleoak:

Which is a violation of its right to life indeed.

Refusing to keep somebody alive is akin to murdering them? Then I must be murdering all those starving Africans whom I continually refuse to send aid to.

mapleoak:

On planet earth, something doesn’t come into ones body asking permission to be there

Of course it doesn’t. However, a mother may still grant permission for things to be put inside her body.

mapleoak:

The difference is method only.

All the difference in the world, then.

mapleoak:

No you don’t. Check with your county courthouse and see for yourself.

Legal laws are not equivalent to moral laws.

mapleoak:

Now that it suits you, morals taint your reasoning?

mapleoak:

The logic for this statement is absolutely elusive. Parents do not strip their children of any rights, yet are responsible for them. The conclusion arrived at is devoid of logic.

But why are they responsible for them?

mapleoak:

You have demonstrated the lack of ability to use logic to come to rational conclusions. You simply state something as fact and then try to make up the logic to support it.

Being aware of the workings of my own mind, I’d dare say I have a better understanding of how I come up with my positions than you do.

 

[Shredderbeam]

mapleoak:

Further, this is a strawman argument because the reality of abortion is not the mother removing her child and killing it through neglect. Rather abortion is the hands of a butcher mutilating, dismembering alive, scalding, stabbing the brain of, and sucking out a living baby.

You’re correct. Abortion is murder. I admitted this, though not in so many words, a bit back.

 

[mapleoak]

Metaphor: “A figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity.”

A metaphor is not a synonym.

This statement makes absolutely no sense. I fail to see where someone declared a metaphor to be a synonym. Ponder upon the definition of metaphor a bit and try again.

Then the woman, since she still owns herself, retains the right to refuse another being shelter inside her body.

No she doesn’t own herself. Remember, there is no such thing as your made up self ownership principle.

Killing the baby is wrong, yes. However, as when you invite somebody into your home, then kick them out into the cold to die, removing the baby from the womb is not immoral.

Again a lack of logic, since both are immoral. Therefore a demonstration setting up a false postulate and then trying to logically conclude something off of that false postulate.

 

[mapleoak]

I’ve already been there. I remain unconvinced.

If you state there is no God, you must prove it to those whom you make such a claim to. I do not question it. Therefore retry the apologetics forum.

Might I add, the burden of proof is upon you. The default position is lack of belief.

The burden of proof falls on someone making a claim. Here (a Catholic forum) the assumption is belief in God, therefore, since you challenge that notion, the burden is on you. I do not question the existence of God. Argue that position on apologetics.

Say that God does not exist. Say that self-ownership does not exist. Since you do not own yourself, you do not own your left kidney. Can I have it?

Your baseless principles do not exist anywhere, but on planet cauliflour.

Refusing to keep somebody alive is akin to murdering them?

Refusing to care for your dependents is murder by neglect, indeed.

Then I must be murdering all those starving Africans whom I continually refuse to send aid to.

How many false logic demonstrations can you possibly make? Must be getting tired by now.

Legal laws are not equivalent to moral laws.

You are going to have to choose one to continue any kind of intelligent conversation. You cannot decide something to be moral. Something either is or isn’t.

 

[Caesar517]

I’m not locking him in. I’m physically kicking him out, a process that shouldn’t kill him. What will kill him is the cold.

“I’m not guilty of murder! I didn’t kill him, I just tied him up and left him on the train tracks. It was the train that killed him.”

Do you really think this way?

 

[mapleoak]

“I’m not guilty of murder! I didn’t kill him, I just tied him up and left him on the train tracks. It was the train that killed him.”

Do you really think this way?

It’s useless. As I mentioned before, you can’t ‘communicate’ with someone who is wearing earplugs to reason and rationality.

 

[Sair]

You’re wrong, moral absolutes trump “real life”. Your public profile says you are Catholic, yet it sounds as if you are suggesting that we only do what is moral when it is convenient. You have it the wrong way around.

I was born and brought up in the Catholic church - I seem to recall reading that this officially defines me as a Catholic for the whole course of my life, regardless of what I may think or believe. Apparently that’s not up to me. That aside, real life, or the natural world, does have an impact upon the moral decisions we make. There are always mitigating factors, and for those who don’t necessarily believe in God - or a god/gods, for the sake of argument - there still needs to be a rational basis upon which to make moral decisions. This is one reason philosophers have argued moral questions for centuries - it’s just not that clear-cut.

I have seen a lot of arguments on this thread based around the idea that the mother has a responsibility to the unborn child because she chose to provide conditions by which it could reasonably be supposed to come into existence. Fair call. I fully accept that people should be aware of the consequences of their actions and be prepared to put up with them. However, since this argument is over whether abortion is always wrong or if there are some circumstances in which it is permissible (note that permissible is different from ‘good’, for example - permissible in some circumstances doesn’t mean acceptable for everyone, always. Conditions have to be met for permission to be established) I’ll take this opportunity to trot out the other old favourite of the pro-choice crowd - what if the woman was raped? Clearly, in this instance she did not choose to create conditions for conception to occur. Whence her responsibility to the rapist’s child?

Why is it more difficult later in the pregnancy? What has changed?
So it’s ok to kill someone, as long as they won’t feel it?

Causing death and causing suffering are different things. It’s for this reason that condemned criminals are now killed in the most humane manner possible. I would suggest that suffering is in fact a fate worse than death.

 

[mapleoak]

I have seen a lot of arguments on this thread based around the idea that the mother has a responsibility to the unborn child because she chose to provide conditions by which it could reasonably be supposed to come into existence.

That is only one reason she has a responsibility to her unborn child. The other is that the child was created into existence with a dependency for survival on the mother’s womb, of which its sole purpose is that of bearing offspring. The womb serves no other purpose. Yet another reason is that the since the child is dependent on the mother for survival, her choosing to reject that responsibility directly ends the childs life. Therefore, even if it were perceived that the mother can do as she pleases with her body, she cannot do something which directly results in the death of another human being.

since this argument is over whether abortion is always wrong or if there are some circumstances in which it is permissible (note that permissible is different from ‘good’, for example - permissible in some circumstances doesn’t mean acceptable for everyone, always. Conditions have to be met for permission to be established) I’ll take this opportunity to trot out the other old favourite of the pro-choice crowd - what if the woman was raped?

A few different reason here also. One, for the same as the last two reasons given above. Thirdly, two wrongs don’t make a right. And fourth, the crime commited by one person does not make the unborn child guilty deserving the death penalty. The person commiting the crime is person who should be punished. Not the child who God was pleased to bring into this world, bringing good out of a bad situation.

It may be helpful to look over the following thread, though it is a bit lengthy, it did cover most of the objections to these common questions as well as many others:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=234699

 

[vz71]

It’s useless. As I mentioned before, you can’t ‘communicate’ with someone who is wearing earplugs to reason and rationality.

You know…earlier the litmus test for trationality was the ability to communicate…

 

[Cellophane]

There is apparently another conversation going on here with another poster, and I’m going to choose to stay out of it (I’d be coming in late anyway). Besides, this is a Catholic board, and anything other than 100% disagreement with abortion is against Catholic beliefs as I understand them. I’m not Catholic, but I do try to respect the board and wouldn’t get neck deep into something like this on this board, but that’s just my :twocents: . But per the op…

I have no problem with birth control. I’m not real crazy about hormonal bc (ie the Pill), because it wrecks havoc on my body.

I have several children, and as a result, my hubby was going to have a vasectomy. But God interfeared, and it was canceled. I’m still considering the signifigance of that!

 

[Shredderbeam]

mapleoak:

This statement makes absolutely no sense. I fail to see where someone declared a metaphor to be a synonym. Ponder upon the definition of metaphor a bit and try again.

Well, what I’m trying to say is that saying that sex is a metaphor for a contract doesn’t actually make it a contract. Only a contract is a contract - if it’s similar, that’s great.

mapleoak:

No she doesn’t own herself. Remember, there is no such thing as your made up self ownership principle.

It’s not my principle, but…

Why doesn’t self-ownership exist?

mapleoak:

Again a lack of logic, since both are immoral. Therefore a demonstration setting up a false postulate and then trying to logically conclude something off of that false postulate.

Can you explain how leaving somebody to die is objectively immoral?

mapleoak:

If you state there is no God, you must prove it to those whom you make such a claim to. I do not question it. Therefore retry the apologetics forum.

I do not genuinely believe that there is no God, because that would be a position of faith. I believe that God’s existence is logically possible, but I remain unconvinced. Again, it’s not a dogmatic position, but a honest evaluation of the evidence that I can find.

Now, certainly, in a religious state, I must prove the non-existence of God, or at least unravel the arguments for his existence. However, the world is not necessarily a religious state. People are born with a lack of belief, and later go on to develop a belief.

mapleoak:

Refusing to care for your dependents is murder by neglect, indeed.

Legally, yes, but morally? And honestly, does this apply evenly to every person that I could help, but didn’t?

mapleoak:

You are going to have to choose one to continue any kind of intelligent conversation. You cannot decide something to be moral. Something either is or isn’t.

Oh, no, that’s not what I mean. What I’m trying to say is that moral laws are objective (as you agree), but that laws enacted by the state do not necessarily match up with them. In other words, the state can enact an immoral law.

“I’m not guilty of murder! I didn’t kill him, I just tied him up and left him on the train tracks. It was the train that killed him.”

Do you really think this way?

That would be a direct, physical attack upon him, though, in order to get him on the tracks. Perhaps finding a man upon the train tracks, and not stopping to help, then pleading innocence would be more equivalent.

 

[strngrnrth]

Well, what I’m trying to say is that saying that sex is a metaphor for a contract doesn’t actually make it a contract. Only a contract is a contract - if it’s similar, that’s great.Some actions are contracts by their nature. Otherwise society oculdn’t function.
Can you explain how leaving somebody to die is objectively immoral?We are a social species and owe each other something. We have a law written in our hearts. This principle is part of it.
Legally, yes, but morally? And honestly, does this apply evenly to every person that I could help, but didn’t?Everyone you know needs your help, whom you know has no other hope of survival, whom you have an implied contract with.

That would be a direct, physical attack upon him, though, in order to get him on the tracks. Perhaps finding a man upon the train tracks, and not stopping to help, then pleading innocence would be more equivalent.

A nearer example would be rolling sleeping bags to the tracks tied in knots at the head, knowing that one in every twelve or thirteen has someone sleeping in it, but that the rest are just full of mud and that it’s good exercise, then leaving them on the tracks tied like that knowing the person inside is asleep and can’t easily get out.

 

[vz71]

That would be a direct, physical attack upon him, though, in order to get him on the tracks. Perhaps finding a man upon the train tracks, and not stopping to help, then pleading innocence would be more equivalent.

But earlier you agreed that abortion was murder.

Is this yet another change in position?

 

[Caesar517]

That would be a direct, physical attack upon him, though, in order to get him on the tracks. Perhaps finding a man upon the train tracks, and not stopping to help, then pleading innocence would be more equivalent.

Then perhaps you found him tied up and moved him onto the tracks because going around him would have been inconvenient to you.

 

[Shredderbeam]

strngrnrth:

Some actions are contracts by their nature. Otherwise society oculdn’t function.

Ok. What actions are these? How do you objectively determine which actions are contracts? Why is sex a contract?

strngrnrth:

We are a social species and owe each other something. We have a law written in our hearts. This principle is part of it.

Well, I don’t think feeling that something is immoral makes it logically so. Certainly, the emotions of people may arouse them to do great things, but emotions are not always in perfect accordance with logic.

strngrnrth:

A nearer example would be rolling sleeping bags to the tracks tied in knots at the head, knowing that one in every twelve or thirteen has someone sleeping in it, but that the rest are just full of mud and that it’s good exercise, then leaving them on the tracks tied like that knowing the person inside is asleep and can’t easily get out.

?Everyone you know needs your help, whom you know has no other hope of survival, whom you have an implied contract with.

Why do I have an implied contract with them?

strngrnrth:

A nearer example would be rolling sleeping bags to the tracks tied in knots at the head, knowing that one in every twelve or thirteen has someone sleeping in it, but that the rest are just full of mud and that it’s good exercise, then leaving them on the tracks tied like that knowing the person inside is asleep and can’t easily get out.

I’d still be assaulting their rights by transporting them without permission, though.

vz71:

But earlier you agreed that abortion was murder.

Is this yet another change in position?

Abortion is still murder, as abortion is directly ending the life of a human being. However, if you witness somebody being killed, then you are not doing the killing, and thus, not committing the murder.

Caesar517:

Then perhaps you found him tied up and moved him onto the tracks because going around him would have been inconvenient to you.

That would still be an assault upon his rights.

 

[strngrnrth]

It’s time for a new thread on the nature of implicit contracts.

 

[vz71]

Abortion is still murder, as abortion is directly ending the life of a human being.

OK, it looks like some progress is being made here.

We are no longer talking about a blob of tissue, we are talking about a human being.

Now you will have to see the futility of justifying the murder of this human being.

 

[vz71]

It’s time for a new thread on the nature of implicit contracts.

Perhaps, but I believe not.
It is time for the contractual agreement argument to be exposed for the red herring it is.

As Shredderbeam has said, abortion is still murder, as abortion is directly ending the life of a human being.

The question is if the child’s right to life supercedes the mothers alleged ‘right not to be pregnent.’
The answer is no.
Not only is such a right not existent, but the murder of the child is without any justification at all.

There is no contractual law to be considered here.
Just the life of the unborn child and murder.

 

[Shredderbeam]

vz71:

OK, it looks like some progress is being made here.

We are no longer talking about a blob of tissue, we are talking about a human being.

Now you will have to see the futility of justifying the murder of this human being.

This is why I like constructive debates.

So yes, directly murdering a human is immoral. However, I do not see allowing a human to die to be immoral.