Pro-Life Choose Your Own Adventure NEEDS HELP

[Elijah_Baley]

I’m working on a Pro-Life Choose Your Own Adventure. It’s basically the JFA training extended to a Socratic conversation tree. I’m trying very carefully to note all the possible objections to the pro-life position, and fairly. But I honestly cannot think of an objection to this:

Consider, then, that a sprouting human life, just like a sprouting seed, lacks only nutrients and time before it is fully developed. But it is still the same entity throughout the process. Therefore, and just like the first little sprout of a seed, a fetus is not a potential human. It is a potential adult. Do you agree?

We choose NO.

Why not?

/The lack of some of these functions indicates death of a thing. Therefore, the lack of them to begin with should indicate a lack of life.

Death is not merely the lack of life. Death is the end of an existing life. How is it meaningful to speak of death when regarding a thing which is not alive?

/I don’t know, but discerning these features, like breath or spinal column, is the only way we have.

Consider brainwaves, to choose one. How did anyone determine death before we were able to detect brainwaves?

/They weren’t able to. At least, not without imprecision. But brainwaves are the best way we have now for detecting the end of life.

Doesn’t this seem arbitrary?

The “Yes” answer redirects to the top of the tree: “Should Abortion Remain Legal?” But the “No” answer has me stuck. I cannot think of a real objection to this.

Any ideas?

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

To me, the hardest argument that pro-abortion rights folks hit us with is the fact that in Church history, the Church did NOT always view ending a pregnancy as the equivalent of murder until “quickening” occurred, which is some number of weeks after conception. In other words, the Church always was against all abortion, but viewed it as a lesser sin if the willful termination of the pregnancy was prior to the time of “quickening.” This shows that the Church, in the past, had a view of the fetus as acquiring more rights to life as it gets older in the womb, a view that is quite similar to the view taken in the famous/infamous “Roe vs. Wade” court opinion. There was also discussion by theologians in earlier times in the Church that the soul did not enter the fetus until about the time of “quickening.” All these things are facts, and they really are hard to effectively counter-argue against. Our opponents are in essence saying, “Look, the Catholic Church has changed its position! They formerly held a view more similar to our view.”

But, I remain pro-life in spite of this. I would just admit that the Catholic Church’s view of things has grown and developed along with better understanding of how the human body functions. I would just admit what our view has developed and changed in small ways, while maintaining a basic continuity.

Well, good luck with your initiative. Be sure to show respect to your opponents. People are really so lost in today’s world of mass media and social and family chaos. There is so much hostility in today’s world, at school, at work, on the Internet, in families, in church congregations. People are used to being condemned, rejected, bullied, and insulted. They are sick of it. Show LIGHT to people. Show LOVE to people. That will transform people, or plant seeds that will transform them.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

My tract was going to take the form of a secular point of view, from pure reason. It’s a tedious conceit, but it’s the only way folks will listen.

For clarification on that point you bring up, I always interpreted that as the shifting of a minor premise.

M. When life is discernable, it is a mortal sin to end it.
m. Life is discernable at the quickening.
C. As early as the quickening, it is a mortal sin to end life.

… changed to …

M. When life is discernable, it is a mortal sin to end it.
m. Life is discernable at conception.
C. As early as conception, it is a mortal sin to end life.

This sort of thing is totally legit, cf. the fate of suicides.

M. If someone dies in a state of despairing of the grace of God, he will always go to Hell.
m. Suicides die in a state of despairing of the grace of God.
C. Suicides always go to Hell.

… changed to …

M. If someone dies in a state of despairing of the grace of God, he will always go to Hell.
m. Suicides do not necessarily die in a state of despairing of the grace of God.
C. Suicides do not necessarily always go to Hell.

My understanding is that the infallibility of the Church extends to all major premises, but not necessarily all minor premises. Hope that helps. (If any of this is untrue, I welcome the appropriate correction.)

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

My tract was going to take the form of a secular point of view, from pure reason. It’s a tedious conceit, but it’s the only way folks will listen.

For clarification on that point you bring up, I always interpreted that as the shifting of a minor premise.

M. When life is discernable, it is a mortal sin to end it.
m. Life is discernable at the quickening.
C. As early as the quickening, it is a mortal sin to end life.

… changed to …

M. When life is discernable, it is a mortal sin to end it.
m. Life is discernable at conception.
C. As early as conception, it is a mortal sin to end life.

This sort of thing is totally legit, cf. the fate of suicides.

M. If someone dies in a state of despairing of the grace of God, he will always go to Hell.
m. Suicides die in a state of despairing of the grace of God.
C. Suicides always go to Hell.

… changed to …

M. If someone dies in a state of despairing of the grace of God, he will always go to Hell.
m. Suicides do not necessarily die in a state of despairing of the grace of God.
C. Suicides do not necessarily always go to Hell.

My understanding is that the infallibility of the Church extends to all major premises, but not necessarily all minor premises. Hope that helps. (If any of this is untrue, I welcome the appropriate correction.)

Thanks. I get what you are saying, and that helps.

But, though I hate to say it, perhaps this will help you. The general public CANNOT understand terms such as “major premise” and “minor premise.” The technical language of logic is just all a big blur to them. Don’t you agree? Have you tried to talk this way to the average Joe or Jane, even those with college degrees?

Think about what DOES influence “the masses.” Think how commercial advertising and TV and pop music and movies and so on shape the way people view themselves and the world. Do these media use Aristotelian logic to influence people? I wish it would work! I wish more people were trained in philosophy and logic (and lots of other things, such as history, literature, theology, political science,…)

Well, keep going. Whatever it takes, find new peaceful and effective ways to end this Abortion Holocaust as soon as possible. Don’t let anyone discourage you.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

If ever there were a reason to abolish the major, to adapt the trivium, to bring back the quodlibet! But that’s another topic.

Thanks again for the support. Attached is what I have so far.