Question on Prudence and Abortion

[fakename]

I’m not sure if this was submitted yet, but basically I would like to ask a few questions: (1) Granted that it’s not true that the proposition “we should make abortion illegal” is just a prudential matter, could it be true that “we should make abortion illegal now and by this process” is? (2) The Catholic Encyclopedia defines a good custom as a law. If that is true, then can one make abortion “illegal” by decentralized means too?

I suppose that the answer to the first question is the answer to the general question of whether murder should be made illegal now. And it should be made illegal now, so the same holds true of abortion.

But I don’t think that deduction is true in every scenario. For instance, to publicly argue against abortion could make people even more obstinate in their pro-choice convictions. So the only way to get rid of abortion might be to emphasize doing other things so that eventually, abortion could be made illegal. Is this valid moral reasoning?

 

[davidv]

I’m not sure if this was submitted yet, but basically I would like to ask a few questions: (1) Granted that it’s not true that the proposition “we should make abortion illegal” is just a prudential matter, could it be true that “we should make abortion illegal now and by this process” is? (2) The Catholic Encyclopedia defines a good custom as a law. If that is true, then can one make abortion “illegal” by decentralized means too?

I suppose that the answer to the first question is the answer to the general question of whether murder should be made illegal now. And it should be made illegal now, so the same holds true of abortion.

But I don’t think that deduction is true in every scenario. For instance, **[A]**to publicly argue against abortion could make people even more obstinate in their pro-choice convictions. ********So the only way to get rid of abortion might be to emphasize doing other things so that eventually, abortion could be made illegal. Is this valid moral reasoning?
It may be valid, but is unsound and untrue.

The form seems to be A > B
A
Therefore B

A is untrue. Therefore the conclusion cannot be true.

 

[AdamP88]

I don’t think that deduction is true in every scenario. For instance, to publicly argue against abortion could make people even more obstinate in their pro-choice convictions. So the only way to get rid of abortion might be to emphasize doing other things so that eventually, abortion could be made illegal. Is this valid moral reasoning?

I think it’s a good thing to suggest alternatives for abortion as part of the battle against it. However, abortion is such a great moral evil that this alone is not enough. It is necessary to take action in order to curtail the damage done by this practice and eventually eliminate the practice altogether.

The same could be said of something like capital punishment or slavery.

 

[Peanut7949]

Life seems to work clearer when the better options are the only ones offered… Just like if you were to think… should I go to Publix or the Health food store? Or should I go to Porky pigs or Health food store…

Well no matter what, you’re gonna get a better outcome with
ADOPTION OR KEEPING THE BABY. There’s even calling the firefighter station through 911 and giving the baby over without any questions.

 

[surritter]

To accept a law that keeps certain forms of abortion legal while greatly limiting others that are currently legal can be evaluated in light of the Church’s teachings on cooperating with evil – direct/indirect and material cooperation vs. remote cooperation, etc.

So if we cannot convince everyone that abortion is always wrong, it may be permissible to grudgingly accept small steps in the right direction. Maybe someone else can go deeper into how the “cooperation” ideas apply to the OP’s question.

 

[thistle]

To accept a law that keeps certain forms of abortion legal while greatly limiting others that are currently legal can be evaluated in light of the Church’s teachings on cooperating with evil – direct/indirect and material cooperation vs. remote cooperation, etc.

So if we cannot convince everyone that abortion is always wrong, it may be permissible to grudgingly accept small steps in the right direction. Maybe someone else can go deeper into how the “cooperation” ideas apply to the OP’s question.

There are no degrees of abortion that are acceptable as small steps.
Abortion is MURDER. All of it is unacceptable.

 

[Bradski]

How about if young women were better educated in regard to contraception. If they didn’t get pregnant, then they wouldn’t need an abortion.

 

[surritter]

There are no degrees of abortion that are acceptable as small steps.
Abortion is MURDER. All of it is unacceptable.

Read my post, Thistle – you missed the point. Suppose there is a law that prohibits all abortion except for rape or incest. You and I would detest such a law because we know that all direct abortions are murder. Yet you are implying that a legislator who votes in favor of such a law is committing a grave sin. I am claiming, along with the Church, that to vote in favor of said law is in many cases permissible. That was the point.

 

[thistle]

Read my post, Thistle – you missed the point. Suppose there is a law that prohibits all abortion except for rape or incest. You and I would detest such a law because we know that all direct abortions are murder. Yet you are implying that a legislator who votes in favor of such a law is committing a grave sin. I am claiming, along with the Church, that to vote in favor of said law is in many cases permissible. That was the point.

Are you seriously telling us that the Church states its is okay to vote for a law which permits abortion, whether it is all abortions or only certain ones. Please show me the Church document which states that.
A vote in favour of such a law would be a mortal sin.

 

[Moore11]

How about if young women were better educated in regard to contraception. If they didn’t get pregnant, then they wouldn’t need an abortion.

Because in this day and age the problem is that people don’t know about contraception?
I don’t think so. Perhaps we should educate them on the real effects of contraception and a sexual lifestyle that is unhealthy.
The problem is we “educate” that birth control relieves risk and then get mad when it fails. THAT is the recipe for abortion.

 

[surritter]

Are you seriously telling us that the Church states its is okay to vote for a law which permits abortion, whether it is all abortions or only certain ones. Please show me the Church document which states that.
A vote in favour of such a law would be a mortal sin.

I stand by what I wrote before, and yes, I’ll give the Church document which states the idea.
The Church indeed permits voting for such a law (within certain circumstances/conditions).
The following is from “Evangelium Vitae,” given to us by Blessed John Paul II, paragraph 73 (my emphasis added):​

A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on…In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.​

 

[Peanut7949]

So if we cannot convince everyone that abortion is always wrong, it may be permissible to grudgingly accept small steps in the right direction. Maybe someone else can go deeper into how the “cooperation” ideas apply to the OP’s question.

it takes steps to get to the top of the ladder… I agree… laws are being passed in certain states that a person needs to receive infomration and wait 24 hours till they go through with the operation and half the girls or so change their minds… GOd is in the working!! and there are other steps that are valid. Don’t make any hard and fast rules–

 

[bilop]

Are you seriously telling us that the Church states its is okay to vote for a law which permits abortion, whether it is all abortions or only certain ones. Please show me the Church document which states that.
A vote in favour of such a law would be a mortal sin.

Of course it is.

Are you seriously arguing that if it were possible to pass a law banning 99% of all abortions (except rape and incest), pro-lifers shouldn’t vote for it because it’s not perfect?

That’s crazy talk. If you can save 990K of the 1M babies aborted every year, it is 100% moral to do so, and then work on the other 1% later.

It would be immoral to oppose such a law, since it outlaws many murders. Every incremental step towards fewer abortions is a win.

God Bless

 

[fakename]

It may be valid, but is unsound and untrue.

The form seems to be A > B
A
Therefore B

A is untrue. Therefore the conclusion cannot be true.

I didn’t mean logically valid, although thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut, I just meant “is what I said consistent with good morals?”.

Nor do I think that my premise is true, I’m just asking a hypothetical in case such a situation or analogous one does arise.

 

[Bradski]

Because in this day and age the problem is that people don’t know about contraception?

Yes, that’s part of the problem.

Take Texas for example. Practically all schools there teach abstinence as opposed to contraception and it has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in the US. Leading, obviously, to much higher rate of abortions.

More education about contraception, less abortions.

 

[thistle]

I stand by what I wrote before, and yes, I’ll give the Church document which states the idea.
The Church indeed permits voting for such a law (within certain circumstances/conditions).
The following is from “Evangelium Vitae,” given to us by Blessed John Paul II, paragraph 73 (my emphasis added):​

A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on…In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.​

I stand corrected. I’ve bookmarked that document as I hadn’t read it before.
Thanks.

 

[davidv]

Yes, that’s part of the problem.

Take Texas for example. Practically all schools there teach abstinence as opposed to contraception and it has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in the US. Leading, obviously, to much higher rate of abortions.

More education about contraception, less abortions.

That experiment has been running for over 40 years. It proves the contrary.

 

[Bradski]

That experiment has been running for over 40 years. It proves the contrary.

My apologies, David. I said ‘the highest’, when I should have said ‘one of the highest’. Nevertheless, the figures are there.

Besides, some of the states with the highest teenage birth rates — like Mississippi, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas — have policies that emphasize teaching abstinence over comprehensive sex education.

nytimes.com/2012/04/19/opinion/birth-control-and-teenage-pregnancy.html

The state has the third highest rate of teenage births in the country, and the second highest rate of repeat births to teenage girls. Sixty-three out of every 1,000 girls between 15 and 19 years old becomes a mother. That compares to 5 out of 1,000 in the Netherlands, and 42 in the United States as a whole. Texas is also well ahead of Rwanda (44), Micronesia (51), and Egypt (50).

thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/04/gail-collins-on-texas-s-abstinence-sex-education-problems.html

Contraceptive use is a key predictor of women’s recourse to abortion. The very small group of American women who are at risk of experiencing an unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives account for almost half of all abortions.

The rate of abortion has been falling in Texas over the last few years (which is good news), but how further could it drop if there was more information in regard to contraception. The lack of which is putting Texas up there as one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates around. Not just in the US but in the world.

 

[fakename]

It may be valid, but is unsound and untrue.

The form seems to be A > B
A
Therefore B

A is untrue. Therefore the conclusion cannot be true.

I suppose then that this would be the definitive answer, namely that the reasoning is correct under certain conditions that are not fulfilled?

Also, just because A is untrue doesn’t mean that B is untrue, it only means that the argument is unsound.

 

[davidv]

I suppose then that this would be the definitive answer, namely that the reasoning is correct under certain conditions that are not fulfilled?

Also, just because A is untrue doesn’t mean that B is untrue, it only means that the argument is unsound.

It may be, but you have no rational reason to believe it is so.