The abortion memo

[Ender]

So, for instance, if someone were to try to solve the abortion problem by killing abortion doctors, that would be the “wrong way,” whereas if someone were to vote for pro-life political candidates or open a crisis pregnancy aid center, that would be the “right way.”

“Right way” is a little loose, but what I meant was any way that is not in fact sinful. That term for me has nothing to do with whether the proposal is beneficial or harmful.

If you believe your proposal will be beneficial, then so long as it includes no immoral act, your solution is done the “right way.”

Your example of helping a friend with a dead car battery is of the same sort. It shows that merely having the intention to solve a problem is not sufficient for the act to be moral. Therefore there are more moral questions to a political issue beyond “should we solve it?”

If you take this position then everything would be a moral issue, including getting your neighbor’s car running again, but to do so is to trivialize the term and render it essentially useless. If you’re going to assume this posture in which literally every political issue is a moral issue then it makes no sense to describe any of them as moral given that the term applies equally to auto repair and abortion.

 

[Ender]

All other political issues are moral questions at ground, but the facts are difficult to discern with regard to deciding which moral principles would come into play and how to prioritize, in a morally warranted way, the “goods” at stake.

I specified at the beginning of all this that the one moral question that applies to all questions is “Do I want to honestly solve the problem?” So if I start there, what moral question is still involved? Pick any political issue at all (other than the ones involving intrinsic evils) and identify what moral choice is faced in determining how best to resolve the problem.

I have posed this question before, but so far no one has come up with an example (I don’t consider deciding not to lie, cheat, or steal to be examples).

 

[LeafByNiggle]

HarryStotle:

All other political issues are moral questions at ground, but the facts are difficult to discern with regard to deciding which moral principles would come into play and how to prioritize, in a morally warranted way, the “goods” at stake.

I specified at the beginning of all this that the one moral question that applies to all questions is “Do I want to honestly solve the problem?” So if I start there, what moral question is still involved? Pick any political issue at all (other than the ones involving intrinsic evils) and identify what moral choice is faced in determining how best to resolve the problem.

I would argue that the same question could be asked of abortion. There is one moral question: “Do I want to honestly solve the problem?” If I answer that question in the affirmative, what moral question is still involved?

The thing you are trying to say about political issues like health care, minimum wage, etc., can also be said of abortion. So this observation, true or false, does not separate abortion from other issues. There may be other ways to separate them, but this is not one of them.

 

[Ender]

I would argue that the same question could be asked of abortion. There is one moral question: “Do I want to honestly solve the problem?” If I answer that question in the affirmative, what moral question is still involved?

With (virtually) all other issues one may legitimately take a position on either side of the question. So long as you honestly seek a good solution, your intention is (generally) sufficient to morally justify whatever position you reach.

This is not true of abortion, where one set of solutions is ruled out. The two opposing sides are not morally equal. We may not morally support abortion regardless of whether we think it is the best solution.

The thing you are trying to say about political issues like health care, minimum wage, etc., can also be said of abortion. So this observation, true or false, does not separate abortion from other issues. There may be other ways to separate them, but this is not one of them.

No, this is incorrect. I can take a position on either side of any of those issues, and they are all morally equivalent. There is no moral distinction between working for or against increasing the minimum wage, being for or against socialized medicine, being for or against DACA. There is, however, a great moral distinction between being for or against abortion.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I would argue that the same question could be asked of abortion. There is one moral question: “Do I want to honestly solve the problem?” If I answer that question in the affirmative, what moral question is still involved?

With (virtually) all other issues one may legitimately take a position on either side of the question. So long as you honestly seek a good solution, your intention is (generally) sufficient to morally justify whatever position you reach.

This is not true of abortion, where one set of solutions is ruled out. The two opposing sides are not morally equal. We may not morally support abortion regardless of whether we think it is the best solution.

You are still misunderstanding my question. I did not propose or ask about when one may support abortion, even as a means to solve some other problem. I am only asking about the distinction you first made in post 21 and again in post 63. Let’s focus on post 63 since it is clearer:

I specified at the beginning of all this that the one moral question that applies to all questions is “Do I want to honestly solve the problem?” So if I start there, what moral question is still involved? Pick any political issue at all (other than the ones involving intrinsic evils) and identify what moral choice is faced in determining how best to resolve the problem.

You specifically said “any political issues other than those involving intrinsic evils (like abortion).” You then proceeded to make a claim that I assume would not be true of issues that do involve abortion, namely, that there is only one moral question involved: “Do I honestly want to solve it?” Now we could have another whole debate over whether that claim is true (and we have, if I recall), but that is not what I am questioning at this time. I am questioning whether the claim would be true even for issues like abortion, in which case this claim, even if true, does not distinguish between abortion and other issues. And so, I take your claim and turn it around to say:

The one moral question that applies to all questions is “Do I want to honestly solve the problem?” So if I start there, what moral question is still involved? Pick any issue involving an intrinsic evil and identify what moral choice is faced in determining how best to resolve the problem.

This is exactly the same as your claim with non-intrinsic evil replaced by intrinsic evil. If this claim distinguished between abortion and health care then this claim should be true for one of them and false for the other.

 

[Rau]

This is not true of abortion, where one set of solutions is ruled out.

What characterizes the “solutions” to abortion that you identify as “ruled out”, other than the idea that abortion is a good?

You seem to be referring to wider problems, for which some pursue abortion as the solution. Advocating abortion as the solution is clearly misguided. That of course does not obligate anyone to immediately pursue the particular “solution” of making illegal all abortions “immediately”. Certainly, one could judge that a very bad idea.

 

[Rau]

There is no moral distinction between working for or against increasing the minimum wage, being for or against socialized medicine, being for or against DACA. There is, however, a great moral distinction between being for or against abortion.

Subject to good intention, and to believing that one’s favored policy produces more good than harm - this is self-evident, isn’t it?

 

[mVitus]

There is actually evidence for the rate of down syndrome babies being aborted not being that high. I couldn’t find the original study released by the Jerome LeJeune Foundation, but I did find an article that references it. (Side note: Jerome LeJeune was a devout Catholic who discovered the cause of Down Syndrome, was a pro-life advocate, helped in establishing the bylaws of the Pontifical Academy for Life and there is a cause being made for his sainthood.)

Abortion of Down Syndrome Babies Much Lower Than Previously Thought - Life Issues Institute

For years we’ve heard that 90 percent of babies diagnosed in the womb with Down syndrome are aborted. It’s a...

www.lifeissues.org

The reason I mention this is that when we argue our pro-life position, we need the accurate facts. And in addition, a woman that hears the 95% mentality can fall into a herd mentality and assume that if most people do it, it’s right.

 

[Ender]

You then proceeded to make a claim that I assume would not be true of issues that do involve abortion, namely, that there is only one moral question involved: “Do I honestly want to solve it?” Now we could have another whole debate over whether that claim is true (and we have, if I recall), but that is not what I am questioning at this time. I am questioning whether the claim would be true even for issues like abortion, in which case this claim, even if true, does not distinguish between abortion and other issues. And so, I take your claim and turn it around to say:

This is exactly the same as your claim with non-intrinsic evil replaced by intrinsic evil. If this claim distinguished between abortion and health care then this claim should be true for one of them and false for the other.

Let me try a different approach and distinguish between proposals for resolving problems and the people who support those proposals. If a person supports a specific position with a bad intention then his support is immoral…but the position itself does not become immoral simply because of that.

On the other hand, if the position includes an evil action then the position itself is immoral, and it does not become moral even if my reason for supporting it is noble.

So what is it that makes political issues moral questions? I am charged with trying to do the right thing, but once I have determined to do that, pretty much any proposal to resolve the problem is morally neutral.

The one moral question that applies to all questions is “Do I want to honestly solve the problem?” So if I start there, what moral question is still involved? Pick any issue involving an intrinsic evil and identify what moral choice is faced in determining how best to resolve the problem.

Wanting to do what is right does not thereby allow one to choose an option that is intrinsically evil. While one may take either side of the health care debate, one may not legitimately choose either side on the abortion debate. A good intention allows virtually any position on health care (subject to the normal caveats), but a good intention does not justify any position on abortion. That’s the difference.

 

[F_Marturana]

Well I’m happy if it’s actually lower.

But I do want to stress the point though that late term abortions usually occur due to fetal abnormality as opposed to an emergency scenario to save the mother.

 

[Ender]

What characterizes the “solutions” to abortion that you identify as “ruled out”, other than the idea that abortion is a good?

Why do people have abortions? Pick a reason - that will be the problem they are trying to resolve, but honestly trying to find the best solution to that problem does not allow one to choose abortion as the answer. In this case their good intention does not justify that position. With other issues, a good intention is pretty much all that is required.

You seem to be referring to wider problems, for which some pursue abortion as the solution.

Yes, that is an accurate description.

Advocating abortion as the solution is clearly misguided. That of course does not obligate anyone to immediately pursue the particular “solution” of making illegal all abortions “immediately”. Certainly, one could judge that a very bad idea.

This gets to the point I briefly addressed earlier when I suggested that different approaches to banning abortion could be legitimate.

 

[Ender]

Ender:

There is no moral distinction between working for or against increasing the minimum wage, being for or against socialized medicine, being for or against DACA. There is, however, a great moral distinction between being for or against abortion.

Subject to good intention, and to believing that one’s favored policy produces more good than harm - this is self-evident, isn’t it?

I think so, which is why I said that most political issues are not also moral issues. Clearly that point is anything but self-evident.

 

[Theo520]

An excellent memo.

 

[HarryStotle]

We can start by being perfectly clear about what I said:

“There is only one moral choice involved in most issues: do we want to honestly solve the problem or not? Once that choice is made, there are virtually no moral questions left for the vast majority of political concerns.”

Well, no, merely “honestly” wanting to solve a problem does not explicate the grounds from which the problem can reasonably be solved or assessed as a problem to begin with.

The choice of whether the problem needs attention depends upon its significance as a problem. There is no greater significance making quality than morality. So in itself, the choice to focus on the problem depends upon how important it is to solve it and that, frequently boils down to the moral implications that unfold from the problem.

If nothing significant hangs upon resolving a problem, there is no pressing need to solve it. The significance of any problem typically comes from the – at ground – determinably MORAL issues: life, liberty, and the authentic pursuit of the moral good (eudaemonia).

Every problem involves the question of whether one will attempt to resolve it. For most problems that is the only moral choice involved unless we choose an immoral act as part of our solution.

No, actually, the first step is to determine what moral implications follow from any “attempt to resolve” the problem. If any do, those options may be dismissed or, at least, weighed against the moral implications of other offered solutions.

If my neighbor’s car won’t start I face the choice of helping or ignoring him, but once I’ve decided to help, determining where the problem lies and how to resolve it do not involve moral choices…unless I determine his battery is bad and suggest stealing the battery from someone else’s car.

Basically, what you are saying is that immoral solutions ought not be accepted as choices, leaving only the morally acceptable ones.
Okay, but morality is assumed, not discarded.

Continued…

 

[HarryStotle]

The same is true of political issues. Once I have decided to help then there are no more moral choices…unless I choose a solution that involves an immoral act. For those issues that involve intrinsic evils there are some solutions that are per se immoral, and therefore I may not choose them.

No. The point is only morally acceptable solutions can be entertained to solve the problem. Any offered solution will have to pass the moral test in order to be a possible solution. Even then, the solution(s) chosen need to be constantly monitored for their unforeseen moral implications. Ergo morality is in continual play.

What gets lost in political discussions, especially where they are said to be “moral” questions, is the distinction between acts that are bad in the sense of immoral, and those that are bad in the sense of being mistaken. There are mistakes aplenty, but few proposals are actually immoral.

Mistakes are usually only significant if they lead to moral consequences to some or many in the polity. A mistake without any serious moral implications is of little concern.

 

[Ender]

The point is only morally acceptable solutions can be entertained to solve the problem.

True, and this is what separates those political issues that deal with intrinsic evils from those that do not.

Any offered solution will have to pass the moral test in order to be a possible solution.

While I agree with this as it stands, my disagreement is in the determination of what constitutes a “moral test.”

Even then, the solution(s) chosen need to be constantly monitored for their unforeseen moral implications. Ergo morality is in continual play.

It is not that “moral implications” are unforeseen, but that there are unforeseen consequences. The morality of an act, however, is not determined by the consequences.

I asked this before, but I’ll repeat the challenge:

Pick any political issue at all (other than the ones involving intrinsic evils) and identify what moral choice is faced in determining how best to resolve the problem.

I think if you try to come up with a specific example you will better understand the difficulty. The bishops have repeatedly used immigration as an example of a moral issue, but feel free to choose anything you like.

 

[Rau]

The morality of an act, however, is not determined by the consequences.

That statement is likely to confuse some readers. An act is surely immoral (for the actor) if he assesses it, forms a view that the bad consequences outweigh the good, and yet pursues it. But of course, different actors may legitimately reach different assessments of the balance of consequences.

 

[Rau]

The bishops have repeatedly used immigration as an example of a moral issue, but feel free to choose anything you like.

Certainly how we respond to refugees asking for help is a matter open to moral assessment. As is our approach to those contemplating abortion and to their children at risk of imminent death.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So what is it that makes political issues moral questions? I am charged with trying to do the right thing, but once I have determined to do that, pretty much any proposal to resolve the problem is morally neutral.

The one moral question that applies to all questions is “Do I want to honestly solve the problem?” So if I start there, what moral question is still involved? Pick any issue involving an intrinsic evil and identify what moral choice is faced in determining how best to resolve the problem.

Wanting to do what is right does not thereby allow one to choose an option that is intrinsically evil. While one may take either side of the health care debate, one may not legitimately choose either side on the abortion debate. A good intention allows virtually any position on health care (subject to the normal caveats), but a good intention does not justify any position on abortion. That’s the difference.

The reason there is a difference between the things you are comparing is that they are not parallel things. Abortion is an issue. CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program) is a solution. Issues and solutions are not comparable.

One can legitimately take any position on CHIP, because it is a solution to a problem which may have many potential solutions. To compare this with abortion we need to have a solution to abortion. One such solution is the creation of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers. Another solution is to provide advertising and campaign assistance for pro-life political candidates. If one has $100 and wants to spend it to solve the abortion problem, one can legitimately take either path. This is the more appropriate comparison to make. And with respect to this comparison, abortion and health care are similar.

Now if you want to compare abortion as a general issue with health care as a general issue, what you can say is that there is only one position to take on each of these issues: abortion is evil, health care is good. When you talk about abortion, you never talk about solutions, but when you talk about health care, you do. This discrepancy is the source of the difference that you propose.

 

[HarryStotle]

I asked this before, but I’ll repeat the challenge:

Pick any political issue at all (other than the ones involving intrinsic evils) and identify what moral choice is faced in determining how best to resolve the problem.

The important distinction to be made is that there are many “political issues” which can be resolved by local action involving no changes to the law but merely the determined action of individuals and groups involved.

The difference – and this is where compulsion by legal means comes in – is that changes to the law require compliance on the part of everyone. Without a moral warrant to require or obligate everyone to comply, the law does not have sufficient grounds to be enacted.

That is the difference. Laws REQUIRE compliance, practical solutions do not. Those rely on educating everyone involved, open discussion of the issues and action on the part of those affected. None of these are, however, compelled by law. They might be part of a policy framework that local functionaries put in place to assure the smooth running of agencies, governing boards, etc., but they aren’t laws, per se.

If something more than a practical solution is warranted and those involved must be compelled to carry out certain actions, moral warrant would seem to be required and a grounding set of moral principles impinging on the issue would need to be spelled out and appealed to as justification for taking the step from merely practical strategy to legal sanction.

I think if you try to come up with a specific example you will better understand the difficulty. The bishops have repeatedly used immigration as an example of a moral issue, but feel free to choose anything you like.

All kinds of considerations are aspects of good immigration policy. However, if legal teeth are going to be applied – arrests made, prison sentences or deportation procedures enacted, border patrols given lethal weapons, etc., – moral warrant needs to be in place and moral principles need to be used to clarify how and why such steps are being taken.