The abortion memo

[Ender]

You say “vast majority” as if it does not cover absolutely every political concern. Can you give an example of a political concern for which there are still more moral questions left after the question “do we want to honestly solve the problem or not?” has been answered?

Abortion, euthanasia, same sex “marriage”, fetal stem cell research…

It does not provide a distinction between the abortion question and other questions.

Yes, it does. For most political issues there is no moral difference in opposing positions inasmuch as neither side supports something that is intrinsically evil. For the issues I listed above, however, one position is immoral regardless of the reason one takes it.

It is not immoral to be for or against DACA, for or against a higher minimum wage, for or against Obamacare. It is immoral, however, to be for abortion, and the just concluded vote against making abortions illegal after 20 weeks was an immoral position, regardless of ones reason for opposing the measure.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

You say “vast majority” as if it does not cover absolutely every political concern. Can you give an example of a political concern for which there are still more moral questions left after the question “do we want to honestly solve the problem or not?” has been answered?

Abortion, euthanasia, same sex “marriage”, fetal stem cell research…

It does not provide a distinction between the abortion question and other questions.

Yes, it does. For most political issues there is no moral difference in opposing positions inasmuch as neither side supports something that is intrinsically evil. For the issues I listed above, however, one position is immoral regardless of the reason one takes it.

It is not immoral to be for or against DACA, for or against a higher minimum wage, for or against Obamacare. It is immoral, however, to be for abortion, and the just concluded vote against making abortions illegal after 20 weeks was an immoral position, regardless of ones reason for opposing the measure.

Your explanation does not quite answer the question. If abortion is an exception to the statement:

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.

…then what are the moral questions that are still left after one has answered the question:

do we want to honestly solve the problem or not?

 

[lmachine]

I think there has been seismic shift when the NYT will run a piece like this.

The only people who would think this must be entirely unfamiliar with the NYT Editorial Board.

Yes RBG could live to 100. Getting past the denial and rose colored glasses of her supporters the reality is she probably won’t. Sotomayor is 63 with type one diabetes. Stephen Breyer is 79.

The expected lifespan of an 84 year-old American woman is another 7.5 years. The expected lifespan of a 63 year-old American woman is another 22 years (diabetes would reduce that estimate somewhat). The expected lifespan of a 79 year-old American man is another 8.8 years. Those are all averages, SCOTUS justices are much wealthier than the average person and have access to much better health care than the average person, both aspects that raise those life expectancies. I know how excited you are at the prospect of liberals dying but I think it’s unlikely Trump is going to get a second term, and unlikely that a liberal justice is going to die or retire before 2021.

 

[Ender]

Your explanation does not quite answer the question.

There are three considerations in determining whether an action is moral: the act itself, the intent, and the circumstances. If we assume a person’s intent is moral (yes, he wants to solve the problem), pretty much the only way a political choice can be immoral is if the option chosen - the act it permits - is immoral. An act is not immoral simply because it turns out badly; its outcome would have to have been reasonably foreseen…which is almost never the case with political proposals.

The reason political issues are seen as moral choices is because outcomes are assumed to be knowable, and our opponents are immoral because they don’t want to achieve the good our proposals will obviously lead to. The judgment that ones political opponents are immoral is ultimately a rash and uncharitable judgment of the kind Catholics are explicitly forbidden to make because we cannot know a person’s motivation.

We can, however, justly judge someone’s actions. Supporting abortion, as was the case with the vote opposing a 20 week cutoff, is, regardless of reason, immoral

 

[Imdaman]

I think there has been seismic shift when the NYT will run a piece like this.

The only people who would think this must be entirely unfamiliar with the NYT Editorial Board.

Yes RBG could live to 100. Getting past the denial and rose colored glasses of her supporters the reality is she probably won’t. Sotomayor is 63 with type one diabetes. Stephen Breyer is 79.

The expected lifespan of an 84 year-old American woman is another 7.5 years. The expected lifespan of a 63 year-old American woman is another 22 years (diabetes would reduce that estimate somewhat). The expected lifespan of a 79 year-old American man is another 8.8 years. Those are all averages, SCOTUS justices are much wealthier than the average person and have access to much better health care than the average person, both aspects that raise those life expectancies. I know how excited you are at the prospect of liberals dying but I think it’s unlikely Trump is going to get a second term, and unlikely that a liberal justice is going to die or retire before 2021.
[/quo
I pray you are wrong on both counts. well not the Die part but certainly the retire part.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Your explanation does not quite answer the question.

There are three considerations in determining whether an action is moral: the act itself, the intent, and the circumstances. If we assume a person’s intent is moral (yes, he wants to solve the problem), pretty much the only way a political choice can be immoral is if the option chosen - the act it permits - is immoral. An act is not immoral simply because it turns out badly; its outcome would have to have been reasonably foreseen…which is almost never the case with political proposals.

The reason political issues are seen as moral choices is because outcomes are assumed to be knowable, and our opponents are immoral because they don’t want to achieve the good our proposals will obviously lead to. The judgment that ones political opponents are immoral is ultimately a rash and uncharitable judgment of the kind Catholics are explicitly forbidden to make because we cannot know a person’s motivation.

We can, however, justly judge someone’s actions. Supporting abortion, as was the case with the vote opposing a 20 week cutoff, is, regardless of reason, immoral

I still don’t see an answer to my question.

 

[Luke6_37]

I just watched the Senate debate over this bill on C-span. It was 30 minutes long and ended with Sen. Graham speaking. I was surprised that the debate was so short, but maybe that was just the clip I was watching. I was also surprised that there was no exception in the bill for the health of the mother. That was it’s fatal flaw.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?440301-8%2Fsenate-debate-abortion-ban-20-weeks

As much as I agree with Sen. Graham and want to ban abortions, after listening to the debate, I don’t know if I would have voted for his bill either.

What was he thinking to include criminal penalties for doctors in a bill that provided no exceptions for the health of the mother? That is a deadly combination, because a pregnancy can become toxic very quickly and the last thing you want is for a doctor to hesitate in intervening for fear of prosecution. There is no clear line between health-threatening and life-threatening.

If Republicans really want to restrict abortions, they now have the power to hold open hearings that last for days (not minutes) and listen to testimony from many different sources. They could craft a bill that protects BOTH women and babies. Until that happens, I will not be convinced that they’re really sincere about making progress towards ending abortion.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I still don’t see an answer to my question.

No of course YOU don’t.

Perhaps you should make an attempt to understand the question before giving a flip response like this. Ender claimed:

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.

and further claimed that the abortion issue is an exception to this rule. Therefore he claimed that in the case of abortion, there are more moral questions left beyond “do we want to honestly solve the problem or not?” All I asked was “what are those moral questions that remain after the first question has been answered?” If you look at Ender’s response I doubt you can find what Ender claimed.

 

[Rau]

a pregnancy can become toxic very quickly and the last thing you want is for a doctor to hesitate in intervening for fear of prosecution.

Certainly clarity is required for medical personnel. An intervention which sees a baby die, must not be (wrongly) confused with an intervention to kill the baby. The more contentious question would be whether the bill ought to permit the baby to be directly killed in any circumstance. Our Catholic teaching says “no” - there are 2 patients.

 

[Luke6_37]

I did not read the bill, but only saw the debate. Can’t the Republicans hold televised hearings on the bill? Call in doctors and practitioners from Catholic hospitals that follow strict ethical guidelines to provide answers to these objections. I think the nation needs to have this debate. An expert needs to respond to Diane Feinstein worse case scenarios.

 

[Ender]

I still don’t see an answer to my question.

Typically, if one does an act with a good intention and due consideration the act is not immoral. This applies to most political issues. Some (very few) issues involve acts that are evil by their nature, so regardless of ones intent those acts - and the laws that permit them - are immoral.

This is why one can say “Support of abortion is immoral” while one cannot say “Support for terminating DACA is immoral.” You can see the distinction in the arguments used. With abortion the argument is that the act is not in fact immoral, while with DACA (et al) the claims are that the people holding the positions are immoral ("You’re a racist, homophobe, xenophobe, misogynist…). The former is a judgment of the act; the latter is a judgment of the intent.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I still don’t see an answer to my question.

Typically, if one does an act with a good intention and due consideration the act is not immoral. This applies to most political issues. Some (very few) issues involve acts that are evil by their nature, so regardless of ones intent those acts - and the laws that permit them - are immoral.

This is why one can say “Support of abortion is immoral” while one cannot say “Support for terminating DACA is immoral.” You can see the distinction in the arguments used. With abortion the argument is that the act is not in fact immoral, while with DACA (et al) the claims are that the people holding the positions are immoral ("You’re a racist, homophobe, xenophobe, misogynist…). The former is a judgment of the act; the latter is a judgment of the intent.

And what moral issue remains regarding abortion after one has decided honestly to solve the problem? Remember, you did say that there were some.

 

[Ender]

And what moral issue remains regarding abortion after one has decided honestly to solve the problem? Remember, you did say that there were some.

The fact that one is honestly trying to do what is best is irrelevant if the act chosen is intrinsically evil. It doesn’t matter if one thinks abortion is necessary to save the world, nothing justifies its use. With other issues our intent is pretty much all that matters, but with issues dealing with intrinsic evils, intent simply doesn’t matter in determining the morality of a position.

 

[Ender]

What was he thinking to include criminal penalties for doctors in a bill that provided no exceptions for the health of the mother? That is a deadly combination, because a pregnancy can become toxic very quickly and the last thing you want is for a doctor to hesitate in intervening for fear of prosecution. There is no clear line between health-threatening and life-threatening.

For a non-Catholic this might seem like a reasonable objection, and that abortions ought to still be legal in such emergency situations, and this goes directly to the point I’ve been trying to make to LeafByNiggle.

It doesn’t matter why one supports allowing abortions beyond 20 weeks, that position is immoral because it permits an action (abortion) that is intrinsically evil. It is not justifiable for any reason.

This, at least, is the argument one should make to a Catholic, which is not the same argument one would make to others. That fourteen Senate Catholics voted against this bill, and were not held accountable for that vote by their bishops, is unfortunate.

 

[robertmidwest]

The expected lifespan of an 84 year-old American woman is another 7.5 years. The expected lifespan of a 63 year-old American woman is another 22 years (diabetes would reduce that estimate somewhat). The expected lifespan of a 79 year-old American man is another 8.8 years.

@Lmachine

So you have a source to back any of these numbers up?

According to CBS news RBG is already past her life expectancy.

Life expectancy for white women falls slightly in U.S.

Analysts say they think they know what's behind the disturbing trend

www.cbsnews.com

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

And what moral issue remains regarding abortion after one has decided honestly to solve the problem? Remember, you did say that there were some.

The fact that one is honestly trying to do what is best is irrelevant if the act chosen is intrinsically evil. It doesn’t matter if one thinks abortion is necessary to save the world, nothing justifies its use. With other issues our intent is pretty much all that matters, but with issues dealing with intrinsic evils, intent simply doesn’t matter in determining the morality of a position.

I understand the distinction you are trying to make here, but this is not the same as the distinction you made in post #10, which is the one I was objecting to. In particular, it seems that abortion is not an exception to the last sentence of that post. That is, once the choice is made to honestly solve the problem of abortion, there are no moral questions left.

 

[Ender]

I understand the distinction you are trying to make here, but this is not the same as the distinction you made in post #10, which is the one I was objecting to. In particular, it seems that abortion is not an exception to the last sentence of that post. That is, once the choice is made to honestly solve the problem of abortion, there are no moral questions left.

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.”

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. 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.

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.

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.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I understand the distinction you are trying to make here, but this is not the same as the distinction you made in post #10, which is the one I was objecting to. In particular, it seems that abortion is not an exception to the last sentence of that post. That is, once the choice is made to honestly solve the problem of abortion, there are no moral questions left.

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.”

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. 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.

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.

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.

Everything you have said here also applies to abortion, doesn’t it? If not, please point out which specific statement you have made here is not true for abortion.

 

[Ender]

Everything you have said here also applies to abortion, doesn’t it? If not, please point out which specific statement you have made here is not true for abortion.

Everything I said applies to every political issue, including abortion. I really don’t understand what you are objecting to.

 

[lmachine]

So you have a source to back any of these numbers up?

According to CBS news RBG is already past her life expectancy.

That news story is about total life expectancy. The average of all the lifespans of white women born today would be 81.1 years. That includes infants though, and infants have relatively high mortality rates. The expected lifespans of children who survive infancy is longer, and as people get older their expected lifespans increase.

The Social Security Administration publishes actuarial tables of expected American lifespans. The basic one is here:

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

It has the expected lifespan of men and women of any age today. So while the average lifespan of all women is about 81 years, the average life expectancy of all the women who are 84 years old right now would be about another 7.5 years.