The pro-life common sense clincher

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh yes, where this is a duty through family ties or having created the situation, then some omissions will be criminally liable (the case law I can think of mostly relates to manslaughter).
I’m not sure if that would extend to giving assistance in those two scenarios tho.
 
Interesting! The law is pretty clear for the first two scenarios in the U.S., even though the driver wasn’t negligent in the second.
 
Doc_Keele said:
You’re still not understanding. The argument for abortion can be based on accepting the personhood of the foetus. Human rights for the foetus? Well unlike other human beings, the foetus is not totally autonomous so it automatically impinges on the human rights of the mother. Are all human rights absolute? NO. Because my exercise of my human rights may infringe your human rights.
Click to expand...
no human being is autonomous at that stage. i fail to see what human right is being violated by this bare fact of nature.
 
Most people aren’t fully autonomous until age 18, 19, 20, 21 or even later. Does that mean that those they depend on for their support have the right to kill them to support their own autonomy?
 
Doc Keele

*Sophie’s Choice is a genuine moral dilemma, in the technical sense - so there’s no “right” answer as such. If you think she shouldn’t make a choice, that doesn’t automatically mean you’re “pro-life” (whatever you take that to mean). *

Again, you are missing the point. It isn’t Sophie who is choosing to kill her own children. It’s the Nazis. So your analogy to abortion is not logical. Sophie wants both her children to live. Faced with two evils, she chose the lesser, *without willing *the lesser … the death of one child as opposed to two. In the case of abortion, the mother wills the death of the child.

Can we please get off this topic which is a huge waste of time and effort since it does not bear on the question of abortion. If you want to discuss it further, why not start your own thread on Sophie’s Choice =Abortion?

Back to the common sense argument against abortion:

We don’t kill our own children.
 
Doc_Keele said:
The right to self-determination.
Click to expand...
in my understanding the right of self determination is about social groups, not the individual.

but if you refer to individual freedom, then i would point out that the entire body of law exists specifically to regulate freedom, to restrict it in ways beneficial to society. why should this situation be any different?

that said.

there is nothing in the body of law by which personal freedom justifies the murder of another human being.
 
wsp - we’re just going round in circles here
the common law has not recognized the unborn child as a person, well since time immemorial I believe
that is the crux legally
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Doc Keele

*Sophie’s Choice is a genuine moral dilemma, in the technical sense - so there’s no “right” answer as such. If you think she shouldn’t make a choice, that doesn’t automatically mean you’re “pro-life” (whatever you take that to mean). *

Again, you are missing the point. It isn’t Sophie who is choosing to kill her own children. It’s the Nazis. So your analogy to abortion is not logical. Sophie wants both her children to live. Faced with two evils, she chose the lesser, *without willing *the lesser … the death of one child as opposed to two. In the case of abortion, the mother wills the death of the child.

Can we please get off this topic which is a huge waste of time and effort since it does not bear on the question of abortion. If you want to discuss it further, why not start your own thread on Sophie’s Choice =Abortion?

Back to the common sense argument against abortion:

We don’t kill our own children.
Click to expand...
As I’ve said to you before, it is not argument by analogy. So your comments are again completely missing the point.

The fact that you don’t understand the point being made doesn’t mean the point is irrelevant.

If you’re going to appeal to “commonsense”, “commonsense” tells a lot of people a woman has the right to control what happens to her body. A majority of people in the UK support legal abortion.
 
JimG said:
Most people aren’t fully autonomous until age 18, 19, 20, 21 or even later. Does that mean that those they depend on for their support have the right to kill them to support their own autonomy?
Click to expand...
I’d be worried if I thought you felt that was a serious argument LOL. I’m assuming you don’t need an answer? That you can reasonably differentiate betweeen the status of the foetus and an 17 year old?
 
Doc Keele

*A majority of people in the UK support legal abortion. *

Are you arguing that might makes right? Is that also common sense?
 
Doc Keele

*That you can reasonably differentiate betweeen the status of the foetus and an 17 year old? *

They both carry the same DNA. They are both children of God. They both have a destiny to fulfill. The only difference is that the unborn child has more destiny to fulfill than the seventeen year old. The crime against the unborn child is even greater, because the child’s **entire life **is taken with no means of defending himself (herself) from bloody slaughter.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Doc Keele

*A majority of people in the UK support legal abortion. *

Are you arguing that might makes right? Is that also common sense?
Click to expand...
If you’re going to appeal to “common sense”, you have to accept the will of the majority.
I’m not arguing that, just pointing the logical extension of your statement.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Doc Keele

*That you can reasonably differentiate betweeen the status of the foetus and an 17 year old? *

They both carry the same DNA. They are both children of God. They both have a destiny to fulfill. The only difference is that the unborn child has more destiny to fulfill than the seventeen year old. The crime against the unborn child is even greater, because the child’s **entire life **is taken with no means of defending himself (herself) from bloody slaughter.
Click to expand...
…but the **important **difference that’s **relevant **to this argument is that the foetus is inside the woman’s body and relies on her as a life support system.
 
Char:

Watch out with that latest argument, it’s a dangerous one. The philosopher Don Marquis also uses this “valuable future” argument, but admits that the same rationale also supports suicide and euthanasia.
 
Doc_Keele said:
wsp - we’re just going round in circles here
the common law has not recognized the unborn child as a person, well since time immemorial I believe
that is the crux legally
Click to expand...
i havent a clue what common law recognizes as human. that definition changes by politics.f i only know that there is no rational basis for such a distinction. i assumed that was common knowledge among Christians.

but if you are questioning whether or not an unborn child, is a person. than what distinction can you make to support the idea that a fetus is not a human being?

i think any distinction made must be either trivial or contradictory. but then i doubt i have heard them all, maybe there is one that is rational and consistent.
 
Doc_Keele said:
…but the **important **difference that’s **relevant **to this argument is that the foetus is inside the woman’s body and relies on her as a life support system.
Click to expand...
an infant relies on his mothers breast milk as well, or at least did so until the last few decades. does this mean that letting an infant starve to death by withholding breast milk would be legal? no, i dont think so.

plus you didnt answer my previous post, what right is being violated because a fetus relies on its mothers body?

obviously not self determination, so then what right?
 
wsp, please don’t assume like other people that just because I present certain arguments or positions that I necessarily agree with them
the issue in this thread is whether or not it can be argued conclusively that the pro-choice position is wrong
Catholics should be the group most aware of the role of Devil’s Advocate surely?

I have answered your question. NB self-determination is applicable to individuals too
 
Doc Keele

*If you’re going to appeal to “common sense”, you have to accept the will of the majority.
I’m not arguing that, just pointing the logical extension of your statement. *

Not if the majority have lost their marbles! 👍

As Lincoln used to say, “You can fool most of the people some of the time, some of the people most of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”

In other words, you can always get your marbles back.
 
Agreed, argument ad numerum is a logical fallacy. But that’s what common sense means, what the majority of people feel is right. So you realise now you can’t appeal to commonsense!👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top