The pro-life common sense clincher

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Charlemagne_II said:
As the instigator of this thread, I have to politely ask you all to get back on topic.

Thanks!

Thought experiments are a traditional way to clarify issues. They pose circumstantial situations where the principle being debated might logically or illogically apply. However, some thought experiments are less relevant than others, especially when they seek to designate circumstances highly unlikely to apply to the situation being discussed.

The notion that you can equate an unborn child with someone who had secretly kidnapped your body and was using it for unlawful purposes is absurd on the face of it.
Click to expand...
Well you’ve missed the point. Sorry.
The thought experiment is in this case designed to draw out ones intuition on whether the right to life outweighs autonomy in all circumstances.
 
kimmielittle said:
Situational irony **Definition: **An occasion in which the outcome is significantly different from what was expected or considered appropriate.😛
Click to expand...
well considering the basis for the American and French Revolutions and therefore indirectly their Constitutions was the Levellers, there’s not even situational irony:thumbsup:
Leveller Richard Rumbold was quoted by Thomas Jefferson - how ironic eh?👍
 
Spirithound said:
…some people in society) are asking for the legal right to carry out an immoral act. I really do believe that law should reflect morality, and as an immoral act, abortion should be illegal.
Click to expand...
The philosophy and theory of law (jurisprudence) has several schools, one of which is natural law (which is having something of a revival) but the most prevalent is positvism which claims that the law doesn’t necessarily have any connection with morality (I am simplifying for the sake of clarity). There are various problems with either position, natural law or positivism.
 
Doc_Keele said:
The philosophy and theory of law (jurisprudence) has several schools, one of which is natural law (which is having something of a revival) but the most prevalent is positvism which claims that the law doesn’t necessarily have any connection with morality (I am simplifying for the sake of clarity). There are various problems with either position, natural law or positivism.
Click to expand...
My intent expressing in this line of argument is that I see abortion as a very immoral act, and this is where I, and most of the pro-life group base our arguments. Then once we can establish that abortion is no different from murder, the law must follow up on that.

I’m honestly not sure how to answer Worthy5’s statement “The main rationale for the pro-choice position is that it is a legal position—not a moral one.” (post 20). This seems to put the law before morality; something changeable takes precedence over something that is unchangeable. Do they acknowledge that abortion is immoral? If so, why should it be legal? Is it neither moral nor immoral? Is the law itself the only standard of judgement they have?

🤷:confused:🤷
There is more rolliing around in my head that I can’t express right now…perhaps soon.
 
Well you’d have to ask what the “job” of the law is, first of all.

The law has a normative element, but generally the law establishes a baseline, it doesn’t try and force people to be good but rather not to be bad. There’s difficulties with natural law theory, in that it seems to "permit"people to break the law if they believe it’s immoral.

I’m not sure that the pro-choice movement as a whole accepts that abortion is immoral.
 
Doc Keele

*I’m not sure that the pro-choice movement as a whole accepts that abortion is immoral. *

I’d like to know on what grounds anyone in the pro-choice camp would argue that it is moral for a physician to routinely butcher unborn babies for pay … and how this differs from murder for hire.
 
That’s rhetoric, not an argument.
The usual justification is autonomy.
 
If anybody needs to seek a distinction between the concept of legality and morality on the Supreme Court, I think Jefferson helps us out here.

“Courts love the people always, as wolves do the sheep.”

“Can it be believed, that under the jealousies prevailing against the General Government, at the adoption of the Constitution, the States meant to surrender the authority of preserving order, of enforcing moral duties and restraining vice, within their own territory?”

“It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. * * *] The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments coequal and cosovereign within themselves.”

In Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court is the wolf loving the sheep, tearing them apart limb by limb.
 
Worthy5 said:
No one is saying morality does not play a role, just not the exclusive and sole role.
Click to expand...
We hear what you are saying but the pro-choice position has a “reasonable” position as well even though you disagree with it. God Bless
Click to expand...
The only possible way the pro-choice position could be looked at as even remotely reasonable is if morality plays no role whatsoever. As soon as the morality of abortion is examined (even slightly), no argument for abortion looks reasonable at all. In fact, most arguments look downright moronic, IMHO.

We have so much to pray for!
 
Kolbe300 - that’s not the case, there are moral arguments for abortion. The fact that you don’t accept the arguments doesn’t mean there aren’t any.
 
Doc_Keele said:
Kolbe300 - that’s not the case, there are moral arguments for abortion. The fact that you don’t accept the arguments doesn’t mean there aren’t any.
Click to expand...
You mean that there are arguments made in support of viewing abortion as a morally good action. There are also arguments made in support of viewing the killing of newborns as a morally good action. Princeton Professor Peter Singer views very late abortion–up to several months past birth–as morally acceptable. But I don’t accept that the killing of any innocent human is a morally good action.
 
Doc Keele

Kolbe300 - that’s not the case, there are moral arguments for abortion. The fact that you don’t accept the arguments doesn’t mean there aren’t any.

There are only immoral arguments for abortion.
 
Doc_Keele said:
Kolbe300 - that’s not the case, there are moral arguments for abortion. The fact that you don’t accept the arguments doesn’t mean there aren’t any.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that there aren’t any moral arguments for abortion. It’s obvious (sadly) that there are. What I was saying is simply that moral arguments for abortion never come across as even remotely reasonable. If one is to simply argue the “law”, then anyone can make a reasonable argument (about anything). As soon as one tries to morally justify abortion, is when “reasonable” seems to get thrown out the window. I have NEVER heard a moral argument for abortion that didn’t sound stupid (and that’s putting it VERY kindly).

I wish this was a subject that debate could change. Unfortunately, the heads on both sides have become incredibly hard. The Holy Spirit is the only one powerful enough to make the changes that must be made. I just hope I’m around to see it.
 
There are moral arguments for permitting abortion that are “reasonable”. You believe there aren’t any, but moral philosophers trained in formal argument are not able to say that.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Doc Keele

Kolbe300 - that’s not the case, there are moral arguments for abortion. The fact that you don’t accept the arguments doesn’t mean there aren’t any.

There are only immoral arguments for abortion.
Click to expand...
Well we would have to define our terms, otherwise the discussion becomes nonsensical. We are talking at cross-purposes here which is pointless.
I am not interested in rhetoric.
 
All arguments for abortion are immoral because they advocate the taking of innocent life. All arguments that advocate the taking of innocent life are also irrational.

Immoral and irrational.
Common sense … many people have lost it … some never had it.
 
Your premise that all arguments for abortion advocate the taking of innocent life is questionable. Therefore your argument is not sound.
Also your argument is not valid, because if you don’t follow an deontological approach then the lesser of two evils can be morally acceptable.
Intuition is not always right. Many people’s intuition is a woman has the right to determine what happens to her body.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top