The pro-life common sense clincher

[CatofAlexandria]

Cato, I can not resist. What is the language of the 14th Amendment-----" No State…"
Now, the rest of the language is subject to interpretation–by the Court—but it seems clear that the 14th Amend applies to the states----limiting its power against the individual. Who’s role is it to " limit" that state power in a particular circumstance? The Court.

So.

Okay wait, what is a “specific” fact vs a " foundational" fact.

First: The fourteenth amendment can only be read in light of the tenth amendment (which, as some would hope, is more than a tautology). Of course the Court can limit state power, especially if that state power is considered unconstitutional. The extent to which it can limit state power, however depends upon the balancing test I’ve described above. In Roe, the Court expressly states that privacy is not an absolute right, and that it needs to be weighed against the rights of the states. Federalist concerns are always (and should always be) in the back of the Court’s mind.

Second: A “specific fact” is fact specific to the case at hand, e.g., the position of the American Public Health Association in 1970. A foundational fact is more subtle than this, it’s the Justice’s perception of the likelihood of a certain event, X (e.g., back alley abortions) occurring. Both will change the application of law and the doctrinal analysis. There is lots of scholarly support on this issue, particularly in the realm of Title VII cases and the current shift in pleading standards.

 

[Doc_Keele]

ive never seen the movie, other than a plot summary about having to choose between her children, im not sure how this applies to the abortion argument?

I haven’t seen the movie either
the first time I came across it was in philosophical medical ethics
the reason why I mention it is because for me it demonstrates how the deontological approach used by the church doesn’t work in all circumstances - for example a Kantian would have a real problem with this particular dilemma (even though Kant considered that moral dilemmas couldn’t arise)

 

[CatofAlexandria]

I haven’t seen the movie either
the first time I came across it was in philosophical medical ethics
the reason why I mention it is because for me it demonstrates how the deontological approach used by the church doesn’t work in all circumstances - for example a Kantian would have a real problem with this particular dilemma (even though Kant considered that moral dilemmas couldn’t arise)

Couldn’t Sophie’s Choice be resolved for the Catholic deotologist through the infamous PDE? You choose one child to live (not immoral per se) with the foreseeable side effect that another child will die. And the benefit of the choice outweighs the harm of the foreseeable side effect.

Things break down, of course, when you are told you must condemn one child to die (the other side of the coin – which seems to undermine that child’s autonomy), so I’m not sure whether this is mere semantics.

Nevertheless, I find Kant’s kingdom of ends much more alluring than either rule or act utilitarianism. Under the act utilitarian’s regime, poor Chuck has lost his guts!

 

[Doc_Keele]

Couldn’t Sophie’s Choice be resolved for the Catholic deotologist through the infamous PDE? You choose one child to live (not immoral per se) with the foreseeable side effect that another child will die

You may be right - in which case the difficulties over salpingostomy/methotrexate should also disappear.

And the benefit of the choice outweighs the harm of the foreseeable side effect

but in the face of moral absolutism about killing an innocent, the benefit/harm analysis (which is surely consequentialism?) is immaterial

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I haven’t seen the movie either
the first time I came across it was in philosophical medical ethics
the reason why I mention it is because for me it demonstrates how the deontological approach used by the church doesn’t work in all circumstances - for example a Kantian would have a real problem with this particular dilemma (even though Kant considered that moral dilemmas couldn’t arise)

how does it demonstrate that the Churches position doesnt work in all circumstances? im pretty much a ‘G-d said so and thats good enough for me’ guy. so i probably just dont know what your refering too.

 

[Doc_Keele]

The Church says you can’t kill or cooperate in killing an innocent human being - no exceptions. Correct me if I’m wrong.
In Sophie’s Choice, if Sophie makes no choice, both the children die. Making no choice is the option that she must make according to the moral absolutism of the Church, which means both children must die rather than one.

 

[CatofAlexandria]

You may be right - in which case the difficulties over salpingostomy/methotrexate should also disappear.
but in the face of moral absolutism about killing an innocent, the benefit/harm analysis (which is surely consequentialism?) is immaterial

An aspect of consequentialism, but not pure consequentialism. PDE is interesting because it’s a bit of a mix. You could evaluate the “not intrinsically evil” prong of the analysis under Kant’s categorical imperative, and then weigh the benefit with the harm to ensure the prudence of an action that has a foreseeable ill side effect.

When given the choice between two morally neutral avenues, (e.g., should I eat the Mars Bar or the moldy cheese?) it’s perfectly fine to (and expected that you would) perform a benefits/harm analysis. The problem is when you combine steps one and two: (1) is it morally neutral, and (2) does the benefit outweigh the harm, into one analytical step. That’s pure consequentialism.

Please look at this as friendly philosophical debate. I’m not interested in rhetoric, either.

 

[Doc_Keele]

An aspect of consequentialism, but not pure consequentialism. PDE is interesting because it’s a bit of a mix. You could evaluate the “not intrinsically evil” prong of the analysis under Kant’s categorical imperative, and then weigh the benefit with the harm to ensure the prudence of an action that has a foreseeable ill side effect.

When given the choice between two morally neutral avenues, (e.g., should I eat the Mars Bar or the moldy cheese?) it’s perfectly fine (and expected that you would) perform a benefits/harm analysis. The problem is that when you combine steps one and two: (1) is it morally neutral, and (2) does the benefit outweigh the harm, into one analytical step. That’s pure consequentialism.

Please look at this as friendly philosophical debate. I’m not interested in rhetoric, either.

“Please look at this as friendly philosophical debate” - of course I do! Your comments are very useful, I am just finding my way in the field of moral philosophy TY:thumbsup:

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The Church says you can’t kill or cooperate in killing an innocent human being - no exceptions. Correct me if I’m wrong.
In Sophie’s Choice, if Sophie makes no choice, both the children die. Making no choice is the option that she must make according to the moral absolutism of the Church, which means both children must die rather than one.

there are exceptions, the just war doctrine among others.

that said. any of her actions would be cooperation in the death of another, so i dont think that making no choice would be the Churches position

 

[CatofAlexandria]

Doc,

Since I have found someone willing to engage in friendly philosophical debate, perhaps you will engage me in a thought experiment I’ve been developing myself, meant to address some of the inadequacies of the violinist thought experiment.

You see, I agree with you that abortion just might be slightly different from the typical “murder” where one person walks up to another, pulls out a gun, and shoots them. Nevertheless, assuming personhood, I’d like to explore the unborn child’s right to her mother’s body a bit through American “hit and run” laws.

You see, assuming personhood, conceiving a human fetus is rather like putting a person into a state of dependency. Like the violinist, it’s not the unborn child’s fault that she’s dependent on the woman. She just is dependent, and before viability, she’s helpless. Without the woman’s “assistance,” the fetus would surely die, and so we begin with these assumptions and premises.

Now, there are three common situations in which a woman would find herself needing an abortion and we might analyze those differently: (1) Negligence (e.g., she was behaving irresponsibly and the intercourse was consensual); (2) Accidental (behaving responsibly and the intercourse was consensual); and (3) Rape (no intent to have intercourse and the intercourse was not consensual).

Given these three divisions, I’m going to create an analogy to a “hit and run” scenario, where driving is analogous to intercourse and hitting the child and rendering him helpless and dependent upon you alone is analogous to conceiving a child not yet viable absent bodily assistance.

(1) Scenario One: I think we can all agree what the moral outcome should be. You are driving in your car at twice the speed limit knowing full well that there are such things as little boys and that they sometimes cross the road. Disregarding that fact, you run the stop sign at the cross walk and hit the little boy. Your cell phone is dead. The hospital is a few blocks away. If you spend the time carrying him to the hospital, you will be late to work and lose your job. However, if you don’t carry him there he will surely die. Is it your moral duty to render assistance? Yes. Is it your legal duty? Yes. This one is the easiest of the three.
(2) Scenario Two: All facts are the same, except that you were being careful. Your car has all of the latest technologies to avoid hitting little boys and you were even driving under the speed limit. Nevertheless, it all happens so fast: you hit him, he’s helpless, and you need to provide bodily support to render assistance. Is it your legal duty to render assistance? In most U.S. jurisdictions, actually, yes! Your moral duty? The answer is likely yes as well.
(3) Scenario Three: Finally, Rape. You are kidnapped by a man and he throws you into his car. He swerves all around and hits an innocent little boy playing on the sidewalk next to a pole. The crash kills your kidnapper on impact, the little boy is severely injured, but you are physically fine except for emotional scars. Nobody is around to help you or the little boy, and, again, there’s a hospital a few blocks away. Do you have a duty to help the boy in this situation, carrying him to the hospital where he will be saved? My intuition is morally, yes, but it’s a much harder question to answer.

I think that this is closer to life than JJT’s “people seed” thought experiment, meant to solve the problem in the violinist thought experiment that intentional sexual intercourse entails risks. At least with respect to driving, U.S. law says that we assume those risks and therefore owe a duty to those rendered helpless by our actions, even if we were not acting negligently. But perhaps the moral duty reaches further than the legal duty. What do you think?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Doc Keele

*In Sophie’s Choice, if Sophie makes no choice, both the children die. Making no choice is the option that she must make according to the moral absolutism of the Church, which means both children must die rather than one. *

Strictly speaking, it is not the mother who is choosing the death of either child. It is the Nazis. They are forcing her to choose which shall live, but she wants neither to die, of course. They are telling her that if she will not choose one, both will die. She chose the lesser evil. That is where your analogy breaks down. Abortion is the mother’s desire to kill her child, not at all the situation Sophie was forced to endure. Abortion is the mother’s desire to choose the greater evil … the death of her own child over the inconvenience of having her own child.

 

[BobCatholic]

Human rights are not conditional on the mother’s permission, that’s just pure rhetoric.

Human rights are 100% conditioned to mother’s permission. Human rights are only for the chosen. If the mother chooses NOT to give the child human rights by letting him/her live, then she’s free to do so. Only those chosen to be allowed to live get to have human rights.

If we had a just society, human rights would be for all, and not just for the chosen. But the pro-aborts like it this way.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Hi Cat
Great to have someone versed in philosophy to bounce ideas off
The problem I can see is that with the unconscious violinist, you are attached to him for a considerable period of time. This affects autonomy more than simply taking someone to hospital. If you can work something into the thought experiment about the victim of the accident requiring something from you for a longer period of time, then it would probaby work better IMO. Just my penny’s worth

 

[Doc_Keele]

Doc Keele

*In Sophie’s Choice, if Sophie makes no choice, both the children die. Making no choice is the option that she must make according to the moral absolutism of the Church, which means both children must die rather than one. *

Strictly speaking, it is not the mother who is choosing the death of either child. It is the Nazis. They are forcing her to choose which shall live, but she wants neither to die, of course. They are telling her that if she will not choose one, both will die. She chose the lesser evil. That is where your analogy breaks down. Abortion is the mother’s desire to kill her child, not at all the situation Sophie was forced to endure. Abortion is the mother’s desire to choose the greater evil … the death of her own child over the inconvenience of having her own child.

Well you’re missing the point (again). This isn’t argument by analogy, this is a thought experiment.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Human rights are 100% conditioned to mother’s permission. Human rights are only for the chosen. If the mother chooses NOT to give the child human rights by letting him/her live, then she’s free to do so. Only those chosen to be allowed to live get to have human rights.

If we had a just society, human rights would be for all, and not just for the chosen. But the pro-aborts like it this way.

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.

 

[Lethe]

Actually ‘Sophie’s Choice’ maybe is useful, because I wholly disagree with her choice. I dont think she should have chosen to kill either child, even if it means both would die. So maybe I am pro-life…

 

[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).

 

[CatofAlexandria]

Yes, more loss/a longer time would make it a bit more analogous. I think that what I’m trying to get at, however, is that, in Judith Jarvis Thompson’s “A Defense of Abortion,” she writes:

For we should now, at long last, ask what it comes to, to have a right to life. In some views having a right to life includes having a right to be given at least the bare minimum one needs for continued life. But suppose that what in fact IS the bare minimum a man needs for continued life is something he has no right at all to be given? If I am sick unto death, and the only thing that will save my life is the touch of Henry Fonda’s cool hand on my fevered brow. …

Thompson’s analogy is off, however (in the Violinist, the people seed, and the “Henry Fonda” thought experiments) because she hasn’t created this relationship that the law recognizes as important (the ‘rendering helpless’ relationship). Thompson would say, although it would be nice if Henry Fonda came, you don’t even have the right to the touch of his cool hand. Further, Thomposon posits nine years with the Violinist: it’s not meant to make it analogous to abortion, but to get at our intuitions that the right to life is not absolute when weighed against the right to one’s body.

This one is meant to say: well, wait just a minute! The relationship with the violinist, the people seeds, and Henry Fonda, isn’t quite like that. And there’s already a basis in the law for evaluating the duty.

So, what do you think? I do not think a full nine months of carrying the dying young boy to the hospital would make it analogous to pregnancy (if that is, then count me out). However, he has the right to your body (and say, your assistance) for the full day that you have to carry him and stay with him at the hospital, and you must lose your job (because your boss is mean) and your life will be altered because of it. We can even include health risks because of carrying the boy: there’s a chance that doing so will throw out your back and make your feet swollen, and you will be uncomfortable for a few months. Also, we can say that the little boy has a bit of a cold. You might be throwing up every once in a while for two months after the event.

At least in scenarios one and two, the law is still pretty firm here. You’ll be liable under both tort and criminal law in many jurisdictions if you don’t carry the boy (despite the burden). Scenario three is more interesting, but it’s worth evaluating. The Catholic Church would probably give you a higher personal duty there than the law can provide, since that would be bordering on a good samaritan law. However, that’s the way it should be, should it not? The law, after all, has a slightly different function than morality, and it would be too costly to prosecute all of those omissions.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Nine months in bed in the unconscious violinist scenario isn’t analogous to a normal pregnancy either of course.
Yes, I think requiring some period of time looking after the child in his convalescence and/or staying at his bedside at the hospital would make the TE better.

Yes, the law mostly just tries to stop us from doing what is bad rather than doing what is good. So if we wish to live moral lives we have to do more than the law dictates. The UK has no Good Samaritan laws at all (although this might also be due to our less litigious society).

 

[CatofAlexandria]

Most U.S. jurisdictions don’t have good samaritan laws, either. However, the law does recognize a duty to act in a few limited scenarios (e.g., parent/child relationship, ‘rendering helpless’ relationship, or some other relationship in which your actions make the person dependent on you). Does UK law recognize a duty in the first two scenarios (given the day with the child, back pain, job loss, and nausea)?

My understanding is that those things would go to reasonability, but that ultimately, rendering assistance is always an inconvenience carrying risks (especially when you too have been in an accident). The rendering helpless relationship duty remains.