Pro-Abortion

[Peace]

18 minutes ago, little2add said:

government criminal codes are irrelevant.    abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law

by "our law" generally means (to me) "Moral Law"

Thank you for the clarification. I will keep all of these things in mind when discussing the issue with you in the future.

Knight - I haven't forgotten about your post. It will take me a little bit longer to respond to because of the substance.

[Nihil Obstat]

Putting aside whether or not "pro-abortion" is an appropriate label, I think "pro-choice" is even more problematic. By allowing the abortion debate to be framed as simply a matter of choice, we are conceding too much. The language we use does impact how the question is perceived.

Simply framing it as one choice against another implies that both choices are more or less comparable, even if one or the other is preferable. This describes the people who describe who may want abortion decriminalized even if they do not themselves wish to have one. But it is not simply a choice in the sense of two options with pros and cons. It is a 'choice' between absolute evil on the one hand, and good on the other. One choice is simply wrong. This is the distinction that we absolutely have to maintain. We are not being objective by not recognizing this distinction; rather we are promoting continued ignorance.

[Gabriela]

40 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Putting aside whether or not "pro-abortion" is an appropriate label, I think "pro-choice" is even more problematic. By allowing the abortion debate to be framed as simply a matter of choice, we are conceding too much. The language we use does impact how the question is perceived.

Simply framing it as one choice against another implies that both choices are more or less comparable, even if one or the other is preferable. This describes the people who describe who may want abortion decriminalized even if they do not themselves wish to have one. But it is not simply a choice in the sense of two options with pros and cons. It is a 'choice' between absolute evil on the one hand, and good on the other. One choice is simply wrong. This is the distinction that we absolutely have to maintain. We are not being objective by not recognizing this distinction; rather we are promoting continued ignorance.

I agree with this, too.

So, if we can't properly call them "pro-abortion" and we can't properly call them "pro-choice", what should we call them? Any ideas? Anyone?

[Peace]

8 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

If I am unfaithful to my wife I would in fact be an adulterer,

Agreed. No argument from me here.

But being an an adulterer does not make one "pro-adultery" as I am sure you would agree.

8 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

if I supported my choice or others supported my choice to commit adultery we would correctly be called "pro-adultery." If I were to commit murder, I would be a murderer, if I support that choice to murder in anyway what-so-ever I would be pro-murder.

What is "support" in your opinion?

Here is what I would say:

1)  If you or one of your friends said "I cheated on my wife yesterday and I have no problem with it. I think it is totally fine and moral. In fact, I plan to cheat on my wife again tomorrow and advise that you do the same. If your wife asks where you were when you decide to cheat, just tell her that you were out drinking with me and I will lie to cover you", then you would be "pro-adultery".

2) If you or one of your friends said "I cheated on my wife yesterday. Even though I knew it was wrong, I got drunk at a bar and one thing led to another. I completely regret what I did and I do not want to do it again", then you would not be "pro-adultery".

3)  If you said "I would never cheat on my wife, and I think it is immoral for anyone else to cheat on his wife. However, if someone cheats on his wife, I do not think that he should be thrown in jail or be forced to pay a fine for it."  You would not be "pro-adultery".

I believe that each of the situations above is different and that lumping them all together under the same label is unwarranted. I do not believe that the situations are logically or morally equivalent.

Now, if you believe that situation 3 would consitute "support" such that the person in #3 should be considered "pro-adultery", logially would that not also make you, and virtually every other person "pro-adultery" as well?  This is because the only seeming rationale under which #3 can be considered "support" is a principle that leniency (in this case, not putting the person in jail or imposing a fine) constitutes support. But you, I, and virtually everyone else exhibits some degree of leniency when it comes to abortion.  For example, would you support a law that says "Any woman who has an abortion at any stage should be subjected to the death penalty"?  Such a law would almost certainly reduce the number of abortions, but you would not support it, right? 

I think you can see where I am going with this. The fact that you exhibit leniency and would not accept such a law does not mean that you support abortion.  But the very same thing is true for many people who do not believe that abortion should be criminalized at all.  Just because they exhibit leniency does not mean that they support abortion. It does not mean that they desire for it to occur. But the principle in the two situations is exactly the same I think. The only thing that differs is the degree of leniency (not imposing the death penalty v. not imposing a jail sentence or a fine), but the principle (leniency in criminal sentencing = support) is the same.

So if you think that the person in #3 is pro-abortion, then I think you are left with a situation where you either 1) have to support draconian laws such as those that I mentioned above or 2) admit that you also are a "pro-abortion" because you also would exhibit some degree of leniency towards women who have had an abortion.

Is there any flaw in my logic?

8 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

The problem here is that we're suppose to be comparing the killing of toddlers with killing of pre-born babies, using the same reasoning and logic for both the toddler and the baby. But you're using different reasons for each. So what of a distressed 15 year old mother who throws her 3 year old toddler in a dumpster out of shame or other fears as being "pro-murder"? Is she a murderer, if she chose to end the child's life, and if she supports her choice to kill her child is she a pro-murder? And what of those that support her choice to throw her 3 year old toddler in the dumpster, would they be pro-murder?

1) This is kind of an aside, but I don't think that, although a human being worthy of equal protection, the the killing of a 2 day old zygote (or whatever stage along the course of fetal development that you desire to pick) and the killing of a 3 year old toddler are morally equivalent.  I think if you read the Summa, Aquinas indicates that the penalties should be different for each situation. Also, for various other reasons the situations are different.  A woman likely has much greater attachment to a 3 year old toddler than a zygote. A woman is likely much more cognizant of the wrongness of killing a 3 year old toddler than a zygote. A woman has many more options for a 3 year old toddler than a zygote. The pregnant woman is also likely under much more societal pressure to kill than the mother of a 3 year old toddler.

2)  But even though I do not think the situations are analogous, I will assume, for the sake of discussion, that the killing of a 2 day old zygote is morally equivalent to the killing of a 3 year old toddler. You want me to use the same reasoning and logic for each situation. OK. I will try.

In my hypothetical I have an 18 year old woman who is a rape victim.  In situation A she has an abortion 2 days after conception.  In situation B she waits until the toddler is 3 and kills her toddler.  In both cases she has violated the 5th Commandment, and in that sense she is properly considered a murderer.

But is she "pro-murder" in either case? Again, I think it depends on the circumstances and her particular mindset at the times that she committed the crimes.  In situation A perhaps she is under the understandable durress at having to raise a child that she did not desire and who might be a constant reminder of her being raped. In situation B perhaps she is under the same form of durress, although at a later period of time.  Perhaps at one point she thought that she would be OK with it, but the constant reminder or the shame becomes too much for her to bear, at which point she decides to kill her toddler.  In both of these situations, even though she has committed a grave moral wrong, I don't think it is fair just to label her "pro-murder" and lump her in the same category with mass-murderers and so forth who see no moral wrong with, have no qualms about, or even enjoy killing people. The situations are just not the same.

8 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

I'm sorry but again if just change pre-born baby out with 3 year old toddler there wouldn't be the same kind of call for understanding and sympathy.

Maybe not the same call for sympathy, because the situations are not analagous as I noted above, but you do see a lot of sympathy when these types of stories hit the news. Some people are like "She is a monster!"  But many other people often ask questions like "what kind of circumstances could have driven her to do such a thing?" You see that quite often, even in these types of circumstances. The article below discusses it.

http://tanadineen.com/COLUMNIST/Columns/KillerMoms-VS.htm

[Peace]

51 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Putting aside whether or not "pro-abortion" is an appropriate label, I think "pro-choice" is even more problematic. By allowing the abortion debate to be framed as simply a matter of choice, we are conceding too much. The language we use does impact how the question is perceived.

Simply framing it as one choice against another implies that both choices are more or less comparable, even if one or the other is preferable. This describes the people who describe who may want abortion decriminalized even if they do not themselves wish to have one. But it is not simply a choice in the sense of two options with pros and cons. It is a 'choice' between absolute evil on the one hand, and good on the other. One choice is simply wrong. This is the distinction that we absolutely have to maintain. We are not being objective by not recognizing this distinction; rather we are promoting continued ignorance.

I agree that it concedes, but maybe I don't think it concedes as much as you do. I wonder if it is better just to let them have their word for the sake of allowing discussion to happen. With someone who calls himself "pro-choice" you can use that as a point to discuss various things. For example, if having freedom of choice is important, why does the unborn child not have a choice in whether he lives or dies?

[little2add]

another oxymoron (besides pro-choice) is referring to an abortion as woman's healthcare.  

[KnightofChrist]

11 hours ago, Peace said:

Agreed. No argument from me here.

But being an an adulterer does not make one "pro-adultery" as I am sure you would agree.

No, I don't agree. If a person says people should not commit adultery yet that person commits adultery that person is pro-adultery based upon his actions, not his words. Even if a person expresses no opinion on adultery yet commits adultery that person is pro-adultery based on his actions, not his lack of words. Now if the person ceases committing adultery and repents of his actions then it would be inappropriate to call him pro-adultery.

11 hours ago, Peace said:

What is "support" in your opinion?

Actions and/or words. Even if they conflict. Such as the example in Romans 2:22 that I touched on in my previous paragraph. Or the old "I'm personally against it, but people should be allowed to do it" logic.

11 hours ago, Peace said:

Here is what I would say:

1)  If you or one of your friends said "I cheated on my wife yesterday and I have no problem with it. I think it is totally fine and moral. In fact, I plan to cheat on my wife again tomorrow and advise that you do the same. If your wife asks where you were when you decide to cheat, just tell her that you were out drinking with me and I will lie to cover you", then you would be "pro-adultery".

Agreed.

11 hours ago, Peace said:

2) If you or one of your friends said "I cheated on my wife yesterday. Even though I knew it was wrong, I got drunk at a bar and one thing led to another. I completely regret what I did and I do not want to do it again", then you would not be "pro-adultery".

Agreed. On condition it is true repentance and he does not turn back to his sin. However, in the moment of his committing adultery and until he repented he would be pro-adultery, his actions would prove that.  

11 hours ago, Peace said:

3)  If you said "I would never cheat on my wife, and I think it is immoral for anyone else to cheat on his wife. However, if someone cheats on his wife, I do not think that he should be thrown in jail or be forced to pay a fine for it."  You would not be "pro-adultery".

Alimony, and child support are two fines that an adulterer can be forced by law to pay, should his actions be so severe that it causes a separation from his wife.  However, as we know murder and adultery are not on the same level. Murder is far more grave. If someone says "I would never terminate my child, and I think it is immoral for anyone else to terminate their child. However, if someone terminates their child I do not think they should be thrown in jail or be forced to pay a fine for it." That person would be pro-abortion, because the effect is that person believes those that partake in murder should be able to do so freely and without repercussion. Which natural law demands.

11 hours ago, Peace said:

I believe that each of the situations above is different and that lumping them all together under the same label is unwarranted. I do not believe that the situations are logically or morally equivalent.

Now, if you believe that situation 3 would consitute "support" such that the person in #3 should be considered "pro-adultery", logially would that not also make you, and virtually every other person "pro-adultery" as well?  This is because the only seeming rationale under which #3 can be considered "support" is a principle that leniency (in this case, not putting the person in jail or imposing a fine) constitutes support.

It could constitute support if one believes an adulterer has no obligation to pay for things like alimony or child support. But again there's a vast amount of difference between adultery and murder. Due to that fact this analogy falls apart and cannot be use in comparison.

11 hours ago, Peace said:

But you, I, and virtually everyone else exhibits some degree of leniency when it comes to abortion.  For example, would you support a law that says "Any woman who has an abortion at any stage should be subjected to the death penalty"?  Such a law would almost certainly reduce the number of abortions, but you would not support it, right? 

Whether or not someone should be subjected to the death penalty should be based on the severity of the offense committed. Anyone that kills a baby, child, or really any innocence person should be subjected to the death penalty if the severity of the offense is grave enough to call for it.

11 hours ago, Peace said:

I think you can see where I am going with this. The fact that you exhibit leniency and would not accept such a law does not mean that you support abortion.  But the very same thing is true for many people who do not believe that abortion should be criminalized at all.  Just because they exhibit leniency does not mean that they support abortion. It does not mean that they desire for it to occur. But the principle in the two situations is exactly the same I think. The only thing that differs is the degree of leniency (not imposing the death penalty v. not imposing a jail sentence or a fine), but the principle (leniency in criminal sentencing = support) is the same.

Allowing murderers to commit murder freely and lawfully is not leniency. It's an approval, even if one says otherwise in contradiction. The same would be true if one said "I'm against slavery, but there should be no laws against it and the slave owners should not be imprisoned or fined for enslaving other people." Such thinking would also not be a true example of leniency for the slave owner, but approval of slavery.

11 hours ago, Peace said:

So if you think that the person in #3 is pro-abortion, then I think you are left with a situation where you either 1) have to support draconian laws such as those that I mentioned above or 2) admit that you also are a "pro-abortion" because you also would exhibit some degree of leniency towards women who have had an abortion. Is there any flaw in my logic?

Again, because murder is a far graver offense and is far more severe this analogy falls apart and cannot be use in comparison. I've already attempted to show the flaws in your logic in prior paragraphs.

11 hours ago, Peace said:

1) This is kind of an aside, but I don't think that, although a human being worthy of equal protection, the the killing of a 2 day old zygote (or whatever stage along the course of fetal development that you desire to pick) and the killing of a 3 year old toddler are morally equivalent.  I think if you read the Summa, Aquinas indicates that the penalties should be different for each situation. Also, for various other reasons the situations are different.  A woman likely has much greater attachment to a 3 year old toddler than a zygote. A woman is likely much more cognizant of the wrongness of killing a 3 year old toddler than a zygote. A woman has many more options for a 3 year old toddler than a zygote. The pregnant woman is also likely under much more societal pressure to kill than the mother of a 3 year old toddler.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be understanding and show no mercy. We should, but not to the extent that we void justice for the victims. Your position accepts far too much of pro-abortion thought, it gives far more mercy and understanding to those that partake in murder, than the victims being murdered. Any pre-born person has the same value as any person who is born. If a pre-born child is murdered using acid that should be treated in the same of similar manner as if a toddler was murdered with acid. Because both should have equal protection and both have equal value and both were murdered in the same manner.

11 hours ago, Peace said:

2)  But even though I do not think the situations are analogous, I will assume, for the sake of discussion, that the killing of a 2 day old zygote is morally equivalent to the killing of a 3 year old toddler. You want me to use the same reasoning and logic for each situation. OK. I will try.

In my hypothetical I have an 18 year old woman who is a rape victim.  In situation A she has an abortion 2 days after conception.  In situation B she waits until the toddler is 3 and kills her toddler.  In both cases she has violated the 5th Commandment, and in that sense she is properly considered a murderer.

But is she "pro-murder" in either case? Again, I think it depends on the circumstances and her particular mindset at the times that she committed the crimes.  In situation A perhaps she is under the understandable durress at having to raise a child that she did not desire and who might be a constant reminder of her being raped. In situation B perhaps she is under the same form of durress, although at a later period of time.  Perhaps at one point she thought that she would be OK with it, but the constant reminder or the shame becomes too much for her to bear, at which point she decides to kill her toddler.  In both of these situations, even though she has committed a grave moral wrong, I don't think it is fair just to label her "pro-murder" and lump her in the same category with mass-murderers and so forth who see no moral wrong with, have no qualms about, or even enjoy killing people. The situations are just not the same.

Actions or deeds matter more than what we feel or what we say. A person who partakes in murder is a murderer and pro-murder. People who are against murder but commit murder are hypocrites who are actually in favor of murder as their actions prove. 

11 hours ago, Peace said:

Maybe not the same call for sympathy, because the situations are not analagous as I noted above, but you do see a lot of sympathy when these types of stories hit the news. Some people are like "She is a monster!"  But many other people often ask questions like "what kind of circumstances could have driven her to do such a thing?" You see that quite often, even in these types of circumstances. The article below discusses it.

http://tanadineen.com/COLUMNIST/Columns/KillerMoms-VS.htm

But you would not find many people saying there should be no laws against toddlercide. But you will find many who believe there should be no laws against abortion. The reason for this is that those persons do not believe in equal value or equal protection.

[CatherineM]

My view of pro choice is someone who is pro legal abortion. Pro abortion people are those who want most pregnancies to end in abortion. They exist unfortunately. 

[beatitude]

On 5/12/2016, 12:16:09, Benedictus said:

The pro choice side, or whatever you term them, are invested in these slogans as much as anyone else. It's a politically motivated strategy in most cases and it isn't supposed to be all neat and tidy. All sides use slogans to be emotive and, like twitter, you have a limited amount of slogan space to hit with. But to frame an argument around this seems like debating the name of a food aid program whilst people are starving before your eyes.

This is true. It's very common for pro-choice advocates to term pro-life advocates 'anti-choice'. I'm not anti-choice, I just hold the rather uncontroversial view that not all choices are moral, and that while we are free to choose in relation to most things, we are not free of the consequences of our choices. If you choose to have sex, those consequences could include a baby.

I don't think semantic games are helpful - they are just ways to paint your opponents as unreasonable or deliberately cruel. So I use the terms that people prefer for themselves, pro-life and pro-choice, and try to keep the debate on ethics rather than allowing it become about terminology.

[Peace]

Knight,

I am having a bit of trouble distinguishing between your different responses concerning abortion/murder and adultery.  I do not think that you have explained why advocating for less than the maximum penalty in the case of abortion makes one pro-abortion, while advocating for less than the maximum penalty in the case of adultery does not make one pro-adultery.

The distinction you make (that abortion/murder is far graver than adultery) seems to be a bit too convenient and arbitrary. Both of these are serious offenses. Both are violations of the 10 Commandments. Both would have gotten you stoned to death in the time of Leviticus. I do not see why the principle should apply in one circumstance and not the other, only for the reason that one sin is graver than the other.

Nevertheless, based on your remarks, would it be safe to say that your position is that any time someone advocates for something less than the just penalty under the circumstances, that the person is “pro” the sin committed?  That is, you are not using the "maximum possible penalty" as your standard by which you determine whether something is unjustifiably lenient, but rather you are using the "just penalty" as the standard by which you determine whether something is unjustifiably lenient. In other words, any penalty less than the just penalty is unjustifiably lenient, but the just penalty is not lenient even though it is not the maximum possible penalty.

For example, let’s say that a person can advocate for one of 6 different penalties for various crimes. The hypothetical “just penalty” is noted in parenthesis in each circumstance (I realize that the the true "just penalty" may be something other than noted below).

Any person who commits abortion under circumstance A shall be subject to the following penalty:

1) $0 fine.  (Pro-Abortion) (Unjustifiably lenient)

2)  $1 fine.  (Pro-Abortion) (Unjustifiably lenient)

3)  $50,000 fine. (Pro-Abortion) (Unjustifiably lenient)

4)  $50,000 fine and 3 days in jail (Pro-Abortion) (Unjustifiably lenient)

5)  The death penalty (Hypothetically, the just penalty under circumstance A).  (Not Pro-Abortion)

6 ) A $50,000 fine, torture, and the death penalty.  (Not Pro-Abortion)

 

Any person who commits adultery under circumstance B shall be subject to the following penalty:

1) $0 fine.  (Pro-Adultery) (Unjustifiably lenient)

2)  $1 fine.  (Pro-Adultery)(Unjustifiably lenient)

3)  $50,000 fine. (Hypothetically, the just penalty under circumstance B) (Not Pro-Adultery)

4)  $50,000 fine and 3 days in jail (Not Pro-Adultery)

5)  The death penalty (Not Pro-Adultery)

6 ) A $50,000 fine, torture, and the death penalty.  (Not Pro-Adultery)

In the abortion example, you would appear to say that a person who chooses (1) to (4) is pro-abortion because the person does not choose the penalty (5) that is just under the circumstances.

In the adultery example, you would appear to say that a person who chooses (1) or (2) is pro-adultery because the person does not choose the penalty (3) that is just under the circumstances.

But in both cases, when the person advocates for the just penalty, the person ceases to be pro-abortion, or pro-adultery.

Would this be an accurate description of the principle that you are applying to reach your conclusions?

If the above is not accurate, could you please explain or define the general principle that you are using to reach your conclusions in the various circumstances?

[Anomaly]

Peace, 

It's simple.  Abortion used to be illegal in the US.  Period. 

Advocating for it, whether supposedly restricted, or not, is pro abortion when compared to no abortion, whatever the circumstances.  

Abortion being defined as killing a fertilized egg/zygote/fetus as the intended outcome of an act.  That's not to say, for example, removing a tumor in the womb that if left would kill the mother and fetus, but removing it may save mother but likely kill the fetus.  Rape and incest is not an excuse to kill a child. 

Not 100% against, is pro abortion.   I would agree that doesn't mean you are 100% pro abortion, but I'm assuming reasonable intellect to understanf the concept. 

[Peace]

40 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Peace, 

It's simple.  Abortion used to be illegal in the US.  Period. 

Advocating for it, whether supposedly restricted, or not, is pro abortion when compared to no abortion, whatever the circumstances.  

Abortion being defined as killing a fertilized egg/zygote/fetus as the intended outcome of an act.  That's not to say, for example, removing a tumor in the womb that if left would kill the mother and fetus, but removing it may save mother but likely kill the fetus.  Rape and incest is not an excuse to kill a child. 

Not 100% against, is pro abortion.   I would agree that doesn't mean you are 100% pro abortion, but I'm assuming reasonable intellect to understanf the concept. 

If you believe that the issues that Knight, I, and others have been discussing are simple, I suggest that you think about them more deeply and rejoin the conversation after doing so.

[Not A Real Name]

Why do I care about changing the label which their side identifys by? I haven't talked to one prob-abortion/pro-choice person that minds being labeled as such. Many proudly profess these titles.  IMO Peace, you're noy trying to catch more flies with honey, but rather drown them in it. 

[Peace]

3 hours ago, Not A Real Name said:

I haven't talked to one prob-abortion/pro-choice person that minds being labeled as such.

Maybe you should speak to more people.

[KnightofChrist]

14 hours ago, Peace said:

If you believe that the issues that Knight, I, and others have been discussing are simple, I suggest that you think about them more deeply and rejoin the conversation after doing so.

Motives and reasoning for murder can be highly complex, but murder is rather simple. Someone who murders another and someone who thinks murder should not be unlawful is pro-murder. That much is simple.  Anomaly is correct.