Do you support abortion?

[Simon_Templar]

Well, I'm sorry that my viewpoint fails to meet your approval.

Well, considering you have basically refused to discuss it, I wouldn't know.

I do find it entertaining how I asked about your viewpoint, and you proceeded to freak out and insult me and then imply that I'm somehow condemning you.

 

[stevevw]

... and I'm not sure why you decided to posit this as a response to something I wrote all the way back last August of 2023. I wasn't even talking about that context as far as I can remember or tell.

There you go then, I should have refreshed myself in the context. Sorry I just found this post and realised I hadn't replied. Considering I was already reengaging with the thread I thought I would reply. What I wrote was the first thoughts that came to mind.

I actually did read a few of the exchanges from memory and it seemed to be about exceptions for abortion regarding the safety and life of the mother. Some mentioned about rape and I think how it would be hard for a mother to live with such a baby from rape. But perhaps I should have read some more.

But I have heard of this logic that a person has a right over the fetus because a fetus is regarded as less worth. I agree that if its a life threatening situation for the mother and the fetus or baby cannot be saved. But as a matter of personal taste or psychological harm I am not sure thats a good enough reason as the psyche can change, and we can still allow the baby to go to someone who will love them.

Again, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm not Pro-Abortion and I detest anyone even dropping the slightest insinuation that I somehow "am" simply because I may think that a fairly small minority of cases (specifically such as in incest or rape) may permit a woman to make a decision to terminate a pregnancy.

I wasn't attributing any anti abortion position to you. I know you and know thats not the case. I am referring more to the logic and not the person. Now I wish I didn't comment. But truely no reflection on you as I know your a commonsense thinker who cares about others and wants the best possible outcome for all.

Its a hard issue abortion and I regret speaking about it as it gets too emotive.

What's more, I do not believe the slippery-slope argument has any teeth because it's not that difficult to analyze a situation or circumstance and see that is, as one specific situation, isn't like millions of others that are similar to each other in a much more common fashion.

I guess my real point was if life begins at conception then how we think about these things, how we analyse them and the premise we use can be profoundly different if we devalue the fetus and not see them as though they are a living person.

Theres a degree of seperation because the fetus is not with us. But if we pretend that it was in all these situations I think this has a profound influence on how we will determine things because we make these situations like real life situations. Its harder to terminate what some may think is a blob of cells with no right to life and a human baby before us.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, considering you have basically refused to discuss it, I wouldn't know.

I do find it entertaining how I asked about your viewpoint, and you proceeded to freak out and insult me and then imply that I'm somehow condemning you.

No, I didn't insult you. It's just that as an educated philosopher, I find it difficult to digest that there are people who disregard women's well-being, on both the physical and psychological level, in the name of "Christian Theology" to such an extent that even the most extreme and statistically small examples somehow get classified for moral denunciation along with the outcomes of every sexually irresponsible gal or strumpet [and yes, I'm very aware I've used this word] who has all too casually laid on her back and gotten pregnant out of purely consensual contexts with a man, not only having gotten pregnant in the process but also deciding that being pregnant isn't "liberally convenient."

No, the cases I'm citing are quite different. Very different, and these other cases where women are victims of rape, or incest, or where doctors have found an ectoptic pregnancy, lie outside of the usual terms of culpability where taking the life of the fetus is concerned ........................ and one shouldn't have to have a degree in social philosophy to realize this dis-junction and non-equivalence.

 

[Simon_Templar]

No, I didn't insult you. It's just that as an educated philosopher, I find it difficult to digest that there are people who disregard women's well-being, on both the physical and psychological level, in the name of "Christian Theology" to such an extent that even the most extreme and statistically small examples somehow get classified for moral denunciation along with the outcomes of every sexually irresponsible gal or strumpet [and yes, I'm very aware I've used this word] who has all too casually laid on her back and gotten pregnant out of purely consensual contexts with a man, not only having gotten pregnant in the process but also deciding that being pregnant isn't "liberally convenient."

No, the cases I'm citing are quite different. Very different, and these other cases where women are victims of rape, or incest, or where doctors have found an ectoptic pregnancy, lie outside of the usual terms of culpability where taking the life of the fetus is concerned ........................ and one shouldn't have to have a degree in social philosophy to realize this dis-junction and non-equivalence.

Obviously the cases are very different.

If I may ask a question philosophy question of the educated philosopher.

Which is the greater evil, that a person should suffer evil done to them? or that they should do evil themselves?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Obviously the cases are very different.

If I may ask a question philosophy question of the educated philosopher.

Which is the greater evil, that a person should suffer evil done to them? or that they should do evil themselves?

Being that I'm not a woman, I'm not going to the false dilemma provided, such as it sits within the context of this specific thread.

So, word of advice: Don't make that same conceptual mistake or equivocation again.

 

[zippy2006]

... I can't believe I actually have to talk to people who would ask me such a question.

Evasion; insult; ad hominem.

You're Catholic. No wonder you've asked that question.

Ad hominem.

No, I didn't insult you. It's just that as an educated philosopher, I find it difficult to digest that there are people...

lol...

He's right. You are evading the question. Your evasion is anti-philosophical.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Evasion; insult; ad hominem.

Nope. It's not an ad hominem if I believe certain ethical considerations are at play that don't jive with those of my interlocutors.

Ad hominem.

So, are there Roman Catholics somewhere in leadership who do think differently about what constitutes justified abortion (other than Francis)?

lol...

He's right. You are evading the question. Your evasion is anti-philosophical.

No, I'm not evading it. I truly think it's a false dilemma, one that alludes to the sufferings in Christ we're all supposed to "endure" in His name. But the thing is, I don't think rape and incest, or ectopic pregnancies, are those "sufferings" women are called upon to "bear in the name of Christ."

So, let's get that clear.

 

[zippy2006]

No, I'm not evading it. I truly think it's a false dilemma, one that alludes to the supposed sufferings in Christ we're all supposed to "endure" in His name.

I don't see @Simon_Templar alluding to such sufferings anywhere in this thread...? His question was a very good one:

Ok, in your mind, why do rape and incest justify an abortion?

Some will say, "Abortion is wrong, but it is permissible in cases of rape, incest, Down Syndrome, etc." Templar's inquiry is perfectly philosophical.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Being that I'm not a woman, I'm not going to the false dilemma provided, such as it sits within the context of this specific thread.

So, word of advice: Don't make that same conceptual mistake or equivocation again.

Can you explain to me why it is a false dilemma? or what the equivocation was?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't see @Simon_Templar alluding to such sufferings anywhere in this thread...? His question was a very good one:


Some will say, "Abortion is wrong, but it is permissible in cases of rape, incest, Down Syndrome, etc." Templar's inquiry is perfectly philosophical.

Why did you snip out the additional portion of what I said in my post above?

I'll repeat it again and it will serve as my answer to all of his questions about how women, even Christian women, in those situations are justified if they choose to have an abortion. Here it is again: But the thing is, I don't think rape and incest, or ectopic pregnancies, are those "sufferings" women are called upon to "bear in the name of Christ." And what's more, I'm going to question any supposed "Christian Church" that insists that these things actually ARE to be carried as burdens. The sociopathy expressed by those fellow Christians who insist women bear up under these instances, even in the "name of Christ," registers off the scale as far as I'm concerned.

Additionally, other arguments can be made. The main one I'll stick with though is personal and anecdotal: that if some Christian joker dared to get into my late mother's face and tell her she would have to bear up under the circumstances (i.e. the rape she experienced) that contributed to her life long bout with severe Schizophrenia, I'd roundly tell them to "F-off." It was already bad enough to see her be "addressed" by pastors who didn't have the foggiest clue about how to address all of the catastrophic levels of psychological damage she experienced. No, the most I remember them saying to her "for her benefit" was something to the effect of: Well, Mrs., can't you just put it out of your mind?

So, let's get that clear.

 

[zippy2006]

Why did you snip out the additional portion of what I said in my post above?

Because it's an ignoratio elenchus, and I noted that Templar wasn't saying anything like it. Abortion is a moral issue, not merely a Christian issue. Templar has said nothing to the contrary.

Are you trying to offer a positive argument? "If X is not a suffering we are called to bear in the name of Christ, then we don't have to bear it"? Combined with, "Not-killing a child in the womb is a suffering, and specifically a suffering we are not called to bear in the name of Christ"? The same question arises: When does suffering justify killing the innocent?

I don't mean to imply that this is an easy topic to address or discuss, but Templar's questions are perfectly good questions. I don't see how they can just be ignored.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Because it's a strawman, and I noted that Templar wasn't saying anything like it. Abortion is a moral issue, not merely a Christian issue. Templar has said nothing to the contrary.

Are you trying to offer a positive argument? "If X is not a suffering we are called to bear in the name of Christ, then we don't have to bear it"? Combined with, "Not-killing a child in the womb is a suffering, and specifically a suffering we are not called to bear in the name of Christ"? The same question arises: When does suffering justify killing the innocent?

Yes, I'm offering a "positive argument," but only one that applies to a very small minority of cases of abortion: specifically those cases where the pregnancy was either the outcome of a criminal victimization (i.e. rape or incest) very often leading to PTSD and other deep-seated psychological damage or a life-threatening condition (i.e. ectopic pregnancy).

What I'm NOT doing is offering a general-esque argument by which some small nuance can slip in and cause an avalanche of justification for all abortion everywhere. In fact, I don't really think there is a Slippery Slope concern and to say there is is tantamount to sophistry since these instances, as I've said previously, can be disambiguated easily enough analytically.

No, I think most abortions are wrong much if not most of the time.

 

[zippy2006]

Yes, I'm offering a "positive argument," but only one that applies to a very small minority of cases of abortion: specifically those cases where the pregnancy was either the outcome of a criminal victimization, every often leading to PTSD and other deep-seated psychological damage (i.e. rape or incest) or a life-threatening condition (i.e. ectopic pregnancy).

What I'm NOT doing is offering some sort of general-esque argument by which some small nuance can slip in and cause an avalanche of justification for all abortion everywhere. In fact, I don't really think there is a Slippery Slope concern and to say there is is tantamount to sophistry since these instances, as I've said previously, can be disambiguated easily enough analytically.

Well, I'd say that we can have exceptions to rules, but that we need to have principled reasons for those exceptions. I think you are saying that abortion is impermissible except in the case where not-aborting would cause too much suffering (or potential suffering). Yes?

In creating exceptions one is always forced to go back and reassess the rule, and in this case we are forced to ask why abortions are impermissible in the first place.

I don't mean to imply that this is an easy topic to address or discuss, but I think Templar's questions are perfectly good questions. In fact the poll results seem to demand such a discussion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, I'd say that we can have exceptions to rules, but that we need to have principled reasons for those exceptions. I think you are saying that abortion is impermissible except in the case where not-aborting would cause too much suffering (or potential suffering). Yes?

Yes, that's essentially what I'm saying, with the caveat that I'd want to be specific about what form of suffering is involved. IOW, I don't include "inconvenience" in regard to one's goals in life as a form of suffering.

In creating exceptions one is always forced to go back and reassess the rule, and in this case we are forced to ask why abortions are impermissible in the first place.

For those of us who identify ourselves as Christians, I think we know the general rule -- or Ruler -- as to why human significance shouldn't be ignored at all levels of human life.

I don't mean to imply that this is an easy topic to address or discuss, but I think Templar's questions are perfectly good questions. In fact the poll results seem to demand such a discussion.

It surely isn't an easy topic to address or discuss, more so for me since Abortion has always been on the lower end of my social concern list. As for the poll, while I get the significance of the view of 63.2 %, I have to say that I don't think the poll represents a wide enough or nuanced enough taxonomic spectrum of answer choices.

 

[zippy2006]

As for the poll, while I get the significance of the view of 63.2 %, I have to say that I don't think the poll represents a wide enough or nuanced enough taxonomic spectrum of answer choices.

The reason I think the poll demands a discussion is because the top two answers divide over the very issue that Templar raised.

Yes, that's essentially what I'm saying, with the caveat that I'd want to be specific about what form of suffering is involved. IOW, I don't include "inconvenience" in regard one's goals in life as a form of suffering.

Okay.

Slippery Slope concern

In your favor I will say that I believe it is permissible to pass legislation that includes such exceptions.