Get updates from Catholic and Enjoying It! delivered straight to your inbox
…must be the dominatrix of all.” – Nancy Pelosi
Nancy Pelosi and dominatrix in the same sentence . . . did anyone else just go to a really scary visual place?
Actually, no… until I read your comment. 🙁
Unfortunately, this isn’t an alternate-dimension vampire
Perhaps, but consider the paradox of what you propose. Any dominatrix who DOESN’T scare you is hardly worth submitting to!
Glad to hear somebody in her life has differing views. Her Bishop and priests sure don’t seem to, at least not enough to deny her communion.
And something I just learned, you can’t crosspost comments on Disqus
Obviously Pelosi is not involved in parish life beyond attending Mass. Seriously, Father might theoretically have veto power, but the women run almost everything in practice not involving sacraments.
Imagine Pelosi’s reaction to a man saying, “I joined the priesthood for the power, not because it was a vocation.” Sheesh.
I hope she hears her mother’s voice soon and starts being Catholic in the public square. It pains me to imagine her trying to pray young Nancy off the path to hell and seeing the continued dessication of her soul instead.
Every “Womyn” priest I know makes exactly the same mistake. I don’t know a single one I’d consider orthodox.
And unfortunately, my parish has a few. Invalidly ordained, of course.
We all say that abortion should be rare and safe and if necessary and the rest of that. — Pelosi
I can understand wanting abortion to be “safe” (for the mother anyway; obviously no abortion is safe for the unborn human that’s being aborted). But just what is the liberal argument that abortion should be rare?
If they deny the personhood of the unborn human, and thus conclude that abortion is not murder and is morally permissible, then why should we care whether or not abortion is rare? Perhaps the liberal rhetoric that “abortion should be rare” is an implicit acknowledgement that abortion often has devastating emotional and psychological effects for many women. But if that’s the case, then, rather than talking about making abortions rare, liberals should instead be trying to persuade those women that they should not feel so guilty, since (on this view) they have not done anything morally wrong.
Once the culture has been changed so that women no longer have the same moral intuitions that they do now — and no longer feel emotional and psychological pain at having an abortion — then this particular reason for wanting abortions to be rare would no longer exist.
Or perhaps there’s some other reason. I have yet to see any liberal actually explain why abortions should be rare, even though this is a common talking point.
If (1) abortion is morally permissible, (2) abortion can be made safe for the woman, and (3) women’s moral intuitions can be changed so that they no longer feel any regret or emotional pain from having an abortion, then I find it difficult to imagine any logically coherent argument for wanting abortions to be rare.
I’m pretty liberal. Here goes:
It’s better to not get pregnant than to get an abortion. I don’t think anyone would argue with that.
Educate women on forms of birth control (including, Egads! NOT HAVING SEX (pretty effective)) and help them get access to it so they can make informed decisions about whether or not to have sex and how to avoid pregnancy if they do. If used correctly, birth control can be very effective.
Also, provide better support to women that get pregnant unintentionally. A lot of women who have abortions make that decision out of fear and desperation. I don’t think anybody wants that.
If those two things were done effectively it would be rare. Or a lot more so.
“It’s better to not get pregnant than to get an abortion.”
Why? Based on what premise?
It is either expensive surgery or strong medications. Best to avoid those.
You shall not murder.
It’s posed as a first principle.
So, basically that’s true because you say it is. Gotcha. Impeccable logic.
No, dumbass I am posing it as a first principle for the sake of argument. It’s not meant to be an absolute moral truth, it’s an assumption that I think both sides would agree upon from which further discussion and argument can continue.
Do you agree or not or have anything to contribute or are you just being a pain in the ass?
The whole point of JM’s post was that there has to be some reason abortion is bad enough that even its supporters to happen rarely. You seemed to skip over that. Then you got touchy when your argument failed to address that point.
No one wants to cause an unwanted situation for the sake of being able to remedy it. You don’t drop an egg on the floor in order to clean it up. So whether you think abortion to be a horrible crime or a minor inconvenience, you’d want them to be rare, or at least not want one. That’s as simple as I can make it and if you have an argument against that I don’t care to read it.
The rest of my point was going to show that yes, you can be for abortion rights and support measures to make them more rare.
There are two schools to this:
1) abortion has no moral downsides but abortion is still a medical procedure. Just because we have antibiotics, we still think pneumonia should be rare. Or just because there are stitches, we shouldn’t be cutting.
2) Abortion is not a morally absolute good, only a relative good compared to the mother’s desire. I.e. they see the fetus on the same level as a dog or a chicken. Clearly you shouldn’t kill an animal for no reason, but if you have a good reason (desire or economical or even eugenic), it is allowed. And if it is a beloved family pet, you shouldn’t kill it unless there is a good medical reason. As the fetus becomes an infant, it is promoted to human.
ETA: these are only for pro-choice people who think abortion should be rare. Some don’t, and see abortion more like cutting off a tumor. You should still not encourage growing tumors for no reason, but if you have one, cut it off asap, no moral quandary.
There is also the school of thought that sees the fetus as human, but sort of like an insane person who decides to attack you unprovoked. You don’t blame them, but you still have a right to defend your house against unjust invasion or physical harm and shoot them. Of course, that person thinks they are fully justified and still thinks there should be less attacks by insane people while at the same time asserting that gun safety is important.
Let’s put aside that comparing pregnancy to an “attack” or “invasion” is more of a rhetorical tactic to make abortion more palatable to the squeamish. (Attackers and invaders are bad. Who could be against killing them, amiright?)
That argument might work in cases of pregnancy as a result of rape, since the unborn human is present “unprovoked” or through no willful action on the part of the mother.
However, even this doesn’t work because the unborn human is present through no action on their part either. It is therefore fundamentally different from an attack or invasion, which in this context can only occur through an act of attack or invasion. Even the insane person is still engaging in an act that brings him into your home. The unborn human has not engaged in any action whatsoever, and therefore cannot be compared to an attacker or invader in the morally relevant sense.
We may say that the insane person is less culpable for an unjust or immoral act against another. But the unborn human has not engaged in any unjust or immoral act at all. A better analogy would be if the insane person were on your property because you put them there as a result of your own willful actions (consensual sex) or because some third party forced the person onto your property (rape).
Either way, the unborn human is completely innocent.
At best, a pro-choice person might call the unborn human a trespasser. But they are an innocent trespasser. Even willful trespassers receive due process, and none are given a death penalty.
I used “insane” to imply innocent/non-culpable. The fetus can be said to be attacking the mother’s body, not simply trespassing, since it does take nutrients and is a dangerous health condition.
I’m prolife, and I think the mother has a moral responsibility towards her children regardless qua being a mother. Just giving a reason why something might be justified yet undesirable.
The fetus can be said to be attacking the mother’s body, not simply trespassing, since it does take nutrients and is a dangerous health condition.
One can think of an “attack” on one’s body in three ways: Either (1) the presence of something within your body that alters its functions in harmful ways; (2) the threatening actions of something which possesses the capacity for perceptions and instinctive judgment of those perceptions (animals; a dog biting you, for example); or (3) the threatening actions of something which possesses the capacity for perceptions and rational judgment of those perceptions (a moral agent).
The first category often applies to infections. We say that a viral or bacterial infection “attacks” the body because it alters its functions in harmful ways. The second category can, again, refer to the instinctive actions of an animal, which perceives some threat and attacks you. The third category is the only use of the word “attack” in the morally relevant sense because it’s the actions of a moral agent, which can be praised or blamed for its actions.
An insane person would probably fall into the second category, since their capacity for rational judgment is being impaired, and are therefore acting more in the capacity of a lower animal.
However, the unborn human does not even fit into the second category, because, again, it has not engaged in any actions whatsoever, either through instinctive or rational judgment. So the comparison fails. That leaves the first category; or likening the presence of the unborn human to the “attack” of a viral or bacterial infection.
But even this is problematic. It is true that, like a virus or bacteria, the unborn human is taking nutrients and poses potential risks to the mother’s health. But if the unborn human is a person (which is what the pro-choice/pro-life debate hinges on), then that effects how much of a claim the unborn human has on what it is taking. A person (which possesses a higher moral consideration) has a greater claim on certain goods than a virus or bacteria (which possesses far less moral consideration).
Furthermore, the mother-child relationship is somewhat different than the host-infection relationship. An infection attacks/invades the body, giving nothing back, and will remain there until it is killed or the host dies. However, the unborn human takes only what it needs to develop into an independent being and then leaves the body of the “host.” Furthermore, there is evidence that pregnancy has certain health benefits, further undermining the idea that an unborn human is like an attacking infection or parasite that may be thought of simply as a “dangerous health condition.”
At best, the unborn human can be compared to an attacker only in those rare cases when it actually poses a threat to the life of the mother, not when it’s merely taking nutrients to survive. In those rare cases, I suppose one could morally justify abortion using the doctrine of double effect. So long as the death of the unborn human is not intended as a means or end, and the intended good (saving the mother’s life) is proportional to the bad effect that results (the death of the unborn human).
The woman is human and has a human inside her. The woman has bodily autonomy and has the right to remove the human inside her. She doesn’t have the right to deliberately kill the human inside her. Before viability, this kills the fetal human as an obviously foreseen but unintended consequence. After viability the woman should maybe be allowed to remove the fetal human if measures are taken to save its life. Maybe it’s just plain illegal at that point. Bodily autonomy or not, if you can’t get your shit together to get an abortion for seven months you might have to stick it out.
I don’t heartily defend this argument, but it’s kind of where I fall.
Please give feedback, criticism.
“The woman has bodily autonomy and has the right to remove the human inside her.”
I used to be pro-choice, and when I was I would have said something similar to this. This may not be the case for you, but I find that I had and still don’t have a good explanation for why I thought this, and I find it nonsensical now. So, why does a woman have the right to remove her baby? After all, if she does nothing but wait, the baby will exit all by itself. At most she’s stuck for 38-42 weeks (really only 36-40, since pregnancy is typically counted from start of last menstrual period and not conception date).
Also, prematurity is a very big deal. “Viable” does not mean “healthy.” Induction tends towards less healthy outcomes for both mother and baby if it’s done for convenience rather to avoid an emergency, even if baby is at the point considered to be “full term.”
I pretty much think abortion is evil but I hesitate to let government have control over women’s bodies. That’s about it. The rest are details. I just can’t see forcing a woman to stay pregnant if she doesn’t want to. Up to a point at least.
And while “wait nine months to save a life” is a good argument TO a women to not get an abortion, that’s not the same as “this is why we will force you to stay pregnant even though you don’t want to.”
Why do you feel OK with the government doing this?
Because while I’m not a fan of the state getting involved in every aspect of a person’s personal life, I do think one of their responsibilities is to protect the innocent. A baby is an innocent life. It didn’t ask to exist. It’s not an invader or a parasite. To ban abortion is the same thing as criminalizing murder. It’s just at an earlier stage of life.
It’s not about forcing the woman to do or not do anything. It’s about the baby. The reality of pregnancy is what it is – the state didn’t create that or cause it, and recognizing it doesn’t mean the state is trying to oppress women.
(Again, I used to feel the same way as you. For me, the big change came when I was pregnant and I realized that while my baby lived inside me, he was definitely NOT me. Dependent on me, yes, but still his own person.)
I’m prolife, I don’t agree with any of these reasons. People just asked how someone can argue for something to be legal but rare. There are at least 3 reasons I can think of.
As the fetus becomes an infant, it is promoted to human.
See, this is what annoys me about a lot of pro-choice argumentation. How did you go from making a cost-benefit, utilitarian argument about the permissibility of abortion to denying that an unborn human is even human? The former has nothing to do with the latter.
That an unborn human is indeed human is just a biological fact. And if it is not human, then what species do you propose that it is? You can’t “promote” an unborn human to the status belonging to species homo sapiens, since it already belongs to that category from the moment of conception.
Now, you can argue that abortion is still morally permissible even though an unborn human is, in fact, a human. But you can’t just deny that fact for the sake of drawing some arbitrary line between a less developed fetus and a newborn infant. Either affirm that human life has intrinsic value, or stick to your utilitarian guns and argue that an unborn human can be killed if the mother desires it.
Thus your argument that abortion is permissible if a woman has “good reason (desire or economical or even eugenic)” could equally apply to newborn infants as well.
I don’t think they are good reasons. I’m prolife. I was just saying there are logical reasons why someone might want abortion to be legal but rare.