Abortion

[Illyricum]

What are you thoughts/opinions on abortion?

[Dilettante]

Excuse me but, I have to take issue with the view that "we own our bodies". How could this be so? Can I rent out my body? Can I purchase a new one, or more than one? The fact is we are our bodies. We can't treat our bodies as objects. I guess the analogy is ingrained in American culture where the body would be a car and the self would be the driver. But I have never seen a self park his body and take a walk to, say, the nearest newstand to get a copy of the Times.

Also, deciding whether or not fetuses or babies are persons is not the end of the issue. Even if we, using Locke's definition of person, were to decide that two week old babies are not persons, it doesn't follow that it is morally permissible to kill them. Many people think that a) baby seals are not persons and b) we should not kill baby seals.

My point being: even if we granted that abortion is not murder, that still doesn't make it morally permissible except perhaps in extreme circumstances.

What do you think?

[bernee51]

Excuse me but, I have to take issue with the view that "we own our bodies". How could this be so? Can I rent out my body?

Prostitution?

Can I purchase a new one, or more than one?

Plastic surgery?

The fact is we are our bodies.

Are we...or are they just a vehicle for the mind? The soul (whatever that may be)?

We can't treat our bodies as objects.

We adorn them with finery, jewels and colour...like objects.

But I have never seen a self park his body and take a walk to, say, the nearest newstand to get a copy of the Times.

Out of body experiences?

Also, deciding whether or not fetuses or babies are persons is not the end of the issue. Even if we, using Locke's definition of person, were to decide that two week old babies are not persons, it doesn't follow that it is morally permissible to kill them. Many people think that a) baby seals are not persons and b) we should not kill baby seals.

A human foetus is not a baby seal. Straw man.

My point being: even if we granted that abortion is not murder, that still doesn't make it morally permissible except perhaps in extreme circumstances.

What do you think?

Whether it is moral or not is and always should be a decision for the individual to make.

[Dilettante]

bernee51:

Are prostitutes mindless zombies? Do they "rent" their bodies while their minds are somewhere else, like at home watching TV?

Can plastic surgeons make me a spare body to use on special occasions?

Is the mind/the soul separable from the body?

Do "out of body" experiences really occur outside the body (i.e. the brain)?

Finally, baby seal-fetus may (or may not) be a bad analogy, but it's not a straw man argument as I understand the concept (a misrepresentation of our opponet's views in order to make them appear much more extreme and thus easier to attack).

You may think your body is your property but...do you have a receipt to prove it?

[bernee51]

bernee51:
Are prostitutes mindless zombies? Do they "rent" their bodies while their minds are somewhere else, like at home watching TV?

I lived in the same house as a prostitute some years ago. In discussion with her and her work collegues they were of the opinion they were renting ONLY their bodies. Most have said the last place their mind would be is "on the job".

Can plastic surgeons make me a spare body to use on special occasions?

Not a complete spare..they can adjust bits and pieces, replace damaged and non working organs and so on. Very much like an 'object' in my opinion.

Is the mind/the soul separable from the body?

when you say "I am dilettante", "I am a (wo)man", "I am a {insert occupation}..." who is making the statement?

Do "out of body" experiences really occur outside the body (i.e. the brain)?

Don;t know, never had one that I would regard as genuine, in fact I seriously doubt they occur.

Finally, baby seal-fetus may (or may not) be a bad analogy, but it's not a straw man argument as I understand the concept (a misrepresentation of our opponet's views in order to make them appear much more extreme and thus easier to attack).

The lines between straw men and inappropriate analogies often blur. Choose whichever fits. Whether it is morally wrong to kill baby seals or terminate a pregnancy is a decision for the individual to make.

You may think your body is your property but...do you have a receipt to prove it?

I didn't buy it...it was a gift from my parents.

It is mine to do whatever I wish to. I have both caressed and cared for it and abused it. My choice, no one elses. It is my property.

[Dilettante]

OK bernee51, if you wish we could start a new thread in the philosophy section to discuss the eternal mind/body problem. What is a mind, anyway? If you were looking at a photograph with a friend and you suddenly discovered you were in the picture, I bet you would not say "look, there's my body". You would probably say "look, there's me." You seem to think that minds are independent from bodies, while I think they aren't. If I "had" a different body, I wouldn't be myself. When you say your body was a gift from your parents, that makes me wonder if you believe in the preexistence of the soul, as some did in Ancient Greece and as mormons still do in the present.

But to return to the original topic, I'll just say that a fetus is not just part of a woman's body (and her body recognizes it as foreign), that I believe the life of the fetus deserves protection (and the longer it is there, the more it deserves protection), that I think abortion is, however, morally justifiable in certain extreme circumstances which may or may not coincide with the circumstances you have in mind, and that I do not think abortion should always be legal or always illegal. I am open to even a case-by-case discussion. Partial-birth abortions, however, horrify me because they are too close to infanticide. I bet you don't think the morality of infanticide should be left to the individual to decide.

[bernee51]

, that makes me wonder if you believe in the preexistence of the soul,

I don't belive in a soul at all, let alone the pre-existence of one.

But to return to the original topic, I'll just say that a fetus is not just part of a woman's body (and her body recognizes it as foreign), that I believe the life of the fetus deserves protection (and the longer it is there, the more it deserves protection),

My personal position is that up to a certain level of gestation the foetus is ONLY part of the woman in that it could not survive without the womb. I believe that, up to a certain point of gestation the woman has every right, withoput the interference of the state, to do what she wishes with her body.

That certain point, under normal circumstances, I speak of is open to debate. I would feel that 20 weeks would be the upper limit.

[Karl]

My take on abortion is that I do NOT have the right to dictate to someone else what personal decisions they make with regard to their own body. I don't like to see abortions used as "after-the-fact" "birth control". I also don't like to see late-term or "partial birth" abortions.

Fortunately, with proper sex education, family planning and birth-control knowledge, abortions can be greatly reduced. Let's face it, if people are not pregnant when they don't want to be, there would be no reason to get an abortion, unless the life of the mother was threatened by the pregnancy. This is why family planning clinics are important, as they can provide counseling and assistance in these areas, especially to the underprivileged.

Unfortunately, "the church" does not allow its votaries any reasonable latitude:

{The following cited from: http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pa06hv.htm}

from 'Humanæ Vitæ'

......Two Inseparable Aspects: Union and Procreation

12. That teaching, often set forth by the magisterium, is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning. Indeed, by its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the generation of new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman. By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its ordination towards man's most high calling to parenthood. We believe that the men of our day are particularly capable of seizing the deeply reasonable and human character of this fundamental principle...

The gist of this would appear to be that "sex" is for procreation only, which IMO is nonsense.

from 'Humanæ Vitæ'

......Illicit Ways of Regulating Birth

14. In conformity with these landmarks in the human and Christian vision of marriage, we must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth (14).

Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman (15).

Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, propose, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible(16).

To justify conjugal acts made intentionally infecund, one cannot invoke as valid reasons the lesser evil, or the fact that such acts would constitute a whole together with the fecund acts already performed or to follow later, and hence would share in one and the same moral goodness. In truth, if it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil to promote a greater good (17), it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom {18} that is to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disorder, and hence unworthy of the human person, even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well-being. Consequently it is an error to think that a conjugal act which is deliberately made infecund and so is intrinsically dishonest could be made honest and right by the ensemble of a fecund conjugal life.....

What this says to me is that women are basically supposed to be "baby machines", and people are supposed to have children whether they can afford them or not.

Point number (17) above was an interesting statement, in light of the abject barbarity in "spreading the word", torture and other heinous abominations perpetrated by "the church" during that most dismal period of ignorance, superstition and bondage which it dominated, and which was certainly the most abyssmal period in human history; that period being...the "dark ages".

It is time to dispense with the medieval outlook cited above, along with its associated baseless guilt-mongering, and inject some reason into the process. Tragically, the neo-con religio-statist oligarchists don't think so, and thus the cycles of abortion and poverty will continue to increase and not decrease. We must also be aware of religionist incursions into government policy and law, so that the indivual Rights of the general populace with regard to separation of church and state are not abrogated, and most importantly, so that we do not sink back into the horrific lunacy and repression that we saw in the dark ages, and that exists in any religionist-dominated or controlled society.

K

[Dilettante]

Perhaps it would be interesting to note that the vast majority of Catholics, at least in the former Roman Empire, do use contraceptives. So there are areas where even the most faithful quietly disagree with the hierarchy (which is by no means "infallible"). The infallibility clause is hardly ever used, fortunately.

However, I wouldn't take such a grim view of the Middle ages. While it had its undeniably terrible aspects, it was also an era of great artistic achievements--I live surrounded by them--and the beginning of the universities.

[Karl]

Perhaps it would be interesting to note that the vast majority of Catholics, at least in the former Roman Empire, do use contraceptives. So there are areas where even the most faithful quietly disagree with the hierarchy (which is by no means "infallible"). The infallibility clause is hardly ever used, fortunately.

However, I wouldn't take such a grim view of the Middle ages. While it had its undeniably terrible aspects, it was also an era of great artistic achievements--I live surrounded by them--and the beginning of the universities.

If that many of the faithful in Europe are using contraceptive devices (in apparent defiance of the church's edicts), then perhaps the church should offcially change the language of its policy, in order to reflect the more sensible progressive attitudes of the European membership.

I witnessed the NewAdvent site's display during the past November presidential election, and one of the topics was "how to vote without sinning", implying that a vote for Kerry was a "sin", because Kerry is pro-choice. Additionally, one wonders if the "undeniably terrible aspects" you mentioned are completely out of the minds of the church hierocracy, considering that statements like the following are "still on the books". (from the same 2005 on-line Catholic Encyclopedia - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm#REF_XIII):

HERESY

.....XIII. INTOLERANCE AND CRUELTY

The Church's legislation on heresy and heretics is often reproached with cruelty and intolerance. Intolerant it is: in fact its raison d'être is intolerance of doctrines subversive of the faith. But such intolerance is essential to all that is, or moves, or lives, for tolerance of destructive elements within the organism amounts to suicide. Heretical sects are subject to the same law: they live or die in the measure they apply or neglect it. The charge of cruelty is also easy to meet. All repressive measures cause suffering or inconvenience of some sort: it is their nature. But they are not therefore cruel. The father who chastises his guilty son is just and may be tender-hearted. Cruelty only comes in where the punishment exceeds the requirements of the case. Opponents say: Precisely; the rigours of the Inquisition violated all humane feelings. We answer: they offend the feelings of later ages in which there is less regard for the purity of faith; but they did not antagonize the feelings of their own time, when heresy was looked on as more malignant than treason. In proof of which it suffices to remark that the inquisitors only renounced on the guilt of the accused and then handed him over to the secular power to be dealt with according to the laws framed by emperors and kings. Medieval people found no fault with the system, in fact heretics had been burned by the populace centuries before the Inquisition became a regular institution. And whenever heretics gained the upper hand, they were never slow in applying the same laws: .....Toleration came in only when faith went out; lenient measures were resorted to only where the power to apply more severe measures was wanting.....

Christianity in Europe is not the radical fundamentalist extremism that it is in some circles in the U.S.A., and those radical groups are intent upon implemeting a fundamentalist theocracy in the U.S. which could enforce bans on abortions for any reason, even if the pregnancy endangered the life of the mother. A theocracy here of course, would never happen without the bloodiest of civil wars, since that type of idea is in direct conflict with and abrogation of the U.S. Consitution. The present Pope, John Paul II, IMO, has done a decent job of promoting good will and tolerance around the world. One can only hope that his successor does as well, as opposed to regressing into extremism. The fundamentalist legalist generally has no conception as to Gnosis and Esotericism and is content to let his dogma be his guide, even though some literalist interpretations of "scripture" have been shown to be errant and unsupportable. In the U.S.A. these days, there are already some health care professionals who are even refusing (for religious reasons) to prescribe BC pills or discuss contraception or family planning, which I find to be amazing, considering how that could actually increase abortions.

You mentioned the "artistic achievements" and I agree. Worthy of note are the contributions of the great Catholic Mystics such as Hildegard of Bingen (whose music is a lovely as her writing), Teresa of Avila, etc. who were undeniably in Tune with Nature. There is also the vast compendium of religious art including many wonderful paintings and masterpieces such as The Pieta. The Madonna and Child, of course, were on the walls of Egypt for millenia before they appeared as human literalizations in the gospel stories. But that, lest we stray off topic here, is a subject for discussion at another time....

Best regards,

K