Vaccines and Abortion - Inconsistent Logic

[KCfromNC]

This is all semantics. People’s beliefs around abortion aren’t based on labels or descriptors, and changing or correcting those descriptors isn’t going to change anyone’s mind.

Yep. If you want to run out of fingers (and toes), count how many times the subject jumped from human to a human to human being to person and back again.

 

[Tree of Life]

Want to explain how?



I don't believe I've made claims one way or the other.


"If" and "might" and relying on me to prove your case for you donesn't really inspire confidence in your claim.

If you're not going to take a position I'm not sure how we can continue this conversation.

 

[Tree of Life]

I can agree that terminating a pregnancy for less than medical reasons (or if said pregnancy resulted from some manner of sexual assault) may be morally suspect. But must everything that is morally questionable have to be be illegal?

No, not everything that's morally suspect should be illegal. And I'm not really interested in debating the legality of abortion here. I'm concerned with the moral permissibility of abortion and specifically the inconsistent moral values that people hold when they allow for abortion but also want to legally mandate vaccination.

 

[Freodin]

No, not everything that's morally suspect should be illegal. And I'm not really interested in debating the legality of abortion here. I'm concerned with the moral permissibility of abortion and specifically the inconsistent moral values that people hold when they allow for abortion but also want to legally mandate vaccination.

I'd say you are painting that too much in black and white.
Something can be "morally permissible" and still also be "morally problematic". And it can be "morally impermissible", but still be "morally necessary".

That's basically the line of reasoning that led me the the position on abortion that I currently have.
I think abortion is wrong and should not happen. But I understand abortion is in individual cases necessary and thus needs to be permitted. And because of the circumstances involved, the only person who can make the ultimate decision on an abortion is the pregnant woman. This decision should be based on the best available, factual informations... but still, ultimately, it is hers and only hers to make.

So the best way to deal with this situation of colliding moral goals is to reduce the cirumstances in which women would decide that an abortion is necessary.

As yet, we do not have the means to do that in the case of an already existing pregnancy. There would have to be a lot more research into that field.
We do have a lot of very good working means to prevent pregnancies.

But in both cases, it is mostly the "pro life, abortion is murder, execute the murderers!" people who object to both the working means to prevent pregnancies as well as oppose research into this topic.

You will never be able to stop abortion. But if you want to prevent it as much as possible, there are much better ways than to rant about its morality.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I can agree that terminating a pregnancy for less than medical reasons (or if said pregnancy resulted from some manner of sexual assault) may be morally suspect. But must everything that is morally questionable have to be be illegal?

Of course not. What is "morally questionable" is an opinion, not a fact. Before discussing acceptable laws, we have to look at the psychological consequences of a high school girl being impregnated via rape.

 

[Tree of Life]

I'd say you are painting that too much in black and white.
Something can be "morally permissible" and still also be "morally problematic". And it can be "morally impermissible", but still be "morally necessary".

That's basically the line of reasoning that led me the the position on abortion that I currently have.
I think abortion is wrong and should not happen. But I understand abortion is in individual cases necessary and thus needs to be permitted. And because of the circumstances involved, the only person who can make the ultimate decision on an abortion is the pregnant woman. This decision should be based on the best available, factual informations... but still, ultimately, it is hers and only hers to make.

So the best way to deal with this situation of colliding moral goals is to reduce the cirumstances in which women would decide that an abortion is necessary.

As yet, we do not have the means to do that in the case of an already existing pregnancy. There would have to be a lot more research into that field.
We do have a lot of very good working means to prevent pregnancies.

But in both cases, it is mostly the "pro life, abortion is murder, execute the murderers!" people who object to both the working means to prevent pregnancies as well as oppose research into this topic.

You will never be able to stop abortion. But if you want to prevent it as much as possible, there are much better ways than to rant about its morality.

I do think that there are cases where abortion can be morally permissible. In the instance where a fetus threatens the life of the mother, for example.

 

[Belk]

Non-Christian thought is full of logical inconsistencies. Here's just another example. Non-Christian thought usually champions these two values:

1. Absolute personal autonomy
2. Scientism

Neither of these is "usually" championed by Non-Christian philosophies. Number 1 is contradicted by anyone who does not tout anarchy as a political system and number 2 is highly limited even among strict materialists.

But these values come into conflict in two of the most controversial medical ethical issues of our time: vaccines and abortion.

Those who support "reproductive rights" will wave the flag of absolute personal autonomy. "My body, my choice." "Keep your laws off my ovaries." Etc. The most persuasive argument for the moral permissibility of abortion is widely regarded to be Judith Jarvis Thomson's argument. In her argument, the personhood of the fetus is absolutely irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the mother has a moral obligation to donate her body to the fetus for nine months. She argues that the mother has no such obligation, so abortion is morally permissible.

Arguing that the fetus is not a morally significant agent with rights has been shown to be a philosophical dead end.

This has been shown by whom?

And so this line has been abandoned in favor of Thomson's line of argumentation. Note the reliance on the value of absolute personal autonomy.

But the same people will not apply this logic to issues surrounding something like vaccination. Recently New York City has ordered mandatory vaccinations for some. Here the flag of scientism is waved.

You appear to be conflating "scientism" with "science". They are not the same thing.

"Vaccines are effective." "The science is with vaccines." "Non-vaxers are conspiracy theorists." Etc. If a non-vaxer were to wave the absolute personal autonomy flag here it would not be allowed to fly. "My body, my choice" would not be acceptable to the people who push vaccines. But these are usually the same people who wave this flag in favor of abortion rights.

You might say: But in the case of vaccines, it's not just your body that is at stake. By not getting vaccinated you are also endangering others.

Okay. I would argue that the same is true - in fact more true - in cases of abortion. It's not just the woman's body at stake, but also the fetus whose life she is ending when she gets an abortion.

The fetus is not a separate agent. It is reliant upon the body of the women in order to survive. You are attempting compare dissimilar cases and ignoring the relevant issue to try to make a case.

So you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either embrace absolute personal autonomy or scientism, but you cannot have both because of the contradictions that ensue.

You will first need to address some egregious lapses in your logic before you can make this case.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I do think that there are cases where abortion can be morally permissible. In the instance where a fetus threatens the life of the mother, for example.

That one is obvious. What often gets overlooked is the opposite problem: a mother killing her fetus through nio fault of her own.

 

[jayem]

No, not everything that's morally suspect should be illegal. And I'm not really interested in debating the legality of abortion here. I'm concerned with the moral permissibility of abortion and specifically the inconsistent moral values that people hold when they allow for abortion but also want to legally mandate vaccination.

I’m not aware of any serious proposals that adults must submit to vaccinations. (With some obvious exceptions, like military personnel, or health care workers.) But I can envision the reverse of your proposition also being true. I’m sure there are some who believe elective abortion should be prohibited, but also believe vaccination is harmful and no one has a right to dictate what medical care they give their children. I remember a case some years ago of a child with type 1 diabetes, who died from ketoacidosis. Because her deeply religious mother didn’t trust conventional medicine and was treating her with prayer instead of insulin.

If you’re a religious believer, I’m sure you know that it’s not a perfect world. Life is full of moral and logical inconsistencies. We all know that, and we live with it.

Edited to add: I’ll pose another scenario that’s not too farfetched. A child is camping in the woods with his parents. He’s badly bitten—without provocation—by a raccoon. Who escapes. Should his parents be allowed to refuse anti-rabies vaccine?

 

[ThievingMagpie]

They always have been "out."

Really? Is that an American thing? I've never heard of that opinion in the UK, from religious people or otherwise

 

[GodLovesCats]

Really? Is that an American thing? I've never heard of that opinion in the UK, from religious people or otherwise

Different countries, different laws. You also live under a totally different government. Even the cultures in our countires are different. Chances are American and British people have different attitudes about things like abortion laws.

 

[ThievingMagpie]

Different countries, different laws. You also live under a totally different government. Even the cultures in our countires are different. Chances are American and British people have different attitudes about things like abortion laws.

I'm talking about views on the morning after pill, not abortion laws

 

[Dave-W]

I'm talking about views on the morning after pill, not abortion laws

"Morning after" = abortion here.

 

[Tinker Grey]

"Morning after" = abortion here.

Not here

 

[GodLovesCats]

"Morning after" = abortion here.

LOL Not exactly. Forty percent of the time, Plan B works before a zygote settles on a side of the uterus.

 

[Dave-W]

LOL Not exactly. Forty percent of the time, Plan B works before a zygote settles on a side of the uterus.

Well, if you believe that human life and personhood begins at fertilization, not allowing implantation is an abortion.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I don't belive a zygote is a person. It is just one cell.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Arguing that the fetus is not a morally significant agent with rights has been shown to be a philosophical dead end.

No it hasn’t. Personhood is the argument that I hear more than not.

And so this line has been abandoned in favor of Thomson's line of argumentation.

No it hasn’t.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Look what I found! Check out this article by Vineyard Columbus senior pastor Rich Nathan on his blog. I emphasized the parts of the body text we are discussing.

Rich Nathan - Article

4. Abortion is premised on the idea that all human beings are not persons.

Virtually every bioethicist in the world agrees that human life begins at conception. However, in the last 50 years, there are many bioethicists as well as judges, philosophers and ordinary people who have created a new category – he human non-person. So Princeton ethicist Peter Singer wrote, “The life of a human organism begins at conception, but the life of a person… a being with some level of self-awareness – does not begin so early”. In Roe v. Wade, Justice Blackmun the author of the decision wrote, “the word “person” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the unborn.” He acknowledged that if the fetus were recognized as a “person” then abortion would necessarily be illegal saying, “If the suggestion of personhood is established… the fetus’s right to life would then be guaranteed.” But according to Blackmun, a fetus is not a person.

The importance of the distinction between being “merely” human and being a person is that only persons, according to the United States Supreme Court, are entitled to the right to life. Humans can be disposed of.

So, if a human being is not equated with being a person, what is a person? Bioethicists and courts come up with widely different answers. Nancy Pearcey, in her wonderful book titled Love Thy Body, says this:

“Some propose that personhood emerges when the developing organism begins to exhibit neural activity, feels pain, achieves a certain level of cognitive function or consciousness or intelligence or even has a sense of the future. Fletcher proposes 15 qualities to define one’s human life as worthy of respect and protection (such as intelligence, self-awareness, self-control, a sense of time, concern for others, communication, curiosity and neocortical function). Score too low on any measure and for Fletcher you do not qualify as a person. You are a mere biological life.”

The danger of separating human life from personhood is that instead of grounding the protection of human beings in a transcendent ethic such as God’s inalienable gift of the right to life, governments or doctors or bioethicists or a pregnant woman gets to decide when another human being’s personhood begins and when it ends.

John Wyatt wrote about the difference between the perspectives of those who would distinguish between human beings and persons and the Christian worldview. He wrote:

“In Christian thinking, whatever happens to you in the future, whatever disease or accident may befall your central nervous system, even if you were struck down by dementia or enter a persistent vegetative state, you will still be you: a unique and wonderful person known and loved by God.”

In other words, you do not have to prove your worth to someone else to protect your right to life.

 

[quatona]

Non-Christian thought is full of logical inconsistencies. Here's just another example. Non-Christian thought usually champions these two values:

1. Absolute personal autonomy
2. Scientism

Try to start again - without the strawmen.