tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post2253632881916320258..comments2024-03-19T02:00:34.750-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Abortion and culpabilityEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger113125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53033598549736012192021-01-04T16:03:11.060-08:002021-01-04T16:03:11.060-08:00Plato and Aristotle, despite their great intellige...Plato and Aristotle, despite their great intelligence, supported infanticide (infant exposure). However, I don't think they were guilty. I think they were terribly (but sincerely) mistaken. So I think we should be more careful about ascribing guilt to pro-abortion people. If wise men like Aristotle could be mistaken without guilt about the morality of infanticide, how much more probable would it be for a nobody without philosophical training to make the same mistake? I think traditional Catholics often underestimate how much our reason has been damaged by original sin. Surely it is far from having been entierely corrupted as some Protestants tend to say, but it was damaged beyond what we often want to admit.zuihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14649940393389713281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47260772619384298312019-06-02T06:27:11.840-07:002019-06-02T06:27:11.840-07:00Abortion is a very controversial topic.Abortion is a very controversial topic.Olehhttp://oleh.pronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82576332498037196332019-05-06T11:45:19.626-07:002019-05-06T11:45:19.626-07:00just wondering.
do you think abortion should be pe...just wondering.<br />do you think abortion should be permitted in the case of rape and incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger?<br />antonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16199943254638476500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11547999312030099532019-03-21T09:49:33.237-07:002019-03-21T09:49:33.237-07:00Kyle Coffey here ^Kyle Coffey here ^Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-8548666577398364552019-03-21T09:49:05.645-07:002019-03-21T09:49:05.645-07:00Rene,
I'm a pro-life advocate, with the Canad...Rene,<br /><br />I'm a pro-life advocate, with the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, in Canada. Where you from? Let me know if you want to connect. kcoffey@endthekilling.ca <br /><br />But to your comment. Yes, it just goes to show that many pro-choicers work from their desired conclusion backwards. "I'm pro-choice because human life doesn't begin until a heartbeat" "Oh, the heartbeat starts before most elective abortions? Oh well life begins at viability" (Or birth or whatever)<br /><br />I hear this all the time.....<br /><br />That is why it is important to show the visual evidence of what abortion does to a human being along with giving clear logical reasons for abortions immorality. This twofold approach brings people out of the ivory tower and out of their abstractions and helps humanize the pre-born to them, so they can stop reasoning from their desired conclusion backwards.<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7671628166849149342019-03-20T14:19:23.512-07:002019-03-20T14:19:23.512-07:00I think any reasonable person would agree that the...I think any reasonable person would agree that the hunter can't shoot into the bush if he even slightly suspects a person to be lurking in the trees..... For not a slight reason, anyways. <br /><br />However, I've had people come back and say something to the effect: "Yes I don't know, with certitude, if we are killing a non-person in an early abortion, although I would say it still is unlikely, what I do know is that we are severely restricting the personal freedom of what we know is an actual person if we proscribe the early abortion."<br /><br />To adjust the hunter analogy to reflect this consideration. What if the hunter would undergo a heavy burden, such as likely fatal starvation or a high degree of suffering from malnutrition if he didn't take the chance and fire into the trees? What if he thought there was a much higher probability of that silhouette he sees being a deer, than a human, but he still doesn't have "moral certitude" as to "what" that thing is. May he fire then? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78531573003976222292019-03-02T12:05:53.159-08:002019-03-02T12:05:53.159-08:00What it comes down to is understanding the distinc...What it comes down to is understanding the distinctions in modes of "being" that are more than "non-being" simply, and yet less than full "being" simply also. A rock doesn't not have actual consciousness right here and now, and the same is true of a sleeping doctor, or his patient A in a long-standing coma, and his other B patient who has been put under for surgery, and his last patient C who is a 3-month fetus still in utero but on whom he intends to operate as soon as feasible (while still in utero). <br /><br />But all of these latter ones "have" consciousness in a way the rock does not. The doctor will be conscious as soon as he wakes: he will <i>return</i> to consciousness in full actuality with great ease and in a very short time, he is firmly prepared and <i>strongly disposed</i> to be conscious-in-act. Patient A, if he recovers consciousness (as some in his state do), he will be just as conscious-in-act as the doctor will be upon waking, but while he DID enjoy consciousness-in-act at one time, and he has the <i>some</i> of the pre-requisites to enjoy it now, there is some impediment to one or more other pre-requisites to being conscious-in-act, and so he is less perfectly disposed to enjoy it in act than the doctor. Patient B also enjoyed consciousness-in-act in the past, and also has something that is acting as an impediment to his having in full actuality now, but the impediment is a passing one and his disposition to being fully conscious in actuality is far more so than Patient A. Patient C has never yet enjoyed FULL consciousness-in-act, but is disposed to achieve that state if nothing comes along and blocks it: his internal organizing principles of activity are strongly disposed to bringing him to a state in which he will have full consciousness-in-act. <br /><br />Thus they all "have" consciousness in a fundamentally different way than the rock, they are all <i>disposed toward</i> having it in act <i>barring impediments</i>. The attribute of having an innate disposition toward it pertains to all of them <i>by nature</i>, and thus consciousness "belongs" to human beings regardless of whether they have it in act right now or not - i.e. they have it on account of being human as such, and not on account of an accidental attribute which may come and go. <br /><br />There are useful terms for the middle states, which include "habit". The doctor who is asleep retains consciousness as a habit (i.e. a habitual attribute) which entails a greater degree of readiness for it than, say, the fetus. The terms are not critical, what is critical is recognizing that there are modes of "actuality" that sit between complete non-being and complete actuality, that tell us that an attribute applies to a thing imperfectly but still really. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17418729425377076532019-02-27T14:48:54.684-08:002019-02-27T14:48:54.684-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Didymushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02339106708590191194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62455918668352958362019-02-27T09:42:27.562-08:002019-02-27T09:42:27.562-08:00Can't see what's the problem really. But t...Can't see what's the problem really. But them again, the free will debate was never a thing i studied much.<br /><br />Like, before* creating the world, God would only know:<br /><br />1. All the necessary/non-contigent truths(Natural Knowledge). <br /><br />*All the possible things that could happen in every possible situation(Middle Knowledge). <br /><br />Both aren't really choosed by God, they are just true. <br /><br />Them, using what He Knows, God creates the world. Now He also know:<br /><br />*What will happen in the created word(Free Knowledge).<br /><br />Is true that FK was decided in creation, but that's not really means that we are not free. <br /><br />You says that i'am fated to do X, but what makes me do X? My decision to do X. Can i force myself to choose? Can't see how.<br /><br />Yes, in a way, it is true that before i choose God knew that, where i in that situation, i would choose X, but it only was decided by me and by no one else. Where i to choose Y, them God would just know that i would choose Y.<br /><br />There's no one controling what i do, only me. All the propositions about what i choose are only true because of who i'am, not because of God will or because "Fate". I define what is truth about me, not the other way around.<br /><br />"To be free, future contigents must be false." But why? Does my decisions needs to be random to be free? Can't they be just my choices?<br /><br />Can't see a diference between compatibilism and libertarism really. In the two, what someone chooses is really based on is will only, not in anything else. <br /><br />*<br />There's not exactly a time before the universe, since time begun to exist with creation, but this is not really important right nowAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14330771557911697222019-02-26T21:49:44.343-08:002019-02-26T21:49:44.343-08:00@didymus
If abortion is murder then so is capital ...@didymus<br />If abortion is murder then so is capital punishment isn't it? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11141994484585013182019-02-26T18:19:03.272-08:002019-02-26T18:19:03.272-08:00Middle knowledge is prevolitional knowledge of how...Middle knowledge is prevolitional knowledge of how creatures would *libertarianly* choose given certain circumstances; knowledge of conditional future contingents/counterfactuals.. But since you espoused compatibilism, then counterfactuals of freedom would be grounded in God's decree -- it would be free knowledge, not middle knowledge.<br /><br />Middle knowledge, like foreknowledge, destroys libertarian freedom. If a proposition is true before you even do anything, then you can't do otherwise without falsifying the truth value of the proposition. So you're fated to act consistently with it. To be free, (conditional) future contingents must be false.* "Sam will do A" and "Sam will not do A" are both false, then the tenseless "Sam does A" goes from variably false to invariably true at the moment of choice.<br /><br />*Some open theists say neither true nor false. If one insists on classical logic, they could say they're all false.A Counter Rebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08504216290980600901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85665084730977594022019-02-26T14:53:23.924-08:002019-02-26T14:53:23.924-08:00I agree with the first part of the post, thats how...I agree with the first part of the post, thats how i see it. About Saint Thomas, Wikipedia mentions him on examples of compatibilists, but i don't know if he was/is one or not. Using what i know about him on will, i assume that he was/is.<br /><br />But i disagree on the second part. God, being omniscient and outside of time, really knows what will happen(though i say He knows using Aquinas doutrine of analogy, not like what "know" means when using to talk about us), but i can't really see how He is "the author of sin". When i choose to sin, i may only be choosing it because God actualized a world where i do it, but it don't change the fact that i choosed to sin, not God or no one else.<br /><br /> At best you can say that God put me in a situation where i choose to sin, but saying that he made me do it is like saying that a economist that predict a economic crisis is the cause of the crisis! It all depends on me, if i would choose not to sin them God would just know that i wold not sin. Is my decision who determines what God knows, not the contrary!<br /><br />I really never studied this discution much, but the best answer to it seems to be Molinism. Willian Lane Craig is a amazing defender of it, so i recomend to you what he has writed and defended about it. Pretty sure he can help more than me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65668771008051228462019-02-26T10:58:33.877-08:002019-02-26T10:58:33.877-08:00That's actually a good answer, but you'd h...That's actually a good answer, but you'd have to admit to compatibilism. Given that the intellect sees B as better, then the agent could not have done otherwise in a categorical sense. (Unless it chooses to see B as better, but that starts the regress). Scholars disagree about Thomas Aquinas was a libertarian or a compatibilist. I think he was both -- if the intellect has multiple finite goods presented to it, the will can act towards one or the other. If it has the infinite good presented to it (the saints in heaven), then it wills the good out of necessity.<br /><br />Soft determinism makes God the author of sin, and it makes it irrelevant what we do, since nothing can change whether I go to Hell or not, since God already foreknows and predetermined it.A Counter Rebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08504216290980600901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88452995948852358652019-02-26T09:12:24.788-08:002019-02-26T09:12:24.788-08:00Okay, i bite.
The agent choose B over A because h...Okay, i bite.<br /><br />The agent choose B over A because his intellect perceived B as better than A, causing him to realize than chosing B would be better to him, that a world where he choose B would be better that a world where he choose A,so he choose B.<br /><br />I do not understand Aquinas that well, but i believe that is about it. There's several posts about Intellectualism and Voluntarism on the blog, so you can read them and see if you can find answers to your doubts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23065724311818070632019-02-25T20:09:12.338-08:002019-02-25T20:09:12.338-08:00Since Red is too cowardly to answer a very simple ...Since Red is too cowardly to answer a very simple question, would anyone else volunteer?<br /><br />Why did the agent choose B over A?<br /><br />I suspect that you guys are afraid to answer because you don't have one that's distinguishable from randomness.A Counter Rebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08504216290980600901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65170207663308731132019-02-25T15:18:00.706-08:002019-02-25T15:18:00.706-08:00You guys embarrass yourselves by resorting to insu...<i>You guys embarrass yourselves by resorting to insults over and over and over, and not answering the simple question, "Why did the agent choose B over A?" Calm down. It's a simple question.</i><br /><br />Oh pleezz, At least you should stop repeating this most bizarre assertion. Baiting, aren't you? This is the most typical and obvious troll behavior. You're not even trying to disguise it at this point.<br /><br />No one has patience to address your claims on every single new thread you decide to take over when you're just going to come back later and repeat the same claims and assert that others are dodging your Argument. <br /><br />Do yourself a favor and stop it. You might have observed by now that no one has taken this bait. Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05569340378356607760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63894465356225368492019-02-25T10:19:43.452-08:002019-02-25T10:19:43.452-08:00Nobody freely chooses anything. Everything you cho...Nobody freely chooses anything. Everything you choose is based on what you desire, and you can't choose what you desire -- lest that choice be based on nothing (randomness) or on a prior desire, and so forth.<br /><br />I didn't freely choose to support abortion. I support abortion because I'm not ruled by a fictional deity, and I care about people.<br /><br />If you explain Lucifer's rebellion with "Pride," that pride is not a full explanation, since he could've obeyed in spite of being prideful. So granted that pride, why did he rebel _rather than_ obey? This is a question Catholics cannot answer.<br /><br />"Your hysterical, intellectual car-crashes of posts are hardly going to win anyone over."<br /><br />You guys embarrass yourselves by resorting to insults over and over and over, and not answering the simple question, "Why did the agent choose B over A?" Calm down. It's a simple question.A Counter Rebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08504216290980600901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45927508827591238462019-02-22T14:20:01.416-08:002019-02-22T14:20:01.416-08:00dover,
Several of the states you list are not do...dover, <br /><br />Several of the states you list are not dominated by democratic politicians. Alaska is, and as far as I'm aware, has always been, a Republican-dominated Red State. Colorado is a swing state. So is New Hampshire. Laws providing for unrestricted abortion in those states couldn't pass without broad swaths of support (or apathy, or inaction) from Conservative and Republican candidates and voters. <br /><br />For the record, the same Gallup poll that says that only 18% of Democrats support third trimester abortions says that almost HALF of Republicans... 46 percent... support abortion in the first trimester. Abortion is a complicated issue that doesn't break down to a liberals bad/ conservatives good.<br /><br />I will grant that Tony is correct - like most Conservative Republicans get pushed further to the right than their constituents on guns by the party establishment, so too do most Liberal Democrats get pushed further to the left than their constituents on abortion. But the preponderance of the evidence tells us that, contrary to Ed's argument above, most Democrats are in category c, not b.Screwtape Jenkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13874779097608201662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39998551498505290692019-02-22T14:03:51.812-08:002019-02-22T14:03:51.812-08:00I can't really disagree with any of that, Tony...I can't really disagree with any of that, Tony. I would maintain, though, that even with perfect information, I would guess that most Democrats would be much more hesitant to support abortion the further along the pregnancy goes. IOW, I would bet that no matter how you phrased the question, you'd still get the result that most Democrats fall roughly in category c, not b.Screwtape Jenkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13874779097608201662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24417779508992778662019-02-22T09:46:36.796-08:002019-02-22T09:46:36.796-08:00To add to what @ccmnxc pointed out, electrical act...To add to what @ccmnxc pointed out, electrical activity is present even in the brains of people undergoing seizures, but we cannot coherently say that they have properly functioning brains whilst they have seizures -- strictly speaking, they are unconscious during that time. So if consciousness is the deciding factor of foetal personhood, then epileptics cease to be persons during convulsions. But if we instead posit the capacity for consciousness as the criterion of personhood, then there is no principled distinction that can be made between an embryo and a comatose individual. But even if we posit the actual existence of the brain as the criterion, then the brain is formed by the seventh week of gestation. Any cut-off beyond that point is entirely arbitrary, since the brain continues to develop from that point -- the difference between a seven-week-old embryo's brain and a newborn's brain is one of degree. Sri Naharhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17331851104846456479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64048131839909624932019-02-22T06:53:43.681-08:002019-02-22T06:53:43.681-08:00Well, if you are unconscious, then you do not poss...Well, if you are unconscious, then you do not posses consciousness as an act. Thus, to affirm that someone still "possesses consciousness" in an unconscious state, he would need to say that it possesses consciousness because it is the type of thing that can be conscious if certain conditions obtain. This sinks his position, however, because an embryo or fetus is a biological human that develops and grows of its own accord (the mother sustains the process but she doesn't "assemble" the child in any meaningful sense). So, if certain conditions obtain, like uninterrupted growth, then so too this embryo or fetus exhibit consciousness and thus, by his standard would be conscious enough to merit life. <br />Brain waves might be a condition for embodied consciousness, but since they are not, by themselves, enough to make a person be conscious (as in the cases where people are unconscious and still have brain activity), brain waves cannot be the deciding factor. ccmnxcnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82991949519854994302019-02-22T06:18:07.311-08:002019-02-22T06:18:07.311-08:00I said that and he responded that just because you...I said that and he responded that just because you are unconscious doesn't mean you do not still possess consciousness, there are still brain waves. Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07986574890999225207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82900608925227691112019-02-21T22:40:45.620-08:002019-02-21T22:40:45.620-08:00Chad, it's a good thing when a Democrat doesn&...Chad, it's a good thing when a Democrat doesn't support 3rd trimester abortion - it's a good thing for every person who doesn't support that. <br /><br />The problem with the "hard data" in polls is of this sort is that it is entirely possible to get different results when you change the process. For example, if you early on asked the question (for each respondent) "when do you think the fetus becomes a human person", my guess is that you will get different results from asking "do you think it is OK to abort the fetus at X point" that is later than that respondent thinks the fetus becomes a person: by raising consciousness of personhood as pertinent to the issue, you can modify people's understanding of their own preferences. Same if you alter the questions not simply by reference to "trimesters" but also include "pre- or post-viability", because a lot of people consider that point pertinent, and it happens in the middle of the second trimester. (More or less - it keeps changing.) At the same time, some people who <i>would</i> care about the timing at which the fetus becomes sensitive to pain, don't know when that happens. So creating questions that <i>inform</i> them of that point will alter numbers. The possibilities are endless. <br /><br />The odd thing about voting and abortion views is that people who elect pro-abortion Dems tend to elect Dems who are <i>distinctly</i> more pro-abortion than the average Dem is. The <b>party</b> culture has made it that Dem politicians who would say "I would be willing to go along with some limits on abortion" are slaughtered by the party leadership and don't generally get to the legislatures. The culture of the party foments fear of <i>even a tiny bit</i> of "backsliding" on abortion-available-at-all-times. (Repubs foment other fears.) The average voter can't be hurt by saying "I can live with some restrictions on abortion" but the Dem politician can. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68509108080401280262019-02-21T21:11:48.914-08:002019-02-21T21:11:48.914-08:00Chad, have you provided any hard data that contrad...Chad, have you provided any hard data that contradicts the claim that the vast swath of Democratic reps don't support late-term abortion? Right now you have Democratic Senator Patty Murray blocking consideration of Sasse's Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act in the Senate which simply obliged doctors to provide medical care for infants that survived an abortion. <br /><br />Further, Tony didn't "retort by claiming it's been made law in exactly one state out of 50"; he said it had already been passed in NY and was under consideration in Virginia ( I added AZ and RI), but he didn't limit the practice to those states alone. It is already legal in Alaska, Colorado, D.C., New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon and Vermont for any reason, for the life and health of the mother in 16 states, life and physical health in 27 states, and life only in 3 states. See https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/gestational-limit-abortions/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Abortion%20Later%20in%20Pregnancy%20Permitted%20When%20Pregnancy%20Threatens%20Woman%27s:%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D.<br /><br />As for Cory Booker, he supports abortion post-viability as well for life and health of the mother reasons which given the broadness of 'health' means effectively for any reason. dover_beachnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66390572155942884122019-02-21T18:46:40.100-08:002019-02-21T18:46:40.100-08:00Merely having a brain is not sufficient for consci...Merely having a brain is not sufficient for consciousness, what is required is a functioning brain. And the brain can fail to function, which is why we have comatose individuals. If such an individual is unconscious at present but is slowly recover such that in a few months, he will become fully conscious, then such a person is not different from an embryo in any relevant manner. Both have the intrinsic ability to attain brain function. Sri Naharhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17331851104846456479noreply@blogger.com