The Ethics of Abortion w/ Dr. Christopher Kaczor
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ต.ค. 2024
- Dr. Christopher Kaczor, author of The Ethics of Abortion, joins Pat to address arguments for abortion and defend pro-life philosophy.
RESOURCES:
Phil for People website: www.philosophyf...
Phil for People on TH-cam: / philosophyforthepeople
Pat's Substack: chroniclesofst...
Jim's Substack: substack.com/j...
Pat's "pay what you want" courses: pftp.gumroad.com/
Jim's "pay what you want courses: jmadden.gumroa...
Philosophy for the People on Spotify: open.spotify.c...
Philosophy for the People on iTunes: podcasts.apple...
Disagreed on a metaphysical and philosophical level (save for Moral Realism) with almost everything stated, but I just wanted to register my appreciation for the charity that both Pat and Dr. Kaczor offered on this issue. Given that we've discussed the issue of Abortion with Dr. Kaczor before, we can speak to his credibility and insightfulness as a Pro-Life advocate and that was very much on display here. We hope both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice advocates can learn from the dispassionate analysis of the arguments as well.
I appreciate Dr. Kaczor's charity on this topic. But I must say, while there are still plenty of pro-choicers who in their minds are simply trying to help women, I've found so many cases of people who freely admit to not caring about truth or morality and simply want to preserve their freedom at any cost.
And then there is the other much larger group:
Those who recognize that there is something wrong with abortion but remain passive observers, raising no hand to stop the killing. Yikes.
Thanks for the great content Pat! Im a Catholic in college, majoring in Philosophy, starting med school next year. Any good bioethics books from a Catholic perspective you recommend?
Good to have you here, Javier. Check out the work of Stephen Napier at Villanova.
@@PhilosophyforthePeople awesome! Thanks for the response Pat. I’ll check his stuff out!
@@javiermariscal5712 Nice plan! Fellow Catholic college student, majoring in Chem (but always pursuing Philosophy when I can), starting med school in two years. What's been your favorite Philosophy class you've taken?
Hey Pat, is it ever okay to support a bill that funds abortion? It seems to me that it's not, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on it. I don't expect you to answer in full, I know you're very busy with Briga :). This is mostly just so I can spell out the argument myself.
If a bill gives money to pregnant women so that they can choose either to procure an abortion or receive healthcare for themselves and their child, is that bill worth supporting?
I would say no, mostly because the duty to oppose abortion (which is murder) outweighs the duty to generously provide people with healthcare, if such a duty exists. The argument that was posed to me was that, given the basic goodness of human beings [which is a premise I don't grant, but don't necessarily reject], if women are given the option either to (complete the pregnancy and receive the necessary healthcare) or to (have an abortion), they will likely choose the former.
Is the premise true? Does the premise have other implications that would interrupt the conclusion? Does the conclusion proceed from the premise?
Consequentially, if the bill is implemented, would more people survive? And even if they do, for those who die, their deaths aren't due to some immorality, whereas abortion is an immorality. It is not immoral not to provide people with free healthcare.
That’s really sexist. Lots of women oppose legal abortion for convenience for the same reasons these two do. Their sex has nothing to do with the validity of their arguments
Regarding ABORTION, it is pertinent to make mention of a particularly controversial issue, and that is, whether or not an unborn human (whether zygote, embryo, or foetus) is fully human. The undeniable and blatantly obvious fact is, that a child conceived by two parents of the Homo sapiens species (or even cloned from a single parent) is without doubt a unique human being from the very moment of conception. Those in favour of illegal abortion (i.e. killing of an unborn child for unlawful, illicit reasons) are quite adamant that it is perfectly fine to end the life of an unborn child (sometimes even a birthed child, believe it or not!) due to it being underdeveloped, insentient, and/or unconscious.
Any person with adequate intelligence knows that even after an infant child has been birthed, it is STILL not fully developed, since it has yet to pass through the preliminary stages of life such as childhood and adolescence. So then, why stop killing at the foetal stage? Why not destroy the life of a twelve year old boy, since he has not yet fully developed unto adulthood? The fact remains that a human is fully human, regardless of the stage of life in which it is situated. It is not partially human and partially giraffe - it is FULLY human. The aforementioned preliminary stages (zygote, embryo, and foetus) are just that - merely stages of the human life-cycle, and although the life of an embryo may not be quite as morally valuable as that of a five year-old child, that is insufficient justification in itself for destroying its life.
Therefore, it is debatable whether or not a human embryo is, by the strictest definitions of the terms, a conscious, sentient person, but it is INDISPUTABLE that it is a human being, worthy of protection, and must not be unlawfully terminated in a just society. It is indeed fortuitous that the mothers of outstanding historic personalities such as Lords Krishna, Buddha, and Jesus decided to not murder their precious offspring! See Chapter 12 of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity” (“F.I.S.H”) to learn the distinction between legitimate abortion and illegal abortion, and to understand metaethics/morality in general. In summary, abortion is legitimate only in the case of rape or if the mother’s life is at risk.
Personally, I don’t think that I could ever condone the abortion of a child, by a woman in my family, even if it was morally-permissible, because I could NEVER perform the act of inserting my arm into the uterus of my mother, one of my wives or daughters, and manually extracting the embryo or foetus. And if I could not bring myself to perform such a despicable deed myself, I ought not pay a (so-called) doctor to execute the baby on my behalf. Sometimes, I feel faintly guilty destroying the life of an insect, such as a mosquito or an ant, even when it is attacking me or my food supply, what to speak of terminating the life of a fellow human being, the most highly-evolved species of life in the known universe! It would be far preferable for me to encourage my daughter, wife or mother to give birth to the child and then relinquish it to an adoptive family.
P.S. It is rather important to refer to the Glossary definitions of some of the terms used in the above paragraphs, particularly the words “law”, “moral”, “sentience”, and “person”.
Exactly. If it's okay to kill a fetus because it's a partially developed human, it's also okay to kill a 12 year old and for the same reason. Or to say it another way: it's never okay to kill anyone, man, child, or fetus, based on level of development.
We often hear these SLED arguments (Size, Level of Development, Environment, Degree of Dependency) from people in the pro-choice movement who haven't considered the implications of their position. They are easily debunked by simply applying the same logic to all people and then looking with horror at the results.
"Undeniable and blatantly obvious"? If you're going to try to make an argument, you can't just assume. Why is it undeniable and blatantly obvious? Why is it "undisputable" that it is a human being?
Regardless, your analogy fails. Pro-abortion advocates aren't saying you can just kill a twelve year old boy because he has not yet fully developed into adulthood. They are saying that they should be able to terminate a pregnancy because a mother has a right to control her body. That's the argument you need to attack.
@@miguelpanicolia5044
It is considered to be poor etiquette for a person who is lower than even a slave to presume to instruct her MASTER, or to provide unsolicited advice to her superiors.
Is that fully understood, SLAVE?
“Fully human”. You either are human or you aren’t. There are no degrees of humanhood
You could have shaved 1:17:06 off your podcast by providing a comprehensive review of all substantive arguments against the Pro-Life position.
😜
There are several substantive arguments against the pro-life position adopted by many Christians that even the Catholic Church agrees with.
Well why don’t you give us one? I’d be happy to refute it
There being no substantive arguments against the pro-life position, it would be difficult to find one of said arguments to give you.
@@levikeene5698 how about “women have the right to control their bodies. If they don’t want a fetus in their womb they should be able to abort it.” I don’t know what your definition of substantive is but that argument has enough substance that it needs to be refuted, in my opinion.
The ethics of infanticide
I always enjoy your content but I always cringe when I see a debate about abortion, involving only men and no woman.
I always cringe when I see people who think that if men debate about the ethics of abortion they are less likely to discover the truth than women.
Why is that? Is there a different sets of objective truth that can only be discovered and communicated by women?
@Jenjak You might think that a big question about abortion has to do with the status of a fetus. But men and women alike were all once fetuses, so it seems like a universal issue for both men and women to discuss.
I can appreciate your sentiment but I think ethical issues can & should be discussed by anyone regardless of their sex without any cringe. Analogies that I’ve found helpful in addressing this concern about men discussing abortion include: people unaffected by slavery or sex trafficking can still be against these atrocities, & no one takes issue with it. Likewise, and I think this is the most apt analogy, I think no one would take issue with women being against adult male to young boy abuse of any sort, physical or sexual. Even though in that case it’s more of a “male” issue than even abortion is a women’s issue.
All that said, to my knowledge the pro life movement is majority female & if you’re looking for female pro lifers Stephanie grey connors is fantastic. Her sit down with pints with Aquinas is a great pro life crash course in and of itself.
One of prospectives many pro lifers take that I find interesting in a pro woman vein, is that society selling women on abortion as a woman’s right issue is at root anti woman. It treats their natural capacity for pregnancy as an ailment rather than a ‘superpower.’ That the focus should be on making society more accepting, accommodating, welcoming, & supportive of pregnant women & families with small children. Instead, Helping make it easier for women to terminate their unborn children is quite literally the least (& worst) society can do.
@@elperinasoswa6772 You didn't get the memo that truth doesn't exist outside of The Science dictated to us by models? Keep up with the times man. The map is the terrority.