A lot of Catholic moralizers seem to really struggle with the fact that teleological arguments aren't even vaguely compelling to people who don't already agree with the conclusion.
We already can't expoſe our own Children anymore, becauſe of Woke, and now you want us to be reſponſible for all Foundlings? Thoſe thrice-damnèd Millennials are ſo entitled…
The viability issue is kind of a non issue when no doctor will EVER agree to induce pregnancy at 21 or even at 30 weeks simply because you don't want to be pregnant anymore. And women do regularly beg them to, because the last trimester SUCKS. But it seems the universal practice of this country and probably most of the world that if you have made it to 20 weeks, you have no option but to go the distance unless your health is suffering very badly. If your body TRIES to go into labor at 24 weeks, the doctor will put you in a bed and shove you full of very unpleasant meds to make this stop happening.
The main reason for this, I assume, is that premature babies take a ton of expensive care and resources and after all that, may still not live, especially at the low end of the viability range. So although we don't have a law about it that I know of, it's not really less difficult to do than late term abortion, and probably more so.
As a lapsed Catholic, I want to make a correction regarding doctrine. Catholics think extramarital sex and contraception are sinful for the same reason they think both male and female masturbation are sinful but celibacy isn't: because sex is sacred and having unapproved kinds of orgasms is defiling it. If Catholics thought a woman's purpose was to get pregnant, there wouldn't be Catholic nuns. I know this is a minor point, but before I became an atheist I used to hate it when people treated Catholic women like oppressed victims, so I had to leave a comment.
Trent seems to believe in a third definition of how medicine works: the purpose of medicine is to advance and enforce his preferred social rules. It is a troublesomely common belief.
I guess there's also perhaps the case of e.g. right to die stuff as a siamese twin or something like that, but I do agree that in principle the pregnancy case is essentially unique.
I think the responsibility argument makes sense, but only if the person in question willingly had sex they knew was likely to result in a pregnancy. I'm still pro-choice, particularly early on, because I think of an embryo more as a potential person than a currently existent one (over time and especially past viability this changes), but in the world where some hypothetical person says "yes, I will have sex without adequate protection, and if I get pregnant I will just have an abortion, and I am willingly doing this because I feel like it," I still think they are a bad person.
I’m curious on what you think of his point on child support and whether fathers who took every precaution that still results in an unwanted pregnancy have a right to refuse to give child support.
Child support is a complete mess that needs reform from the bottom up. We must accept that society bears the primary responsibility for preventing child poverty. Once we have a functional welfare state, I think it will simplify a lot of the hard problems (male victims of rape, victims of reproductive coercion, couples where only one person wants to give the baby up for adoption, people who are too poor to pay their child support orders, and (yes) men who don't want kids).
A driver (or their insurance) are usually still liable if they hit a pedestrian, even if a court decides there's nothing they could have done to stop it - the thinking being if you drive something big and dangerous in the first place and hit someone weaker, they get compensation from you (which means your insurance). And then premiums go up if you live in an area where this happens a lot. At least that seems to be how it works in Europe.
One could argue, that anyone who believes a woman is "liable" for carrying a pregnancy to term whether she wanted or not, should logically also hold a man to supporting a child whether they wanted it or not. But funnily enough that's not always the case.
>As a practical matter, pregnancy is the only situation where one person’s life depends on the ordinary use of another person’s organs. No one has a horrific pacemaker accident and winds up fused at the chest with someone else with a heart beating for two. We don’t have to accommodate any strongly-held intuitions that in this situation you’re allowed to murder your sudden conjoined twin.
A lot of Catholic moralizers seem to really struggle with the fact that teleological arguments aren't even vaguely compelling to people who don't already agree with the conclusion.
We already can't expoſe our own Children anymore, becauſe of Woke, and now you want us to be reſponſible for all Foundlings? Thoſe thrice-damnèd Millennials are ſo entitled…
The viability issue is kind of a non issue when no doctor will EVER agree to induce pregnancy at 21 or even at 30 weeks simply because you don't want to be pregnant anymore. And women do regularly beg them to, because the last trimester SUCKS. But it seems the universal practice of this country and probably most of the world that if you have made it to 20 weeks, you have no option but to go the distance unless your health is suffering very badly. If your body TRIES to go into labor at 24 weeks, the doctor will put you in a bed and shove you full of very unpleasant meds to make this stop happening.
The main reason for this, I assume, is that premature babies take a ton of expensive care and resources and after all that, may still not live, especially at the low end of the viability range. So although we don't have a law about it that I know of, it's not really less difficult to do than late term abortion, and probably more so.
There's a proposed bill in South Australia to replace abortion past 28 weeks with induction. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-23/liberal-mp-pushes-changes-to-sa-abortion-laws/104384176 That said, it's not likely to pass.
As a lapsed Catholic, I want to make a correction regarding doctrine. Catholics think extramarital sex and contraception are sinful for the same reason they think both male and female masturbation are sinful but celibacy isn't: because sex is sacred and having unapproved kinds of orgasms is defiling it. If Catholics thought a woman's purpose was to get pregnant, there wouldn't be Catholic nuns. I know this is a minor point, but before I became an atheist I used to hate it when people treated Catholic women like oppressed victims, so I had to leave a comment.
Trent seems to believe in a third definition of how medicine works: the purpose of medicine is to advance and enforce his preferred social rules. It is a troublesomely common belief.
I guess there's also perhaps the case of e.g. right to die stuff as a siamese twin or something like that, but I do agree that in principle the pregnancy case is essentially unique.
I think the responsibility argument makes sense, but only if the person in question willingly had sex they knew was likely to result in a pregnancy. I'm still pro-choice, particularly early on, because I think of an embryo more as a potential person than a currently existent one (over time and especially past viability this changes), but in the world where some hypothetical person says "yes, I will have sex without adequate protection, and if I get pregnant I will just have an abortion, and I am willingly doing this because I feel like it," I still think they are a bad person.
Great post.
I’m curious on what you think of his point on child support and whether fathers who took every precaution that still results in an unwanted pregnancy have a right to refuse to give child support.
Child support is a complete mess that needs reform from the bottom up. We must accept that society bears the primary responsibility for preventing child poverty. Once we have a functional welfare state, I think it will simplify a lot of the hard problems (male victims of rape, victims of reproductive coercion, couples where only one person wants to give the baby up for adoption, people who are too poor to pay their child support orders, and (yes) men who don't want kids).
A driver (or their insurance) are usually still liable if they hit a pedestrian, even if a court decides there's nothing they could have done to stop it - the thinking being if you drive something big and dangerous in the first place and hit someone weaker, they get compensation from you (which means your insurance). And then premiums go up if you live in an area where this happens a lot. At least that seems to be how it works in Europe.
One could argue, that anyone who believes a woman is "liable" for carrying a pregnancy to term whether she wanted or not, should logically also hold a man to supporting a child whether they wanted it or not. But funnily enough that's not always the case.
>As a practical matter, pregnancy is the only situation where one person’s life depends on the ordinary use of another person’s organs. No one has a horrific pacemaker accident and winds up fused at the chest with someone else with a heart beating for two. We don’t have to accommodate any strongly-held intuitions that in this situation you’re allowed to murder your sudden conjoined twin.
What about regular conjoined twins?