If you're pro-life, how far do you take that?

[Catholic_Lady]

I'm with RR. I would save the child based purely on emotion. Just as I would save the child over 1000 old people or even 1000 adults, and just as I would save a loved one over 1000 strangers.

[robvalue]

Would you do the same thing if you had as long as you wanted to decide which to save?

[RoadRunner79]

I'm with RR. I would save the child based purely on emotion. Just as I would save the child over 1000 old people or even 1000 adults, and just as I would save a loved one over 1000 strangers.

I think that there is a lot of scenarios one could come up with, where  one may save a single person over many.   I don't  think that it is useful, if one is trying to use it as a reason to dehumanize the ones that are not saved; or to justify being allowed to kill them.  

A similar question might be, if the choice was between another person and a pregnant lady who would you save and why?

[robvalue]

I think the questions are trying to show an inconsistency in the logic being used to make pro-life arguments. You're being asked to allow 1 human to die or 999, and you pick 999. It's not even your own child.

I'm saying it shows pro-life people don't really consider them equivalent, in fact, not even close.

EDIT: Erm... so much for university. Obviously I meant 1,000.

[Aroura]

I'm with RR. I would save the child based purely on emotion. Just as I would save the child over 1000 old people or even 1000 adults, and just as I would save a loved one over 1000 strangers.

I think that there is a lot of scenarios one could come up with, where  one may save a single person over many.   I don't  think that it is useful, if one is trying to use it as a reason to dehumanize the ones that are not saved; or to justify being allowed to kill them.  

A similar question might be, if the choice was between another person and a pregnant lady who would you save and why?

That's a fair one. If it's between a child and a pregnant adult, since many naturally seem to value children over adults. Which would you choose? What if it's one 90 year old lady or 1000 fetuses?

Would you really choose one child over 1000 adults? That seems crazy to me. Why are 1000 adults with less than one child?

The point isn't too dehumanize them, the point is that those who claim fetuses are people with rights the same as born people, don't in reality really see them as such. They are attempting to argue a point they themselves don't even truly believe.

---

I think the questions are trying to show an inconsistency in the logic being used to make pro-life arguments. You're being asked to allow 1 human to die or 999, and you pick 999. It's not even your own child.

I'm saying it shows pro-life people don't really consider them equivalent, in fact, not even close.

Exactly

---

And actually, I'd like to know absolutely any scenario where any one would pick the 999 fetuses.

If your argument is that there are some occasions where one stranges life is worth more than 1000, I agree. Though I'd argue it's more rare than you 2 are acting like.

So we can agree that all other things being equal, 1000 lives are with more than one?

So under what circumstance would either of you save the fetuses over a born person? Make the born person anything you like. I'm really curious if there are any.

[RoadRunner79]

I think the questions are trying to show an inconsistency in the logic being used to make pro-life arguments. You're being asked to allow 1 human to die or 999, and you pick 999.

I don't think that it is an inconsistency in logic. And it's a slippery slope to say that not saving the majority means that they are less human, and able to be discarded at your convenience. I would think that it would be difficult to not save your own child, even if it means that more would die by doing so. Similarly you might have trouble if the choice is between watching a child die, vs a number of people that you do not (and will not) see (I think there have been studies similar to this which show that this choice is common).

[Catholic_Lady]

The message given in Africa was never "have sex without a condom." It was "abstain from having sex." If this was actually practiced, it would have done more good than anything else in the prevention of pregnancy and the spread of aids.

That is true.... "if".
But, knowing human nature, that condition is impossible to uphold.
The Church, as the institution allegedly "advised" by God himself, should be fully aware that such a message would result in the opposite of its intention.
Actually, there are two messages:
- Abstain from sex, except with your spouse.
- When having sex, it must be with the purpose of conception, so no contraception is permitted.

While some (dare I say most?) people would have no problem following both messages, there are enough people in Africa for those that won't follow one or the other or both to cause chaos. And chaos was caused.
And repeated in South America.

If there was an actual supernatural entity determined to keep human suffering to a minimum, would that entity not have passed on a different message, at a time when AIDS and a few other very nasty diseases were spreading?
Instead, we have an institution that claims to speak for a god that in unchanging. Because of that, the message must be unchanging. What would have been valid in the middle-ages, must remain valid in the 80's and 90's and today and forever.
But the message comes not from a god, but from a human mind, a philosopher... and that potentially erroneous message is being touted as god's... and causing all the harmful diseases to spread further than they should ever have.
Some clerics have been known to go as far as pronounce condoms as unable to protect from viruses, nor to prevent the propagation of sperm, in an attempt to get people not to use them. And this should be a criminal act, but is completely allowed in a culture where the cleric holds the power.
Which tells us that the whole thing is solely about power. That old human weakness... so very human...

Just an FYI, the second thing you said (bolded) is not true. You can certainly have sex with your spouse without the purpose/intent of conception lol. I did it for years (though bitterly regretting it now, it wasn't immoral). That is why NFP is widely taught and advocated in Catholic circles. So that married couples can learn their infertile weeks of the month and enjoy intimacy during that time when they are trying to avoid pregnancy.

I understand that unfortunately many people will keep sleeping around despite having aids, or knowing that aids is widespread in their area. But that doesn't change the fact that abstinence in these circumstances would still give the best outcomes and is also the more moral thing to do. The Church has a duty to advocate morality, and it just wouldn't be within the realm of our understanding of morality to tell these people to "keep having sex, just wear a condom!", when we know it doesn't 100% protect against aids and other things.
Of course, people have the a right to their own free will and will either follow the advice or not.

It is unfortunate that most won't follow that and in turn the aids prevalence will continue to increase. But we can't advocate for a "solution" that we don't believe is moral. We have to advocate for the one we think is moral.

With that being said, if anyone says that sex with a condom doesn't help protect at all in comparison to sex without, that's a lie and I certainly don't stand behind the clergy people who said that.

---

Would you do the same thing if you had as long as you wanted to decide which to save?

Probably

[RoadRunner79]

I think that there is a lot of scenarios one could come up with, where  one may save a single person over many.   I don't  think that it is useful, if one is trying to use it as a reason to dehumanize the ones that are not saved; or to justify being allowed to kill them.  

A similar question might be, if the choice was between another person and a pregnant lady who would you save and why?

That's a fair one. If it's between a child and a pregnant adult, since many naturally seem to value children over adults. Which would you choose? What if it's one 90 year old lady or 1000 fetuses?

Would you really choose one child over 1000 adults? That seems crazy to me. Why are 1000 adults with less than one child?

The point isn't too dehumanize them, the point is that those who claim fetuses are people with rights the same as born people, don't in reality really see them as such. They are attempting to argue a point they themselves don't even truly believe.

Similar to the trolley dilemma there is the issue between saving, and actively killing.  Or the similar argument, if one should be forced to give up a kidney to save another.

I would be uncomfortable in assigning worth as a human being, to any that you chose not to save.  If you choose a child over an older person (to save), I don't think that the older person is less human, or able to be discarded.  Similarly I might choose someone to save, who makes great contributions to society, over one who is little more than a leech on others resources;  but, it wouldn't follow that I would condone the euthanasia of the person who is a drain on his community.

I don't think that everyone is equal (in many ways).  Yet they are equal as human beings. And  I'm leery of assigning value as human beings, the way you seem to be seeking here.  In all these scenarios, there is a choice.  And one where many people are going to pick one side based on a number of different reasons (logical or personal).  I think that it's kind of scary when you start making this into a math problem, and start talking about value.  I also don't think that ethics is just based on logic, science, or doing the math either.  And sometimes I think that's the point of mental exercises such as the trolley problem.  It's not in getting the correct answer, as much as if we don't struggle with the dilemma.

[robvalue]

I'd be interested to know if CL would go along with RR restraining women known to be seeking abortions. Consider that the restraining to bring to term causes:

1) Loss of free will for months
2) Potential psychological damage
3) Increased risk of death

All this for something which has shown to be considered less than 0.1% as important as the life of the mother when it comes to the crunch; and the best case scenario is another baby put into the already overflowing foster system.

Also, for RR, what penalty would you give a woman who aborts her own pregnancy?

[pocaracas]

Just an FYI, the second thing you said (bolded) is not true. You can certainly have sex with your spouse without the purpose/intent of conception lol. I did it for years (though bitterly regretting it now, it wasn't immoral). That is why NFP is widely taught and advocated in Catholic circles. So that married couples can learn their infertile weeks of the month and enjoy intimacy during that time when they are trying to avoid pregnancy.

The actual philosophy behind it implies that the purpose of sex is for procreation alone, with pleasure being a means of encouraging that procreation. It is from this philosophy that church morality comes.
It is true that the Church will turn a blind eye (and even encourage) such family planning methods, for it is well known that humans mostly have sex for the pleasure it provides, not thinking so much about the procreation part.

I understand that unfortunately many people will keep sleeping around despite having aids, or knowing that aids is widespread in their area. But that doesn't change the fact that abstinence in these circumstances would still give the best outcomes and is also the more moral thing to do. The Church has a duty to advocate morality, and it just wouldn't be within the realm of our understanding of morality to tell these people to "keep having sex, just wear a condom!", when we know it doesn't 100% protect against aids and other things.
Of course, people have the a right to their own free will and will either follow the advice or not.

Yes, abstinence would indeed lead to the best outcome.
But here is where they fail to account for human nature.
How much worse would it be for the church to stick to their morality, while acknowledging that, under different circumstances, it would be best for people to use protection both against diseases and unwanted pregnancies?
One can always tell the people "Look, guys, this is the ideal case. Do it. But, if you can't stick with that ideal case, do take precautions."

It is unfortunate that most won't follow that and in turn the aids prevalence will continue to increase. But we can't advocate for a "solution" that we don't believe is moral. We have to advocate for the one we think is moral.

Certainly.
I just think it's less moral to advocate a "solution" that leads to more suffering, more disease, more death.
Human morality need not be church morality.
One would think that a god could tell the difference and influence those in the positions of power to always stick with the "solution" that actually leads to less suffering, less disease, less death. Clearly, that hasn't happened.

With that being said, if anyone says that sex with a condom doesn't help protect at all in comparison to sex without, that's a lie and I certainly don't stand behind the clergy people who said that.

Enjoy:
https://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=488
The guy has since died... but the damage is done in the populations where this myth was spread.