Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Next revision		Previous revision
utsfl:classroom:seminars:pbp411h [2019/03/22 19:37] – created + transferred content from PBP310H mmccannutsfl:classroom:seminars:pbp411h [2024/03/20 15:55] (current) – Updated link to Direction Matters white paper with Wayback Machine link balleyne
Line 2: Line 2:
  
 In Canada, every major pro-life organization supports incrementalism((http://www.theinterim.com/features/survey-of-pro-life-groups-on-gestational-limits-and-incrementalism/)). However, several organizations vociferously oppose gestational limits as an incremental measure. In Canada, every major pro-life organization supports incrementalism((http://www.theinterim.com/features/survey-of-pro-life-groups-on-gestational-limits-and-incrementalism/)). However, several organizations vociferously oppose gestational limits as an incremental measure.
 +
 +FIXME maybe an American example
 +{{youtube>M4eZhNJ6BQY}}
  
 Guidance comes from Catholic moral theology, namely, Evangelium Vitae 73.2: Guidance comes from Catholic moral theology, namely, Evangelium Vitae 73.2:
Line 30: Line 33:
     * The plural of anecdote is not data, and the empirical questions matter: would any given gestational limit actually save lives (or would there be an educational value to the law)? But the empirical objection is different from the principled objection. //Any// incremental measure should be subject to an empirical analysis     * The plural of anecdote is not data, and the empirical questions matter: would any given gestational limit actually save lives (or would there be an educational value to the law)? But the empirical objection is different from the principled objection. //Any// incremental measure should be subject to an empirical analysis
  
-What are the problems with this view in opposition to gestational limits? WNAL Direction Matters((https://weneedalaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2016/11/Postition-Paper-on-Gestational-Laws.pdf))+FIXME 
 +https://weneedalaw.ca/initiatives/international-standards-abortion-law/ 
 + 
 +What are the problems with this view in opposition to gestational limits? WNAL Direction Matters((https://web.archive.org/web/20210304155216/https://weneedalaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2016/11/Postition-Paper-on-Gestational-Laws.pdf))
 FIXME   FIXME  
   * What is not illegal is legal   * What is not illegal is legal
Line 42: Line 48:
     * Does defunding abortion discriminate against children based on the economic status of their parents, and save poor babies but condemn rich babies?     * Does defunding abortion discriminate against children based on the economic status of their parents, and save poor babies but condemn rich babies?
     * Would parental consent laws discriminate against children based on the beliefs of their grandparents, saving the babies of pro-life grandparents but condemning the babies of pro-choice grandparents?     * Would parental consent laws discriminate against children based on the beliefs of their grandparents, saving the babies of pro-life grandparents but condemning the babies of pro-choice grandparents?
 +    * FIXME could an anti-gestationalist justifiably argue //against// attempts to legalize infanticide, e.g. in the US? Do laws to protect born-alive abortion survivors discriminate against the pre-born?
 +      * Problem of anti-GL position: Canada already //has// a gestational limit i.e. birth, pro-GL side is simply trying to make the "protected" category bigger.
   * Is there an issue of scandal? Would supporting gestational limits send a message to the public that the pro-life movement is okay with abortion before the limit?   * Is there an issue of scandal? Would supporting gestational limits send a message to the public that the pro-life movement is okay with abortion before the limit?
     * Mark Penninga responds to Marie-Claire Bissonnette who raises this point: https://arpacanada.ca/news/2019/03/05/even-in-a-world-with-chemical-abortion-canada-still-needs-an-abortion-law/     * Mark Penninga responds to Marie-Claire Bissonnette who raises this point: https://arpacanada.ca/news/2019/03/05/even-in-a-world-with-chemical-abortion-canada-still-needs-an-abortion-law/
 +
 +
 +> Let’s assume for a moment that the author’s arguments are correct, and no support should be given for anything other than a full ban on abortion. Let’s follow this logic for a moment. If a bill that banned abortions after 10 weeks, 6 weeks, or even 2 weeks was introduced, they would have to oppose those as well.  And if our society were to become so disturbed by the gruesome reality of surgical abortion that it was prepared to ban the practice altogether, these same people wouldn’t be able to support that either because chemical abortions would still be legal. As Marie-Claire boldly asserts, any law banning only some abortions would strengthen “the legal status quo by bestowing upon it a perceived but false level of modesty and reasonableness.”
 +> 
 +> But in reality, such a law would drastically change the status quo, saving many lives, and so be well worth supporting!
 +> 
 +> With her logic, what kind of abortion law could she, and those who agree with her, support? Marie-Claire gives two examples of strategies she says we should all be able to support: defunding abortion and protecting conscience rights of health care providers. But, as worthy as these goals may be, they don’t actually address the practice of abortion itself. They aren’t abortion laws.