Abortion, rights and dogma

Shabbat Shalom, or may the peace of the Sabbath be with you. This ironic because, one, I am only Jewish from my father's side (which is the wrong side) and because I am either violating a group practice, or not really a part of the group - because I am Catholic. Some would disagree, largely because of my views on abortion and epistemology, but that is on them, not me, as I will explain. Of course, I sought this occasion of sin because I turned on by turning on my smart phone and looked at comments on Facebook. These comments are the source of this post, which shows that argument can be the way to finding truth. Indeed, it is likely the best way. Of course, political discourse is not necessarily all about logic.

This started with a discussion of whether everyone on the site were liberal. It was quite the back and forth. Note that I am correcting typos. The questioner was asking a question about affiliation with the implication that her truth was being ignored. My response was also from affiliation, or a right to be considered part of the larger Catholic community despite a position she disagrees with. I said that

there are a few who buy into the conservative notions that one must be a Republican voter, believe in self-interest as a way to eliminate poverty and that some kind of law must be passed to limit abortion, but not anything that can be regarded as socialism. They are free to be there and have as much right to call themselves Catholic as they give us, despite the fact that Dignitatis Humanae does not require catholicizing the nation (which means no denying Eucharist to Democratic politicians) and that Casti Connubii obliges employers who can pay a living family sized base wage to do so and to set up arrangements, including taxation, to have the public treasury make sure it happens,

We all agree that abortion is a bad thing and actually helping procure one or encouraging them as a good thing for girls who wind pregnant makes one excommunicate. Simply voting to overturn Roe when it is not possible in federal common law and electing a president of either party could change that is not a grounds to excommunicate either candidates or voters. Bishops who say otherwise are catholic Republicans (not a typo).

 These were entirely arguments from affiliation and authority, not an exercise in reason.  Another exchange concerned whether there is a legislative solution to abortion. My response was that "Economic and social support, however, can be legislated." Later, someone asked if they can be a pro-life centrist. My response was "I hope that means you consider increasing the child tax credit. If so, you fit right in, although the GOP members will call you a socialist for following the economics of Milton Friedman." which is an appeal to authority, not reason, but still a valid point.

Later, someone said that they were pro-life in accordance with the teachings of the Church. My response was the question "What does being pro-life mean to you regarding criminal law, voting and giving more income to families supported by taxation?" She responded that she believes in what the Constitution and laws and that she grants the same rights to others.  Here was my response.

We have a right to not be killed by the federal (5th Amendment) and State (14th Amendment). It is why we don't have forced abortion or execute pregnant women. Anything else is a function of legislated rights, which only Congress can do for pregnancies prior to viability (the ability to be born - which is the constitutional dividing line). Recognizing and protecting first trimester embryos and fetuses is simply not possible unless you can figure out a way to investigate abortions and not miscarriages without selective enforcement - which would violate the due process rights of the fifth and fourteenth amendments,

This is citing authority, rather than arguing from it. Later, someone made the assertion that they were Catholic, not conservative or liberal. My response was that the abortion issue brings out tribalism, which is why it is called a wedge issue. The question later arose about the Sasse Born Alive Bill. my response was that withholding extraordinary measures was acceptable Catholic doctrine. Next we get to good stuff with this:

 Science when combined with dualism, which requires that there must be some kind of active principle for development, what we now call energy to ward of entropy, puts the start of life at gastrulation (when development with the genes from both parents starts). As previously stated, because enforcing their demand for life would require investigation of every subsequent death, it is legally impractical. It would implicitly force medicine to find a cure for miscarriage (or face malpractice claims for letting a legal person die). It would not be good public policy to try to try to prevent miscarriage at all costs - even if it is nature;s infanticide. The only way to do so is genetic manipulation, either before or after conception and gastrulation. That does not land well with right to lifers

That was meant with the response that  this would require ignoring the issue of miscarriage because it is not ending the life of an innocent person. I responded that this does not get you past the question of whether state power must be used to protect that innocence (previously I have argued that the question was not innocence but danger, both physical and economic. I further posted that

The moral argument is for individual action. Enforcing a positive law right is a group decision. Imposing such a decision requires police power and violates the rights if the minority to be left alone by the group, which is the essence of privacy, which is a protected right. If you understand that then you understand Roe.

This discussion is still live. The response was that contraception and public discourse could relieve the need for abortion. My answer, which is the usual one was that

 It was a discussion with me., Roe is based on the 14th Amendment language that legal personhood is based on birth or naturalization (and later simply residency). Roe expanded this to include the ability to be born, or viability. It is not arbitrary and is not only in the third trimester, as assisted viability occurs earlier. We am withhold or end treatment of a second trimester pregnancy, but we cannot actually decapitate the child or do other direct harm. Contraception and public education is not enough. We must also provide economic support to the child until it is an adult, which is why some regard this as a socialist argument, even though it was also made in another context about the best way to give subsidies to the poor, which libertarian economist Bill Friedman (not a socialist) called a negative income tax. I would give this benefit to all families, including the wealthy.

Just now someone gave the old paen about being Catholic first with the law second. I gave my usual response:

 No, our morals come from teaching. Our politics are in the context of law, even though they can be informed by our morals. Remember that law is derived from natural rights deism, Not Catholic natural law teaching, which is papal fiat, not reason.

Now on to an abortion discussion on another page, where I was called both a heretic and a follower of Satan for statements like those above. My responses to that question are what had me do this posting and further break the Sabbath. The discussion covered my post in response to Michael Sean Winters regarding Trump's remarks on abortion:

As to Dr. Northam's comments, he is correct about withholding care from doomed children. It is allowed to omit extraordinary measures. As for what happens before pregnancy is induced, it is merely a legal nicety for what is euthanasia. God is not an Ogre. I am sure She does mind ending avoidable suffering. Birth should be induced so the baby can be baptized and allowed to die naturally (but with heavy sedation). Ending a doomed pregnancy is a mercy and should be endorsed by the Church (especially the hospitals), as not doing so leaves the unborn at the mercy of outside clinics.

Arguing from first principles is not sufficient to deal with this situation. Life is grittier than that. Allowing such an issue to abet election of a tyrant to the Presidency shows how much the movement has been co-opted by the Republican Party. Of course, Trump does not understand the intricacies of abortion law and politics. Indeed, his employment practices likely caused many of his employees to seek abortion. I (thankfully) did not watch the speech and turned it on while he was pivoting from abortion to military spending. This had to be the oddest part of the speech, even odder than his attempt to yet again obstruct justice.

By the way. Trump needs to be arrested. This is now my common theme, that unless you arrest him or at least discuss the proposition, you are personally abetting his crimes. Another poster related that in an earlier time, deformed children were given sugar water then allowed to die naturally. Someone then asked about whether I watch CNN. I responded that CNN still allows people whose views are demonstrably wrong, so I watch MSNBC. I also defended calling God by She, which is consistent with how the Spirit of God is considered female in Judaism as Shekinah, a female name signifying the indwelling of the Spirit (which is one of the ways Jesus experienced His own Godhead). This is where I was called a heretic and Satan. Here are my responses, which is the end of this post. These are the really juicy bits on whether the teaching on abortion is dogma.

History and archeology say otherwise. To reject that is anachronistic and superstitious. Abortion is a natural law question, not dogma. While it is doctrine all that means is work by noted

Theologians. The Magisterium simply means teaching from the throne. Saying either one settles an argument about reason is the fallacy of arguing from authority. Dogma is an agreement by the whole church to accept that which we cannot know by reason. It is the imposition of an idea in the rest of the group. To disagree is to leave the group. It is a matter if loyalty, not absolute truth. We cannot know such truth in this life. We can only believe and agree. Whether we can belong even in the face if disageeement is a test if live and sociology, not truth. 

 As to whether I am a follower of Satan, "Satan means literally the Egyptian deity Set. He is a pagan concept which comes to us from Zoroastrianism." Since I already had reference history and anachronism, I did not go further.