Replies

The problem with your post is that it tacitly assumes that the ideas of Right and Wrong have no actual meaning. Instead, you appear to be saying that issues of right and wrong are matters of differing opinion, that can and should be settled by negotiation, and finding a middle ground between them. (You don't really believe this, by the way -- you're simply trying to finesse us into negotiating toward your notions of "right" and "wrong," to which you hold firmly.)

What this means in practical terms is that "right" and "wrong" have no meaning in the personal realm; and in the public realm they are matters of political debate -- the side with the most votes is "right."

While I'm sure you'd agree with me that "votes" do not equate to "right," in practice that's precisely what you're asking us to buy into.

We, on the other hand, recognize that "right" and "wrong" are real, and important concepts. We recognize that "right" is right, and "wrong" is wrong, no matter how many votes they get. Moreover, the vast majority of us believe that these ideas of "right" and "wrong" are not open to change. Most of us believe that what is truly "right" and "wrong" has been given to us through the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. And, of course, Western Civilization shows that Biblical morality has the added benefit of being demonstrably efficacious in terms of rights and benefits. It is beyond serious question that Western Civilization and the immense benefits it has brought, is built upon that Biblical moral foundation. Without Western Civilization, you, a woman, would very likely get as much respect as women who live in other cultures; that is, little, or none at all. So you, even more than I, owe Biblical morality a rather large debt.

I will assume that you do hold to some fixed ideas of "right" and "wrong." Were it otherwise, there would be no point in talking to you.

So when it comes to something like abortion -- which is nothing more or less than killing an unborn human child -- we can see that it is certainly "wrong." At the same time, we can certainly point out "hard cases," in which it might -- might -- be justified to take one life in deference to another.

However, the vast majority of cases of abortion do not qualify as "hard cases." Instead, they are at root performed for reasons of convenience. Death to one, for the convenience of the other. For example, "I must kill the child within me, because I am in college and want to graduate." That is an excuse of convenience -- not to mention utter selfishness -- and certainly not a "hard case."

Surely you, as a reasonable person, can see how we might find it evil for one person to kill another for the sake of convenience.

Almost worse than the act itself, however, are the outright lies and deceptions of those who are concerned with the so-called "right to choose." Their entire goal in life, it seems, is to obscure the fact I noted above: the abortion industry is primarily about killing one set of humans, for the convenience of another. They do this deliberately, and I have no qualms in calling them evil.

I agree!

Ida,

You have to believe that there is Moral absolutes...Right and wrong. There isn't any gray.

Jesus said,"a little levin, levins the whole loaf", Meaning even just a tiny bit of yeast in the dough will effect the whole loaf because yeast contaminated the contact point and then spreads through.

Being wrong just a little is still being wrong. The oppisite doesn't work for being right. You have to be 100% right.

If there are not Moral absolutes, then Hitler was right.