'Red' reasoning on morality is confusing

Miami Herald ^ | Nov. 24, 2004 | Robert Steinback

[-=Wing_0_Walker=-]

I like the idea of calling it abortion when the perpetrators of child abortion are brought to justice. Not very Christian of me, ahhh so what!

[weshess]

Now I understand pro-lifers believe life begins at fertilization, and that a fetus has full rights as a human being. But a fetus can only survive while attached to another human being -- who most certainly has rights. Whose rights should take precedence?


It is funny because you cannot trump someone else's rights. Shows how the left thinks.

[dufekin]

The right to life overrides any other "right" of the "mother."

[mississippi red-neck]

Not very Christian of me, ahhh so what!

Well I'm a Christian also so I guess we're both in trouble.

Then again I was taught that child sacrifice is wrong, especially for the sake of convenience.

I just figured we could better justify a case for aborting the mother and father who made a baby they didn't want than killing an innocent baby who had no choice.

I think if applied this way it would certainly cut down on unwanted pregnancies and reduce abortions.

[Steel Wolf]

Abortion is the ultimate moral issue: Either the fetus or the mother must be denied rights in the end.

Rights? Abortion weighs two options

1. A human will be killed.
2. A human will be greatly inconvenienced for 18 years.

and decides that killing a human you created because he will be inconvenient for you is the higher 'right'. There's not much of a moral leg to stand on there.

But a fetus can only survive while attached to another human being -- who most certainly has rights.

By this logic, killing infants and toddlers should also be permitted. They certainly won't survive on their own, any more than a fetus would. They're infringing upon the rights of the parents - who most certainly have rights.

[Steel Wolf]

For instance, if there were 7 people on a deserted island, and 6 of them decided that they would beat and torture the 7th to death, would that make it right because they had collectively decided it was right?

A liberal in that situation would soon subordinate any civilized standards to his immediate needs and personal survival.

Without a moral basis for social interaction, any group of people is only a half step away from a Lord of the Flies existence.

[Sloth]

I agree murder is immoral, but that's not why it's a criminal act. It's outlawed because we have collectively agreed that a proper society shouldn't allow harm to befall someone at the hands of another

Duh, that collective agreement is itself a moral judgment. This guy ain't too bright.

[-=Wing_0_Walker=-]

I feel exactly the same way. I have thought the same thoughts and have the same feelings. "Choice", what choice does the baby have? There are people waiting to have or adopt a child, so why kill a being that did nothing to harm you? The Planned (NON) Parenthood should be required to have potential adoptive parents present at each one of their "counseling" sessions.

[-=Wing_0_Walker=-]

Here is where my wife says I go off the seep end. Well so be it. In NAZI Germany, it was politically correct to kill certain human beings. That was and is wrong. However, we in America have extended abortion to everyone, so that makes it all right? What barbarism.

[stands2reason]

liberals and people of color"

So black conservatives are worth aborting?

[stands2reason]

So you prefer extermination to adoption?

[stands2reason]

I like that analogy.

[Steel Wolf]

I've always figured morality had to do with the individual choices each of us has a right to make.

If you're talking about whether or not to cheat on your girlfriend, you're right. If you're talking about whether or not to kill her because she's irritating, you're wrong. Some moral decisions are discretionary, and will speak only to your own character. Others are mandatory, and are not subject to individual interpretation.

I'm not really making a moral choice -- and you're not really promoting morality -- if you're forcing me to do what you believe I should do.

Honor, loyalty and respect are all moral concepts. They might work for you just fine. But if you only believe they extend only so far as the members of your own street gang, that's not enough.

If you're unwilling to accept that people outside your gang are anything other than prey, your level of morality, which may be high in a certain sense, and totally adequate for your personal and social needs, is totally insufficient for living in a civilized society.

You will either accept the yoke of a higher morality, or you will be dealt with.

As a free people, we must decide together how heavy to make this yoke. A moral people must be ready to resist slavery or chaos. Someone with no sense greater than 'I want my way' is a danger to both freedom and peace.

A free, stable society requires personal sacrifice, collective sacrifice, mutual trust, and a moral guideline. Without those things, that society will remain neither free nor stable.

[stands2reason]

The cowards don't even like to use the "A" word anymore. It's "what a woman does with her body" or "reproductive choice."

The new term is even vaguer -- "women's health care."
Apparently pap smears and breast exams are equivalent to partial-birth abortion now.

[sweetliberty]

"What he is saying is that he could stop crying and get on board for a better America, , but he would rather continue to Whine."

I think that about sums it up.

[gitmo]

This is exactly why Moses brought those rules written in stone off that mountain. People aren't capable of 'figuring out' right and wrong. And your arguments demonstrate that.

Conservatives aren't interested in forcing morality on people, but in protecting people from the dangers of others' lack of morality.

Now I understand pro-lifers believe life begins at fertilization, and that a fetus has full rights as a human being. But a fetus can only survive while attached to another human being -- who most certainly has rights. Whose rights should take precedence?

Are you actually trying to equate a few month's discomfort with someone's life? Have you no sense of proportion? This is comparable to forcing a child out of your liferaft into the open ocean because she is taking up your private space.

... why waste time encouraging a woman to do the right thing when you can just use the government to force her to do it?

We are saving an innocent person's life! That is a proper and fitting role of government.

So isn't abortion murder? Does a mother commit "murder" by detaching this thing from her body? Abortion is the ultimate moral issue: Either the fetus or the mother must be denied rights in the end.

Again, this is a matter of proportions. The right of life trumps convenience. I have a right to drive my SUV across my field, but not when there is someone standing there. Their right not to be killed trumps my right to drive on my field.

Red-state moralists, for example, apparently believe adults shouldn't be able to choose their desired spouses. Most approve of using tax money to promote Christianity in schools, courtrooms and other government facilities.

Personally, I don't thing federal or state governments should be in the marrying business to begin with. But what got conservatives on the defensive was the attempts by the blues to do an end-run around the legal process and to illegally force homosexual marriage on this nation. Hence the marriage protection act and the drive for a Constitutional Amendment. We are determined to end these legal end-runs from the left and to force everyone to use the legislative process to change laws.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

You Cant explain morality to someone who has no grasp of reality

Reality is : There are 40,000 children murdered by the hand of abortion in the US every day where is the morality in the beleif of that ?

Reality is : The wrong doing of Saddam to his own countrymen and to others across the world was immoral to say the least leaving such a man in power WMD or not was immoral and yet to the Liberal it was immoral to stop him !

Morality not only dictates individual choices but also choices made by communities across the United States and the world If you dont like certain values held by the community you are most certainly free to move to one that hold values of morality closer to yours if indeed you have any if none you feel in the USA exist for you there again you are free to move to a country of your choice provided that country will have you !

So isn't abortion murder? Does a mother commit "murder" by detaching this thing from her body?

Yes its Murder why ? Because the child has not the chance to be free to make its choices but is trapped in anothers existance until people realize that because a child in the womb is helpless does not mean it unimportant killing life before it has a chance to be free for its own decisions is MURDER.

Abortion is the ultimate moral issue: Either the fetus or the mother must be denied rights in the end.

As a woman has no right to kill as a grown up except in cases of self defence neither should she have the right to kill as a grown up against the defenceless ! the child within her body is defenseless against anything that would harm it including its own host that in part is why it must be protected by all costs from harm from any enemy host or not !

[DameAutour]

I love that analogy.

[Migraine]

So black conservatives are worth aborting?

Forgive me for giving a wrong impression. That is not what I meant at all. I AM NOT THE ONE opting for abortion. Free abortions would be available only to those who ask for them. Then they can exterminate their own if they want to. It's called choice. Do you think black conservatives are going to opt for self-extermination? I don't. That's why they are called conservatives.

[Richard Kimball]

I started to reply, but why bother? Debating liberals is like tap dancing on a greased bowling ball. I'll settle for beating them at the ballot box.