What annoys me to know end are these people who call themselves "personally pro-life", but would "never stand in the way of a woman's choice." What moral relativistic cowardly garbage. Sorry to use such strong language, but if one believes that abortion is murder and wrong, then isn't it wrong for the lady down the street, or the teenager in high school? People who hold to the above "position" are really just cowards who haven't the integrity to own up to what they are really advocating: the death of the unborn.
I would rather these people just come out and say they are in favor of a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy. Don't insult my intelligence by claiming to be two things at once. I have less than no respect for people who do.
Sometimes an effective counter to this kind of non sequitur is to put such a system of moral relativism to other ethical tests in specific situations, and assess the validity of its conclusions, because, as Prof. Singer would say, an ehtical system that does not provide guidance for our actions is useless. While you run the risk of being accused of setting up strawmen and demolishing them, you can avoid that by providing realistic and clear-cut cases that illuminate the dilemma in non-trivial ways. So, here are a few:
"I am personally against murder, but I would not stand in the way of a woman's choice to murder her husband if she decided to for her own private reasons." This is not a strawman because there are many real-world cases of women murdering their (perhaps abusive) spouses. Other than in clear cases of self-defense, a murder charge is the usual result. So, what say the "pro-choicers" on this one, valid or not, and why?
"I am personally against bank robbery, but I would not stand in the way of a woman's choice to rob a bank if she should so choose." Again, not a strawmen because it serves to illustrate the if the operable principle is choice in an of itself, other factors could be used as a basis for justification of the act. IOW, the nature of the act itself does not have primacy, but rather the circumstances (objective truth does not exist, IOW). Again, yea or nay, and why?
"I am personally against espionage and I would never do it myself, but I would not stand in the way of a woman's choice to do it is she should want to." (See above.)
My guess is that these moral choices would invariably be answered in the negative, yet the "pro-choice" idiots turn handsprings over the slaughter of tens of millions of innocent persons. Yet the same moral lodestar (choice) is the operable factor in these cases.
And I think we all know the "why" of the answer they would give, both conscious and subconscious. Consciously, they deny the humanity/personhood of the unborn child. Subconsciously, they don't care because it doesn't affect them. Its done in secret, out of sight and out of mind, where the horror is unseen and untold (except for those brave souls who drive the pro-life billboard trucks around), and it happens to the other guy, not them.
I read somewhere that a candidate for office who says that he is personally opposed to abortion but thinks it's a "woman's right" is either fooling himself or trying to fool you. A person who carries out an evil action -- such as voting for abortion -- performs an immoral act, and his statement of personal opposition to the moral evil of abortion is either self-delusion or a lie. If you vote for such a candidate, you would be an accomplice in advancing the moral evil of abortion.
Listen up Riordan supporters! If you are prolife, think about this! It is so important pro-lifers are united AGAINST people who stand up for the evil of abortion and FOR people who oppose the evil of abortion.
We have a good pro-life candidate. And he can win. He has a lot of money, not just his own money but he's raising a lot of money for other people who support him. His name is Bill Simon. He OPPOSES abortion. And he is a really good speaker. A friend of mine heard him speak (I couldn't because of my kids) who said she was really really impressed that he was so smart and spoke well. We have a good candidate here folks! We have a candidate who can win! We can't throw away our vote by either not voting or voting for Riordan because we think he might be able to beat Davis. Because I don't think he can because he's too liberal.
So let's stand united!