But if I personally don't believe people have souls, then it is okay to kill them?
baby at 7 weeks
Posted on 02/28/2003 9:34:51 AM PST by HumanaeVitae
We've all heard this foolish position articulated over and over again by the likes of Mario Cuomo, Paul Begala, and most recently Jennifer Granholm, Governor of Michigan.
I'll be brief. The idea here is that while the person making this statement regards abortion as morally wrong, they regard imposing their view on this issue as just as morally wrong as abortion itself. So they "personally" oppose abortion, while letting abortion itself go unchallenged.
This position reaches its most baroque apex when it's articulated by a man. (It's very comforting to know that neither Mario Cuomo nor Paul Begala will have an abortion./sarcasm off) But even when stated by a woman, it's no less absurd.
Here's what these people are really saying: "I believe that there are absolute moral values, and that according to these absolute moral values, abortion is wrong. However, absolute moral values only apply to people who believe in them, therefore people who don't believe in these absolute moral values have neither committed a crime nor a sin by having, condoning or performing an abortion."
Huh? How are values absolute if they are conditional on individual belief? When a cutpurse is brought before a judge for sentencing, does he say, "Look, I don't believe picking pockets is wrong, okay? You can let me go now", and expect to get off scott-free. It's the same thing with these people. Effectively what they are saying by taking this position is that they are moral relativists who like to dress up as believers.
Either moral values are absolute and obtain for all people at all times, or there are no absolutes and truth is relative to individual tastes. And moral relativists don't get elected very often (ouside of California that is). It's not surprising why this is a popular position.
I wish the next time Granholm or any of these other people articulate this position, someone present will bust them as what they truly are--relativists in sheep's clothing. The only relevant question as to whether or not abortion is moral or immoral is not whether it is a "personal choice"; it is whether or not a human being is destroyed in this procedure. No weasel room should be allowed here...
Cheers...
Cheers...
Murders should be held accountable. Murder is not a "relative" value issue.
Wrong. It means that any discussion of abortion in the case of rape is a distraction. Using a handful of cases (or in your case, one) to justify 1,000,000 abortions a year that have nothing to do with rape is intellectually dishonest and is a transparent attempt to avoid the real issues. There is plenty of time to answer the hard questions. Let's start with the easy ones.
Many people do things against their moral beliefs all the time, small and large . Theft, adultery, lie, etc. so in all probability some who avail themselves of abortion, if asked their beliefs in general, would say they don't believe in it... even though it served their selfish ends ... hypocrites.
Thank God, some are mistakes of youth and in time their mind is changed. It has ever been that youth rebels ... The whole mess is like a bowl of spaghetti in its current state, all tangled and constantly sliding off the utensils.
That it is killing a living being in truth is a fact.
The "hard cases" make up a fraction of a percentage of all abortions, and there is only a religious reason (as opposed to any utilitarian reason) to oppose those. It isn't that difficult to persuade the populace on the rest of them, and to come up with adequate plans to assist young women in those sorts of pregnancies, so long as you recognize the exceptions.
Unfortunately, the "all or nothing" group insists on their definitions - and generates intense opposition.
If God is truly all knowing and all powerful, He can make it right regarding those earliest abortions of nonsentient tissue, as well as things like the abortion of the 9 year old. We have one trip around this mortal coil, and somehow, I suspect that having women spend a full percent of their lives carrying to term the genetic offspring of their attackers isn't something a decent god would require.
Wrong. It means that any discussion of abortion in the case of rape is a distraction. Using a handful of cases (or in your case, one) to justify 1,000,000 abortions a year that have nothing to do with rape is intellectually dishonest and is a transparent attempt to avoid the real issues. There is plenty of time to answer the hard questions. Let's start with the easy ones.
That is why there are a few pro-aborts who support a ban on PBA. The graphic nature of the murder tugs at their conscience, and some of them can't stomach it. It is an inconsistent stand (though I am glad to have their votes to ban PBA) because if killing a baby is a "right" than it is right, regardless of how far along the baby is, or even if it is viable. To follow pro-abortion logic, if it is in the woman's body, she has the right to hire someone to kill it.
I think that there are an awful lot of inconsistancies on both sides of this debate. If every sperm/egg combination is sacred then we need to have a lot more funerals than we do.
When does the sperm/egg get a spirit and a soul or what ever part of that distinguishes us from the animals?
And you have no problem with partial birth abortion by this standard even though you said you thought it was "blatent" murder. Whatever that is.
Is this all biblical? Never mind don't answer, the only one who thinks you are a wonk on that is you.
The pro life position is simple. Absent a threat to the mothers life, the life of the child is paramount.
Do you believe your sons and daughters should be executed if you murder somebody?
New conditions that seem to be cropping up in the debate include horrible birth defects that we can now determine. This is something I have only mulled recently and arguments on both sides I see merit in.
First off, if I said that everything that I believe to be immoral should be illegal, then I'd be a moral relativist. In my view, morality is not personal; it is transcendent.
Second, if you're for allowing pornography, prostitution, drug use etc. to be legal in society, well guess what, I live in the same society that you do. You're trying to impose your morals on me. I regard the above as trash, and you're littering in my neighborhood.
That's the thing about secularists. You don't seem to realize that secularism is a belief system; it's its own type of religion.
Don't think so? Answer this question: Is it possible to be neutral to the idea that government should be neutral to ideology?
That question smokes secularism out every time...
He can speak for himself but his question speaks for itself. He said everything.
So is self defense.
Not all believe that abortion is murder. Others do.
Violence is never an answer. The early Christians had this same problem as they tried to navigate through a Roman society filled with abortion, infanticide, homosexuality, gladiatorial fights (thousands murdered weekly), and most of all persecution. They triumphed precisely because they did not use violence...
Is an egg a chicken? Can human eggs be fertilized outside the womb then kept cryogenetically?
I haven't seen this response yet so I'll give it. When I held these beliefs (I don't anymore), my rationalization was that I have my own personal moral code. And that there are no absolute morals. Many I've heard espoused similar beliefs. If one can adopt the moral code which is "personal" then nothing is firm and all morality becomes subjective.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.