"I'm Personally Opposed to Abortion, But Won't Impose My Beliefs on Anyone Else"

Vanity | 2/28/03 | Humanae Vitae

[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...

[johnb838]

For mom, it's a nine month "sentence" (if she views it that way). For baby, it's a death sentence.

Like the difference between eggs and bacon. For the chicken it's an investment, for the pig it's a total committment.

[HumanaeVitae]

I'll answer your questions, Chancellor, but from what I remember you're pretty good at dishing it out but not very good at taking it.

Here's the deal: I'll answer your questions, you answer mine. You won't like mine.

[Lorianne]

Yes it's inconsistent, but pro-Life needs all the anti-abortion sentiment it can muster, even the wishy-washy "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but... " variety. Here's why.

These people may be persuaded to contemplate what can be done to REDUCE abortion, which at the end of the day is what we are talking about, only by degree. Since even if abortion were make illegal it would not completely end, the end game is to create a society where abortion would not simply not be a legal option, but would not even be necessary or a rational "choice" to begin with. Starting from that angle you ask any fence sitting person to choose one of these statments:

1. I would like the number of abortions to increase.
2. I would like the number of abortions to remain the same.
3. I would like the number of abortions to decrease.

After they have chosen their option, ask them what they personally are doing to facilitate their choice. This forces the mindset of persons taking some definitive stand, some action, no matter how small, rather than the laissez faire "I'm personally opposed, but.... " . It skirts the issue of legal/illegal and converts it into one of action to reduce abortion, keep the status quo number, or increase abortion. Choose one.

Ditto for the "legal and rare" line used by some people. Is this just a platitude? What are YOU personally suggest to make abortion rarer? Give us some ideas, not platitudes.

Pointed questions like those above don't give people cover behind the legality issue. They force fence sitters off the fence. Such questions actually force EVERYONE off the fence, pro-Choice and pro-Life alike, many of whom I believe use the all-or-nothing legality issue as a smokescreen to prevent having to face the fundemental underlying problems that abortion represents in our culture.

[HumanaeVitae]

The question is whether it has a soul and a spirit.

Actually, the pro-life position is superior even when this is not a factor in the debate.

[Aquinasfan]

isn't taking a life at either end akin to playing God?

Paradoxically, it is moral to take a life in order to save a life. In the matter of self-defense, for example, the principle of double-effect can be employed to justify the killing of an attacker. For example, my act of killing an attacker has two effects, it kills the attacker and saves my life. The alternative act of refraining from self-defense results in two effects, my death and the preservation of the life of the attacker. The prior scenario is preferable presuming that the attacker is attempting murder.

An argument in favor of the death penalty can be made analogously. The act of executing a murderer can have two effects, the death of the murderer and the preservation of public safety (the prevention of future murders). The act of not executing a murderer can also have two effects, the preservation of the life of the murderer and the diminishment of public safety (future deaths of innocents). The principle is attenuated however because the benefit (the preservation of life) is potential. That fact, however, is not decisive. Consider the following analogy. Suppose a man is walking down the street waving around a gun and threatening to kill people. Would you shoot him? He hasn't actually killed anyone. The act of murder exists in him potentially. Yet shooting him would be a reasonable and justifiable act.

Because it is now materially possible to imprison a murderer for life (in societies like ours) without risking public safety, some people, like the Pope, have argued that the death penalty is no longer necessary.

[Lorianne]

Yes it's inconsistent, but pro-Life needs all the anti-abortion sentiment it can muster, even the wishy-washy "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but... " variety. Here's why.

These people may be persuaded to contemplate what can be done to REDUCE abortion, which at the end of the day is what we are talking about, only by degree. Since even if abortion were make illegal it would not completely end, the end game is to create a society where abortion would not only not be a legal option, but would not even be necessary or a rational "choice" to begin with. Starting from that angle you ask any fence sitting person to choose one of these statments:

1. I would like the number of abortions to increase.
2. I would like the number of abortions to remain the same.
3. I would like the number of abortions to decrease.

After they have chosen their option, ask them what they personally are doing to facilitate their choice. This forces the mindset of persons taking some definitive stand, some action, no matter how small, rather than the laissez faire "I'm personally opposed, but.... " . It skirts the issue of legal/illegal and converts it into one of action to reduce abortion, keep the status quo number, or increase abortion. Choose one.

Ditto for the "legal and rare" line used by some people. Is this just a platitude? What are YOU personally suggest to make abortion rarer? Give us some ideas, not platitudes.

Pointed questions like those above don't give people cover behind the legality issue. They force fence sitters off the fence. Such questions actually force EVERYONE off the fence, pro-Choice and pro-Life alike, many of whom I believe use the all-or-nothing legality issue as a smokescreen to prevent having to face the fundemental underlying problems that abortion represents in our culture.

[alisasny]

Since many on the pro-choice side are devoid of the facts surrounding abortion and its after affects I find it perfectly moral that I inform them of the facts. Any abortion stopped is a gain : )

[Mr. Thorne]

So, it's OK to seek to destroy the baby if there might not BE a baby?

If you don't know there's a baby, why use the 'morning after pill?'

That doesn't seem to stand up to logical analysis, on the face of it. IMHO, of course...

[Aquinasfan]

Since we don't know whether a baby is present, it's not the same as abortion.

Then why would anyone want to kill it?

[craig_eddy]

Since we don't know whether a baby is present, it's not the same as abortion.

So, if we burn down a building without knowing that whether or not anyone is inside, have we not committed murder as well as arson?

[laredo44]

The question is whether it has a soul and a spirit.

And since you cannot decide in either case, murder must be ok with you.

That has to be one of the largest leaps in reasoning I've ever seen. Athiests don't condone murder.

[jwalsh07]

Oh is that what that was. Go visit the DU and see how they behave there, I dare ya. It really changes the way you want to treat freepers even when you don't agree with them.

You would banish me to DU because you don't know the bilogical difference between a sperm, an ovum and an embryo?

[jwalsh07]

Athiests don't condone murder

Why not? On what basis can you tell another athiest that might isn't right?

[Aquinasfan]

I, personally, would not want to have my wife give birth to a baby that we knew had severe birth defects, especially if we knew that very early in the pregnancy.

Why?

[GovernmentShrinker]

Yeah, the Taliban saw things just like you do. I'm glad they're gone. Theocracy sucks -- that's why the very wise framers of our Constitution made a point of prohibiting it.

[Aquinasfan]

If it's murder when ever we cause a sperm/cell combination to die then we need to start having funerals for minipads don't you think?

Does the conclusion necessarily follow?

Fallacies.

[jwalsh07]

Where do you see theocaracy being advocated? Behind Hale-Bopp?

[biblewonk]

I don't recall God putting weights on the ten commandments do you ? Do we have a weighted average for our sin ?

You should read more of the bible. Remember the law regarding adultery vs robbery. It looks pretty weighted to me.

[VRWC_minion]

As a lawyer you dodged the question. Assuming you were a state rep and the proposed law had exceptions for the life of the mother and for hopelessly deformed children would you vote yeah or nay ?

[Aquinasfan]

But this is how I feel

Should be: this is how I think.