"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...

[HamiltonJay]

If it terminates an innocent human life, you betcha.

[Dog Gone]

Because I saw my brother live through the ordeal of a brain-damaged baby that didn't even have the swallowing reflex. They had to feed her through a tube and constantly suck out the saliva buildup in her lungs. It's doubtful the baby even knew she was alive.

A year later, and I don't know how many hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical bills later, the baby thankfully died.

Would it had been better for everyone, including the baby, if she had been aborted? You bet.

[VRWC_minion]

You should read more of the bible

Maybe you should. Jesus showed that we are guilty even if we think about doing it.

But honestly assuming there is a weighted average sin scale, just what is your point ? Are you proposing that we shouldn't have jaywalking laws because some folks steal ? Your not logical to me.

[biblewonk]

For what it's worth, I agree with you. I'm sure many won't. Some still adamently oppose nearly all forms of birth control. It wasn't that long ago that condoms were illegal.

Christians are at liberty to make the mistake of being married and only having one child. God says a full quiver is a blessing but doesn't give the details. It's up to the parents to have the faith to trust the promise.

[Protagoras]

That has to be one of the largest leaps in reasoning I've ever seen.

You certainly did not read my comment in the context of the exchange of posts where it occured.

Athiests don't condone murder.

I never said they did, people hear what they want to hear and if you want to be insulted bad enough you will find a way to interpret things that way.

[VRWC_minion]

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?

Me thinks your confusing natural death with murder. It seems that unless you change the subjct of this thread you are not able to discuss the topic with logic and reason.

[Aquinasfan]

Is an egg a chicken?

Is a baby a man? Is a fetus a baby? Is an embryo a fetus? Is a fertilized egg an embryo?

Strictly no. Essentially, yes.

[biblewonk]

So murder is ok depending on who is doing it or when?

Yes, ever read the old testiment?

[Protagoras]

I'd like a quick review on your beliefs, but it's off topic. Maybe on a different thread. It makes for amusing reading I'm sure.

[Aquinasfan]

I have my own personal moral code. And that there are no absolute morals.

Except yours.

Could this really be about selfishness?

[Sloth]

I always want to ask these people *WHY* they personally think it's wrong.

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

Too bad they won't apply that logic to gun ownership, huh?

[amused]

Should be: this is how I think

Good point....

[Desdemona]

A cousin of mine has an employee who basically doesn't have arms due to a birth defect. They met playing craps at a casino. This guy is funny and charming and is one of my cousins' best employees.

I just don't buy that argument that the world would be better without him.

As for infants without brain stems or swallowing reflexes, it might be better to let nature take it's course.

[Protagoras]

Yes, ever read the old testiment?

Actually I've studied it formally, the old testAment. Your interpretations of what is found there are, shall we say, unconventional. To be kind.

[biblewonk]

But if I personally don't believe people have souls, then it is okay to kill them?

Today, according to the law, yes. I don't agree with it but that's the way it is. Harlots should not be able to screw and conceive and kill. Neither should teens. But they can. If the problem is such a simple one then why don't you fix it?

[ER_in_OC,CA]

If your position is that the pro-life movement should make tactical compromises in order to save more lives sooner, then I agree with you. This is clearly happening as we can see with the movement to first ban partial birth abortion.

But I'm going to take exception to your concluding statement.

You, Chancellor Palpatine wrote:
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.

I'm not clear on whether this statement is your view on God's "requirements" vis-a-vis suffering on this earth as a believer or your view as a non-believer trying to handcuff the devout with your conclusions.

So, I'll just take a moment to reject out-of-hand your conclusions as to how God's nature would/should be expressed with respect to a woman unwillingly carrying the child of a rapist.

God plainly allows suffering in this world, whether it is a result of one's own choices or a result of other's violent acts to which we are a victim.

Futhermore, your statement suggests that a condition of "sentience" be required for a human being to have legal and moral protection. Assuming you adopt the view that sentience is awareness and response to stimuli, then I would expect that you similarly would allow the termination of the lives of those in comas, or maybe those under anaesthesia!

[laredo44]

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

Murder is one of those moral absolutes that Christians pretend don't exist without God.

[Egregious Philbin]

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.

Absolutely - potential, but unproven. No correlation has been found between the presence of capital punishment and reduced murder rates. For example, Houston executes more people per year than any city in the country, by far, and yet it has the 2nd highest murder rates in Texas (after Dallas, which also executes more people in a year than most states).

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.

There is an argument for imprisonment for life that's not a religious one - cost. It costs the public more to execute someone than to imprison them for life. The cheaper it gets to execute someone, the less likely they are to get a fair trial, and therefore the less likely we are to know if we are executing the innocent.

That is why I think Gov. Ryan was right to hold a moratorium until that part of the issue can be resolved. Judges and juries dictate the punishment for crimes, jwalsh07, not the families of the victims.

[Aquinasfan]

Athiests don't condone murder.

That's usually true, which is kind of funny, because in their worldview there exists no reason to prohibit murder. After all, everything is just matter in motion, right? I've yet to meet an atheist that is rigorous in his reductionism. There's a psychological motivation for that.

[AppyPappy]

Is there a dead body? If not, there isn't a murder.