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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, ever read the old testiment?
Except yours.
Could this really be about selfishness?
"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?
Good point....
Actually I've studied it formally, the old testAment. Your interpretations of what is found there are, shall we say, unconventional. To be kind.
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?
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!
Murder is one of those moral absolutes that Christians pretend don't exist without God.
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.
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.