"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...

[Protagoras]

It looks pretty weighted to me.

How many sins are allowed in the presence of God?

[AppyPappy]

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

To PREVENT pregnancy

[AppyPappy]

Meanwhile, how many children were aborted? You are hanging your hat on that one incident.

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

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

As soon as the Clintonians leftists and NOW stop enforcing their warped food chain beliefs on everyone, I will speak my opinion, as well

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

There is a up to $500.00 (not to exceed ever $25,000) fine to any one that kills an 'endangered' fox, or upsets/touches certain turtle nest eggs along our shores. Under the detailed listings of the federal Endangered Species Act.

There is a $350.00 to $500.00 'amount due' to kill the human species. (AKA abortion) And in second/third human trimesters; scissors are jabbed into the HUMAN head and the brains are sucked out-In elective surgeries- daily, in the United States, all under the guise of a woman's "right." The only real "right" is the "right" to remain silent.

When will humans become "endangered" and protected?

When will the so called pro-"choicers" realize basic science skills of the food-chain? Human's are NOT at the bottom of the food-chain.

Do they really see what they do, with their political correctness all in the guise of a "woman's right"?

[Aquinasfan]

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

Why?

[Tribune7]

Good post.

[biblewonk]

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

The pro-life position is as selective with it's definitions as the pro-death one. I'm pro-life by the way but with a grey scale. The pro-life position is more concerned about the concept of a sperm/egg being killed than with one dying of natural causes, hence the funerals for mini-pads statement.

[jwalsh07]

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

You didn't answer the queation. I'm asking you on what basis is murder wrong for an atheist.

If a fellow traveler believes that the prime directive is his self aggarndisement, preservation and continuance of his gene pool, on what basis do you say he is wrong?

And as an adjunct, if rights are not granted by the creator and are unalienable, then rights are derived from observation and logic by man and are fungible depending on who is do the observing and logic analysis, no?

[AppyPappy]

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

If the baby was born that way, would you kill it?

[bmwcyle]

Would a anti-abortion DEM go against the party?

Would they ever want to be invited to the party again?

[Protagoras]

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?

At the mimimum "wrongful death". Certainly criminal negligence. Certainly stupidity. You still have to pay.

BTW, arsonists who kill people ARE charged with murder.

[Dog Gone]

I would add a couple of other exceptions, but the answer is yes. I am adamantly opposed to abortion used as merely another form of birth control.

[jwalsh07]

hence the funerals for mini-pads statement.

In my years on this planet I have witnessed early miscarriages by my mother, my wife and one of my daughters. In all three cases they grieved like a mother who had lost a child.

You get that minipad thing from DU?

[Charlie OK]

There is nothing immoral about gambling, or drinking, or dancing. If one gambles away the rent money, THAT act is immoral. But putting a few shekels in a slot machine, or drinking a couple of beers are perfectly neutral, morally.

If he thinks that gambling and abortion are moral, maybe he shouldn't be a baptist Deacon. That was my point. Both of these things conflict directly with Baptist teaching. Deacons are held to an even higher standard than other baptists.

[jwalsh07]

I am adamantly opposed to abortion used as merely another form of birth control.

Cool, welcome to the tent.

[laredo44]

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.

Perhaps. Certainly they are the source of endless debate.

[biblewonk]

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

OK if you are calling me an idiot in the middle of a debate then yes. If I mistook your statement than my apologies. As I understand it a sperm has half a set of DNA and an egg has half and when they join they make a full set.

As a side note, being a creationist fundamentalist, I don't ascribe to DNA as much as the average geneticist. I believe that God has far more to do with our design and development in the womb than DNA. DNA doesn't have enough data to build a man but that's a whole different discussion. "We are fearfully and wondefully made".

[eastsider]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that, assuming conception has taken place, abortion by morning-after BC pill is neither just nor unjust because a single-cell per se is not a living human being, although PBA is always unjust because the differentiated body has become a living human being.

Is there any empirical evidence to support the premise that a fertilized egg is not a living human being?

[AppyPappy]

Because I saw my brother live through the ordeal of a brain-damaged baby that didn't even have the swallowing reflex.

If the baby was worth killing, why didn't he give it up? I don't get the rationale. On the one hand, it is OK to kill the child. On the other, it is too hard to give it up.

[laredo44]

If one can adopt the moral code which is "personal" then nothing is firm and all morality becomes subjective.

There is a universal moral code that include prohibitions against murder and slavery. Then there are personal codes by which each of us govern our own behavior. Those have enormous variability and are essentially subjective.