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...
would say that the same holds true for the death penalty. If killing is wrong, then executions are wrong. However, the immorality of executions may be the cost we must pay for a civil society.
War with Iraq would also be immoral. One could say that it would also be immoral for the United States, with it's resources, to allow Saddam to stay in power because he posses are real threat to his people and his neighbors. But even if this is true, it would not make war moral. This is where the phase "necessary evil" comes from.
These are are well reasoned points, and well written. The first distinction you make is between necessary and moral; John Paul II makes this distinction in 1995's Evangelium Vitae, teaching against the death penalty. To kill two birds with one stone here, I am against the death penalty (not a popular FR position, to say the least); anyway, JPII instructs that it is not necessary to implement the death penalty in civilized society any longer. Law enforcement techniques and educational levels have advanced to the point that we no longer have to make graphic examples out of criminals who break the law (beheading, etc) to discourage crime. In this way progress pinches off necessity; killing is never good.
A second reason that I'm against the death penalty is that it makes it much easier to make the pro-life case. For instance, if I am attempting to argue that rape and incest are not mitigating circumstances in regards to abortion, effectively I am arguing that the principle of life trumps whatever personal revulsion I may feel about how that life was created. If I argue that, it is difficult to turn around and argue that certain heinous crimes are only avenged by the death penalty. Such reasoning is similarly man-centered as the argument for rape and incest exceptions regarding abortion. I believe in a G-d-centered standard.
Finally, regarding Iraq, I'm for it, for what you would consider both moral and necessary reasons. It is moral to prevent further slaughter of innocent Iraqis (a Wilsonian goal), the seizure of weapons of mass destruction (a Jacksonian self-interest goal), and finally (as a bonus) the Hamiltonian goal of cheap oil. I would go morals/national defense/economic interest in that descending order, but really the stars all align on this one. Yes, people will die, and that's awful, but the alternative is worse. I know that skirts close to Peter Singer-like utilitarianism on life issues, but "we all fall short of the glory of G-d", as Paul instructs. I suppose in the end we ask forgiveness.
BTW, a great piece of literature for clarifying the issues at hand here is the Mytilene debate. The question at hand is whether Athens should crush the entire rebellious state of Mytilene (which had previously allied with and owed its prosperity to Athens), and kill all the men of the state, or kill only the rebellious leaders and spare all others. At first, the argument from Justice--represented by the orator Cleon--prevails and Mytilene is doomed. Then, Mytilene is defended from 'necessity' by the orator Diodotus, whose argument eventually carries the day. Interestingly, the moral conclusion (only punishing the organizers of the revolt and not destroying Mytilene) is made by appealing to pragmatic political concerns and self-interest, not morals.
Cheers...
You're lecturing the wrong guy EP, you're argument is with Ryan. The judges and juries followed the rule of law and found these men and women guilty of capital murder and sentenced them to death.
Governor Ryan decided he was above the law and did not have to listen to mere mortals.
Executing murderers prevents them from ever murdering again and you're cavalier tossing aside of the victims families is something you should rethink.
Yes.
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.
My point there was simply that your point was wrong but it is a side point. When it comes to sin in general we are all helplessly lost sinners in desperate need of a saviour. The Lord added to that fact when He pointed out that we sin by thinking the sin. That showed our situation to be even worse than we ever realized under the old covenant law.
I don't get all ga ga over abortion as so many do when I consider heaven and hell and the fact that a harlot sinning and going to hell is a bigger deal than the philosophical(sp) debate about the death of a "baby" that is 2 hours old.
Executed murderers have a 0% murder-rate. A relevant statistical comparison would be between the murder-rate of people who have committed at least one murder and the murder-rate of the rest of the population.
While I understand this Dog, the way I look at it is that a legal system is kind of like a computer: garbage in, garbage out. Logic and reason that do not precede from the right First Principles are of no use whatsoever.
preg·nant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prgnnt) adj.1. Carrying developing offspring within the body.
Are you studying to be a lawyer?
No, but I might approve unplugging the respirator to let nature take its course. It would be a difficult decision.
OK, let's move on.
That's usually true, which is kind of funny, because in their worldview there exists no reason to prohibit murder.
There is absolutely a reason to prohibit murder, athiest or believer. It is uiversal, disputed by none.
Given a murder, would you prefer to be a) the victim, b) the murderer, c) neither, or d) makes no difference/don't know. The fact is no one selects option a). It is not my opinion vs. somebody else's. Nobody wants to be murdered. That universality is the reason to prohibit murder.
There is a similar universality regarding slavery. Nobody would choose to be the slave.
Let's say you believed that slavery should be legal. Can you enslave someone against their will for your own convenience?
So did my wife. We have 8 kids by the way.
You get that minipad thing from DU?
What an awful place.
So let me ask this. If a woman takes a pill and kills her conception+2hrs "baby", how much time should she do in prison? How about the accomplices(sp)? It's a serious question because I get the impression several people her feel that she is a murderer worthy of the full punishment of law. If so, then how is it that death of natural causes doesn't warrent the same respect no matter how small the "child"? Again, this is a serious question.
Another serious question, is heaven populated with the spirits of these 2 hr old people?
Another serious question, Is God soverign regarding the death of a 2 cent sparrow? These are all related thoughts.
Atheists aren't used to being confronted like that...no offense laredo, but there's really no non-arbitrary atheistic answer to this question.
See post #193.
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.