"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...

[AppyPappy]

If a woman takes a pill and kills her conception+2hrs "baby", how much time should she do in prison?

What does this have to do with abortion? There is no way to tell if she killed a baby when it happens.

[valleygal]

Can you please post a link to the story about this 9 yr. old Nicaraguan girl. You have mentioned this many times on the other threads and I would like to read it somewhere.

Thanks.

[Dog Gone]

In my brother's situation, he and his wife chose not to have an abortion. I think that was a mistake, although it's a lot easier to say that in hindsight.

On the other hand, he also thought the baby was going to slowly improve and become a healthy child, even though every single physician told them that was impossible.

People tend to believe what they want to believe, regardless of the facts. That's just the way we are.

[NYFriend]

"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.

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 can appreciate both of these arguments. I would have to say that I agree with the second, and struggle with the first.

Thanks for referencing Thucydides, it was a good read. Particularly, "The persons to blame are you who are so foolish as to institute these contests; who go to see an oration as you would to see a sight, take your facts on hearsay, judge of the practicability of a project by the wit of its advocates, and trust for the truth as to past events not to the fact which you saw more than to the clever strictures which you heard; the easy victims of new-fangled arguments, unwilling to follow received conclusions; slaves to every new paradox, despisers of the commonplace; the first wish of every man being that he could speak himself, the next to rival those who can speak by seeming to be quite up with their ideas by applauding every hit almost before it is made, and by being as quick in catching an argument as you are slow in foreseeing its consequences; asking, if I may so say, for something different from the conditions under which we live, and yet comprehending inadequately those very conditions; very slaves to the pleasure of the ear, and more like the audience of a rhetorician than the council of a city." Good advice for us all.

[biblewonk]

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?

Something like that, I guess. I'm saying there is a difference. I don't consider it a murder when a single celled "human" is willfully killed than I or anyone else considers it a tragic death when an unknown human conception is flushed down the toilet.

Evidence, yes, the toilet. I hate to keep going there, so to speak, but those are "people" too under the overt definitions going on here and to even mention them is to be slapped down. Why is that?

[Aquinasfan]

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.

You missed the point. I am not at the same size, weight or state of development as I was yesterday, yet I am the same person. What I am remains the same throughout these changes: I am a human being. My nature, essence or substance remains the same while my "accidental" characteristics may change.

[Dog Gone]

Would you shoot it in the head?

No, I only do that to people who ask stupid questions.

[Dad was my hero]

Except yours. Could this really be about selfishness?

I'd have to say, probably that was involved. I was liberal and viewed myself as most liberals do, informed (but that is highly untrue) and compassionate and as a supporter of women's rights.

Upon reflection and having come light years since then, I can see how selfish and shallow these set of beliefs were.

[craig_eddy]

Ah, the "Scott Peterson Defense" :)

[NYFriend]

No, I agree with your entirly. My example was poor, but I simply ment to show the danger of taking the position that one MUST impose their will on others.

To be clear, I am opposed to abortion on moral grounds, though I don't know if I've said so here.

[Aquinasfan]

Who is more helpless than the preborn?

Thank you.

[laredo44]

Atheists aren't used to being confronted like that...no offense laredo, but there's really no non-arbitrary atheistic answer to this question.

Robust, well intentioned discussion never offends me. Take a look at my post #193 and tell me what you think.

[Aquinasfan]

Why is it not obvious to you?

No. That's why I asked.

The sorrow, grief, sense of loss, and expense was all pointless.

How do you know that?

[AppyPappy]

An abortionist knowingly kills the child. It's not the same as unplugging life support.

[AppyPappy]

Except that we know his wife existed.

[Aquinasfan]

Nobody wants to be murdered.

So what? It's all matter in motion, right?

[VRWC_minion]

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

So your posistion is not the one this thread is dealing with. Your posistion is that you would make abortion illegal under the same terms that you morally believe it should be illegal by.

[RansomOttawa]

I'm personally opposed to kicking toddlers to death, but won't impose my beliefs on anyone else.

[HumanaeVitae]

There is a similar universality regarding slavery. Nobody would choose to be the slave.

If you found yourself enslaved, as an atheist to which transcendent moral principle would you appeal to deem your condition unjust? In an atheistic universe, no one is equal. There are only physical characteristics. Christians hold that all men are equal before G-d, and because the civil law is an attempt to approximate the Law of G-d, all men should be equal before the civil law. If all men are equal before G-d, then it is an injustice and sinful for man to treat other men in an unequal manner.

If we ae nothing but hairless apes, then the idea of the strong dominating the weak is perfectly natural. Look at nature.