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...
So like Judas, you believe Jesus had more important stuff to tend to.
At what stage of human development does killing become murder?
than I or anyone else considers it a tragic death when an unknown human conception is flushed down the toilet.
It's no surprise that people don't mourn a death they don't even know about.
Jeremiah 1:5"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you."
So if you don't know something then it doesn't really exist?
You understand I don't hold these beliefs anymore? I hope so, so now I'll try to fit my old liberal cap back on to try to explain, 'cause most of this will only make sense on the surface.
The liberal view I held didn't differentiate the humanity of the baby, so if you believed it was a mass of cells you could have an abortion. It wasn't murder because the baby wasn't viable and (remember I listened to the staunchly pro murder mainstream media) different people could hold different beliefs about the humanity of the "mass of cells." Also, think about the number of denominations that are now saying that abortion can be justified. The Lutherans (of which I was practicing at that time) were making every attempt to justify that decision, the Methodists were also doing so. My change in view regarding this horrific procedure came prior to leaving liberalism behind.
Not true, therefore your conclusion That universality is the reason to prohibit murder.
isn't valid. There is a similar universality regarding slavery. Nobody would choose to be the slave.
Again, not true.
Hey wonk, I know you don't believe this. When is the pre-born baby EVER NOT a human person. It doesn't metamorphose into a human. It starts out as a human at conception, even though it may only be a fertilized cell. And it ends up a human at birth. How is anyone to say differently and who has the right to final arbitration. As soon as that cell is something other than a human, you've opened up a can of worms. But again, it can be nothing more than a human, albeit in its earliest growth stages.
This is really a BS argument. No one can prove it is NOT human. Therefore, there is no foundation to the argument that it's not human. At any time! Only Nazi mentality (bigoted mentality) has attempted to define human life other than human.
I am struck by the fact that the argument, as constructed, is in and of itself not offensive, but rather becomes offensive depending upon what you believe “abortion” to be.
In otherwords, saying “I’m personally opposed to [going even 1 mile per hour over the speed limit]…[burping in public]…[occasional littering]…[singing songs at the dinner table]…[etc.]…, but I don’t want to impose my beliefs on anyone else” is a reasonable statement with negligible moral implications.
But it is a much different thing to say , “I’m personally opposed to [mass murder]…[torturing animals]…[abusing children]…[abortion]…[etc.], but I don’t want to impose my beliefs on anyone else”. These obviously heinous statements carry varying weights of moral import.
My point being that, as always in the abortion debate, the crux of the issue is what you believe about the value of human life, and when that “life” attains value.
As for myself, I believe that Psalm 139 expresses it best: “For you created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.” -- Psalm 139:13-14
Anyone believing this will instinctively be offended by the cavalier insertion of abortion in the above statement. On the other hand, anyone capable of using this “argument” obviously thinks human life is expendable, but in doing so they are really telling you more about their own moral darkness that anything else….
Murder requires intent. A person who truly doesn't know that they are taking a life could not be held responsible for murder.
If you're a Christian, then you must believe that it all fits somehow under God's providential plan. It's a matter of trust in God.
Most women who have an abortion are not practicing Christians. They are not going to hold themselves to Christian morals, to try to force it upon them is not going to happen easily.
People are not going to stop having sex to comply with others feelings and morals. Birth control prior to contraception is expensive and not easily accessible to many who are sexually active, who later have an abortion.
Birth control should be easier to obtain then an abortion. I would rather see birth control easily affordabe and accessable for these women. The rate of abortions would fall.
For those who will not take advantage of the more accessible birth control methods, no welfare and no easy abortion.
Those who have late term abortions or multible abortions do not care what others want, it is called being selfish or stupid or careless.
There are many points. That's why the debate is so voluminous. That you are essentially the same today as you were yesterday is a far different discussion than are you the same today as when you were a one cell fertilized egg. Hence my initial question: is an egg a chicken? Is a caterpillar a butterfly?
Does your essence change when you become dead? I'm guessing you'd say it does. So where is the point of death? What changed? Is death a moment in time or an interval of time? If an interval, however short, does your essence change between the first part of death and the last part? It must.
I'm not bring these things up to be trivial or to divert the discussion, but to establish that there are difficult concepts involved. To pretend that the debate around abortion, by either side, is simple is to pretend.
I don't know for certain that my position is the correct one, but I do believe that I am correct in believing that abortion on demand is wrong.
I'm not in favor of putting women in prison. I'm in favor of convincing women that killing their babies is a false choice with eugenicists like Martha Sanger as it's genesis.
If so, then how is it that death of natural causes doesn't warrent the same respect no matter how small the "child"?
I believe they do. When my child died prior to being born into this world I was deeply saddened. Likewise when my Mom, Dad and little brother passed away I was also deeply saddened. I love them all and always will.
Another serious question, is heaven populated with the spirits of these 2 hr old people?
This is just my personal belief but I think they have a special place in heaven at the right hand of the Father.
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.