"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...

[HumanaeVitae]

Logic and reason easily defeats the secularists; you just need to proceed from the right premises.

Left-wing thinking is like Gertrude Stein's evaluation of Oakland, California: "There's no there, there."

[AppyPappy]

If you don't have a body, it's hard to prove a murder. Imagine charging an arsonist with murder because there might have been a person in the building.

[tbpiper]

There is a big difference between a 8.99 month partial birth abortion and a morning after pill or an abortion after a first missed period. I feel differently about the two.

Sez you! Can you delineate that difference? Is killing a dwarf any less of a crime than killing a average size person? On something as serious as this, you'd be better off making decisions on sound reasoning rather than on your feelings.

[laredo44]

Nobody wants to be murdered.

Not true, therefore your conclusion That universality is the reason to prohibit murder. isn't valid.

Help me understand the lack of universality by making the case for those that want to be murdered.

[Dog Gone]

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.

No, that's a very fatalistic approach that is not shared by all Christians.

[laredo44]

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

I'm giving you a universality. What are you getting at?

[colorado tanker]

Overturning Roe v. Wade would not make abortion illegal. The effect would be to return the decision to the elected representatives of the people in the states, where the Constitution put the issue in the first place.

[jwalsh07]

Hence my initial question: is an egg a chicken? Is a caterpillar a butterfly?

Sorry I didn't address this before.

These are not analagous questions.

Asking the question, is an unborn baby a man is analagous to asking is an egg a chicken.

The question you need to ask is, is the unborn a member of the species homo sapiens, a human being. Then you need to ask yourself when it is OK to kill human beings absent informed consent and/or due process.

And if you'd like you can ask if a chicken egg is a member of the species Gallus Domesticus. I think you'll find the answer to be yes.

[jwalsh07]

The effect would be to return the decision to the elected representatives of the people in the states, where the Constitution put the issue in the first place.

Oh man, that requires it's own thread even if I may agree that that's the best way to go politically.

[HumanaeVitae]

"Hence my initial question: is an egg a chicken? Is a caterpillar a butterfly?"

In the context that you ask the question, yes an egg is a chicken, and yes a caterpillar is a butterfly. You've asked a being vs. becoming question, and 'being' wins.

When sperm meets ovum, a new being with a unique genetic code is created. This genetic code is unlike any other the world has seen or will see again; it is a unique individual. Left unmolested, that fertilized egg will undergo a self-directed process of growing, from the time it has been delivered from it's mother until it dies in its bed at home. There is no non-arbitrary point at which the life of that entity can be ended; medical science agrees with this. Pro-choice philosophers are now having to contend that abortion is "justifiable homicide", because the medical evidence is so overwhelmingly on the life-begins-at-conception side of the debate.

I'll give you an easy way to think about it. Why is it o.k. to destroy a fetus that can only survive by attaching itself to its mother through the uterine wall or umbilical cord, but not o.k. to destroy an infant that can only survive by attaching itself to its mother's breast? This is the whole nonsense about "viability". Is a newborn infant "viable"? Can he or she take the bus? Order a pizza? No, of course not. Then again, without each other, none of us are viable.

That's why--incidentally--I blast libertarians so often on this board. They seemingly want to abrupt themselves from the entire human experience ("I'm a complete individual" "No one can tell me what to do", blah, blah, blah).

[laredo44]

If you found yourself enslaved, as an atheist to which transcendent moral principle would you appeal to deem your condition unjust?

I'm not looking to establish an appeals process.

I'm stating there are universalities among humans. Places where things are not simply matters of opinion. Some Christians argue that without an omniscient God, it's all a matter of opinion. I'm flatly stating it's not. Universalities exist and two are murder and slavery.

[VRWC_minion]

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.

I believe this is false. I believe that the rate of abortions among Christians and non christians is about the same. However, I have no facts at my fingertips, just a memory of reading some stats on this.

People are not going to stop having sex to comply with others feelings and morals.

I believe this is a wrong assumption. Both peer presure and abstenince courses have been shown to work.

Birth control prior to contraception is expensive

A quick trip to the drug store shows condoms as being about 50 cents, the price of a Hershy bar.

and not easily accessible to many who are sexually active, who later have an abortion.

Are their armed guards at your local drug store ?

Birth control should be easier to obtain then an abortion.

I agree, abortion should take some counseling whereas condoms should not.

I would rather see birth control easily affordabe and accessable for these women.

What do you suggest ? Is 50 cents too much ? Is an abortion that requires medical care and thousands of dollars more affordable ? Have you even stopped to read yoru own arguments ?

The rate of abortions would fall.

Hmm, I believe that your ideas had a chance to reduce the abortion rate and guess what ? they didn't.

For those who will not take advantage of the more accessible birth control methods, no welfare and no easy abortion.

How the heck are you going to inforce this ? They must take pictures of themselves having protected sex ?

Those who have late term abortions or multible abortions do not care what others want, it is called being selfish or stupid or careless.

Abortion is always a selfish act. In fact its the most selfish act a healthy mom can do to a healthy unborn child.

[jwalsh07]

Your universal assertion that nobody wants to be a victim is confounded by the special interests in the democrat party.:-}

However, it says nothing about why a man, or group of men, who see the prime directive as self aggrandisement and the perpetuation of their gene pool are wrong if they say the means to that end is murder and rape.

For sure there will be other men who say that it is absolutely wrong but if men and their ability to reason are the arbiters of what is right and wrong, how can you say that they are wrong? You like the Rangers and I like the Mets.

[HumanaeVitae]

That's the rub. As an atheist, you can establish why you wouldn't want to be enslaved, not why it is wrong. If you are the slavemaster, slavery is quite a wonderful thing. Better than home automation. You may end up reasoning to yourself that it's the "natural order of things" that you rule and the slaves are ruled by you.

Under atheism, there really is no right and no wrong; to assert good and evil is to, in my opinion, betray a closet theism.

[jwalsh07]

Universalities exist and two are murder and slavery.

This is undeniably incorrect. In the Sudan, slavery abounds so there are some who don't see it as universally as you think.

In doxens of countires around the world murder is simply a means to an end. Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin et al. They didn't share your views on universality.

[VRWC_minion]

The tread is titled

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

[colorado tanker]

Oh man, that requires it's own thread even if I may agree that that's the best way to go politically.

True! But this explains why there are a lot of politicians who secretly are very happy to keep this issue in the courts, because if Roe is overturned, they would have to take a stand on the very issue being debated on this thread.

My two cents is that saying one opposes abortion but supports "choice" is just a way of dodging the issue because abortion itself is indefensible, except on the odious ground of utilitarianism argued by Peter Singer.

The people who make this argument are not, by and large, libertarians; on the contrary they are advocates of big government and expansive regulation. Ever hear a guy like Begala say something like, "I personally think discrimination against gays is wrong, but I think it's a matter of personal choice because opinions differ on the morality of homosexual conduct"? Humm?

[Mr. Thorne]

AFTER the fact. Doesn't prevent it, it counteracts it.

So. You cannot PREVENT a pregnancy, after it has been initiated. All you can do is 'cancel' it.

Some would argue that's not abortion. Still sounds like it to me.

[jwalsh07]

Actuaaly, I think you're wrong about pro choice libertarians. This is the exact argument they make. In fact it is made at the LP website.

[VRWC_minion]

Help me understand the lack of universality by making the case for those that want to be murdered.

Many folks have committed suicide by getting themselves murdered. We have nuts, martyrs and hopeless folks. There are therefore exceptions to your "universal", therefore its not a universal. Sorry.