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...
Who's against overturning Roe?
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.
This is not a personal attack against you, but this argument is ridiculous. While I agree that murder is morally wrong, your attempt at a "universal argument" at least in the way you've shared it is untenable.
Structure your argument in a formal way:
Premise 1: It is universal that no human wishes to be murdered
Premise 2: Acting against a human's wishes is wrong
Conclusion: Therefore, murdering a human being is wrong
While we could find a nutcase who would theoretically "disprove" Premise 1, the weakness of this argument comes when reviewing Premise 2.
I could just as well say that no human wishes to be imprisoned, but of course society must imprison some. Or we could get more trivial and say that no human really wishes to pay his electic bill...
In summary, your argument as presented fails.
Can someone say HYPOCRITE? That is what this person is. It's cold hearted and childish to boot.
Just curious ... but what do you feel is the difference?
That is a timeless truism. Today though, people don't like truth and wish to shape it according to their ever lowering selfish mores.
Soemthing alive grows ... .
You: "The sperm was alive before it got to the egg, which was also already alive. Therefore...
Therefore it is ALIVE and the beginning of a human being! I can't imagine why you use "biblewonk" as a moniker since you obviously don't take His word seriously.
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.I confess that I haven't been keeping up with all the posts on this thread, so forgive me if my comments are redundant.
Assuming that conception has already occurred, the difference between a natural miscarriage and an abortion is the intent of the actor. A natural miscarriage is not murder because there is no intent to kill an innocent living human being, not because there is not a living being.
To say that a death has not occurred in a natural miscarriage necessarily presumes that there was not a living human being prior to the natural miscarriage. I'm curious how one knows that a one-second-old fertilized egg is not a living human being.
I suppose it would be too much to ask for you to read your Bible. God is very clear that a human life has a soul and a spirit. Again, I am puzzled and even more distreesed at your lack of Biblical knowledge.
The only argument I've heard is basically the argument Justice O'Connor made in upholding Roe - stability. The theory is that the country and our laws have adjusted to Roe, so it shouldn't be overturned. I think the real reason is that having legislators and governors deal with abortion would lead to political knife-fights in which some politicians would lose their jobs.
Doesn't persuade me.
I agree with you. But true libertarians are few in number. The point I'm making is that the Democrat establishment, NOW, NARAL, and the rest of them, make this libertarian argument on one issue and one issue only, abortion. They're hypocrites because on all other issues they are anti-libertarian regulators.
Actually, I'm establishing that I don't want to be a slave. I haven't said anything about a why. By establishing that I and all others don't want to be slaves, I've established a wrong by virtue of universality. That some might like to be enslavers is immaterial.
Take an example of photography. Some would like to be photographed, some wouldn't want that at all. Some would want to be the photographer, others not. Some neither, some no preference. There is no universality and no morality or wrongness with respect to photography.
I'll put it another way. In a given activity there are roles to be played: murderer, victim; photographer, model. There are hats associated with each role and everyone gets to put their name into as many hats as they are willing to play the role associated with it. Where you have hats with no names, there's something moral and wrong going on with that activity. Where you have hats containing every name, there's some moral and right going on there.
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.
There may be any number of people who argue this. If they argue it is right for them to own slaves, but that it would be wrong for another to own them, they are being hypocritical.
to assert good and evil is to, in my opinion, betray a closet theism.
Would that I were. You theists have a much easier row to hoe.
I am responding to your question of "is a caterpillar a butterfly?"
A caterpillar (larval stage of a butterfly) is not a Checkered White butterfly, but BOTH are the same Pontia protodice.
The question itself in the way you've worded it is akin to asking: Is a child a grown adult? Well, the answer is plainly no since each of these are our names for stages that a Homo Sapiens progresses through. But that is not the essential question. The essential question is is a child a living Homo Sapiens? YES. Is a grown adult a living Homo Sapiens? YES. Is a fetus a living Homo Sapiens? YES. Is a sperm a living Homo Sapiens? No.
Below is a link to a helpful article from STR is touches on a similar question: "Is an Acorn an Oak?"
http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/abortion/fetal.htm
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.