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...
I don't desire anything. I'm making some assertions. You and others here are free to comment on them, as you have been doing. In fact, that's why I'm writing them here. I'm stating what I believe. Where anyone can prove me wrong they have that opportunity.
So, your point stands and if anything contradicts it its a fringe exception by definition.
Not at all. I described how what you are doing is fundamentally changing the situation.
Are you opposed to murder? Would you murder someone? My guess is no. If I offered you a million dollars to kill someone, would you? I still think your answer would be no. You are not a murderer. If I kidnapped your child and said unless you kill that person, I kill you kid, I've fundamentally changed the situation from my original question? If you killed the person, would you consider yourself a murderer? Maybe you would consider it defense of your child.
What if your child were ill and needed an expensive operation? Would you kill for the million dollars I offered? You can play out in left field all day long. I stand by my original assertion.
When you agree, I wouldn't even count that as murder. All your exceptions fail on this point. In each case, the person made a choice to be "murdered". IMHO, murder requires that the victim not consent.
The prohibition against murder is a universality.
Same point as Post #302. When you choose to be a slave, it isn't slavery. Enslavement requires the withholding of consent.
The prohibition against slavery is a universality and thus is wrong/immoral/whatever you want to call it.
LOL. When he/she makes the rules, I guess. The 'universal' argument as presented is absolutely flawed. Then to read a response which says...this exception doesn't count, that exception doesn't count, etc. renders the "universality" decidedly non-universal.
So, your universal has another exception. If someone chooses to be a slave they are not a slave. So someone who at one time gave up all their freedom and chose to eb a slave is forever not a slave.
Take a look at Posts #302 and 304 and let me know what you think.
So, murder is ok so long as the victim agrees to it. You don't see a problem with this policy ?
That is correct. Calling what someone does of free will slavery does not make it so. I do what my boss wants, I'm not a slave.
Just replace "abortion" with "rape" and see what reaction you get. Some things, killing babies, raping women, are immoral and YES, should be illegal. Of course rape is legal in some countries.
Of course I am. We are testing your universal to see if it works. So far you must provide for exceptions and determine the feelings, background and motivations in order for your universals to stay universals. Unless they apply to all situations exactly the same then they are not universals.
Look, lots of philosphers have attempted to do what your doing and have failed. Heck, even God acts differently in different situations. About the only universal your going to get out of the bible is when God days "I am".
Whether I see a problem with such a policy is not germane. I'm stating I don't call it murder. I suspect many would agree with me. I can't recall specifics, but I believe there have been several cases where someone killed a loved one suffering from a painful, debilitating, terminal illness at the patient's request. Many would not equate that act with getting one's brains blown out in a liquor store holdup.
If you're going to present such a nuanced dance around clear problems with your argument, then you need to coherently re-state your argument using the accepted PREMISE/PREMISE/CONCLUSION format.
The fact that you agree there are exceptions to your universal means that you don't understand what "universal" means, or that your argument has not been soundly laid out.
If the latter, the burden is on you to re-state your case in a way which preserves your theory of "universal agreement as a basis for a moral code" in light of the clear exceptions to your prior claim of the universality of not-wanting to be murdered.
Time to go home. Good luck on your search for an objective universal truth. Its an admirable pursuit but it ends in you looking in the mirror and concluding all your experiences are subjective and you cannot be certain of anything. (apart from God which is a whole other discussion)
Can't have it both ways. The only difference is the calendar. A woman misses her period due to pregnancy........then, by default, that means that conception has occurred. If left to his/her own devices, that means that baby will develop and will be born. You won't get a sunflower or a chimp; you'll get a baby.
Therefore, if it's wrong at 8.99 months, it's wrong when the woman misses her period due to pregnancy.
"Convenience" or "neatness" (i.e. a smaller mess to clean up) should never, ever enter into this discussion.
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.