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...
As it relates to abortion, I don't think it should usually be legal. I believe in some exceptions.
The question of when life begins is a scientific one that is well settled. It begins at conception.
The question of government protections arises after that fact.
It is understandable to feel differently about a "clump of cells" and a baby with eyes, ears, and a heart.
Unfortunately, by the time a period is missed, a test is positive, arrangements are made, and an abortion is performed, the "clump of cells" has metamorphosed into a very, very recognizable human baby.
The sperm was alive before it got to the egg, which was also already alive. Therefore...
Since the government can't say when and whom I can have sex with, they can not punish me if I infect someone with AIDS.
The results of anyone's behavior, is subject to the law. Specially, if the behavior harms someone else.
Do you feel one is OK and the other not?
I beleiev Hentoff is wrong because he ignores due process and informed consent but I respect his position.
The position these folks take is not deserving of respect nor is the position taken by many on the left who are OK with abortion but against the death penalty.
Therefore the combination of two alive things create something not alive?
There is nothing immoral about gambling, or drinking, or dancing.
If one gambles away the rent money, THAT act is immoral. But putting a few shekels in a slot machine, or drinking a couple of beers are perfectly neutral, morally.
Don't like slavery? Don't own slaves.
Some people think it is immoral to consume alcohol, while others do not. I think it is perfectly moral and logically consistent for someone to say that they are personally opposed to alcohol consumption, but that they won't seek to impose that belief on anyone else.
Excellent post. Mine was about sex and you made the same kind of point in a more general sense. The morality about killing a life that may or may not have a soul and a spirit, vs killing a bug, is very tough. We have no way to prove that a living adult has a soul and a spirit let alone a living sperm/egg combination.
you're argument is totally without merit because you are apparently genome challenged.
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.You've got my attention. Does the timing of an abortion affect whether abortion is just or unjust?
So do I but does *that* really mean anything whatsoever?
No, I don't believe that everything that is immoral should be illegal. But that's not the question. The question is: Should murder be illegal?
Are you in favor of making murder legal?
Yes and the progression of the difficulty is an analog one. It is very obvious to me, fwiw, that killing a baby days before he was born is murder but that is not obvious to me regarding birth control. I understand that BC pills actually cause a lot of babies to die after they have been conceived.
If in fact I was against abortion because I felt it was the taking of an innocent life, how could I be ok with someone else taking an innocent life.
I did argue for several weeks that this wasn't a fair way to describe the problem but I finally let logic and consistency rule and had to accept that I should be against abortion by anyone. I didn't want to accept this because it then placed a burden on me to express to and confront pro-abortion friends.
It did take a while for me to alter my viewpoints on this issue and all of its related issues. So, I can understand how others are reluctant to face this truth that their view isn't logically consistant.
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.