"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...

[Zack Nguyen]

I think that there are an awful lot of inconsistancies on both sides of this debate.

I don't see any inconsistencies on the pro-life side. YOur name indicates that you read the Bible. Consider, then: either a baby is made in the image of God or he/she is not. If so, then they have the stamp of the Almighty on them, and a crime against them is a crime against God. If not, then we are just higher animals, and there is no real reason not to kill a baby.

[MHGinTN]

Looking at biblewonk's comments at FR, I wouldn't assume the name means the individual actually believes The Book or its Author, just has interest in it for some intellectual reason.

[Torie]

Murder is wrong for an atheist because it is wrong. Any atheist that denies he or she indulges in leaps of faith is lying to you, or not very thoughtful. And there you have it, as one who has given it some thought because I was confronted by the same question, and resolved it to my satisfaction, about 30 years ago.

[VaBthang4]

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

Well, I'm personally opposed to murder, and I will impose my beliefs on everyone else.

[Torie]

From where springs your opinion of the origins of and validity of universality? Or is it just THERE?

[AppyPappy]

You are arguing theory. In reality, we are aborting babies by ripping them from the womb. The doctor counts the pieces to make sure he has them all. It's hard for me to get worked up about a morning after pill in the light of that.

[independentmind]

Because I don't believe that bad things always happen for a good reason.

What's more likely is that bad things happen for reasons we don't understand.

There are many ways of extending the life of brain-damaged patients. From what I understand, a respirator is usually considered an extraordinary means of sustaining life. A parent or a dying person, if capable, does nothing wrong if he chooses to discontinue or not avail himself of the use of such a machine. The same goes for dialysis in end-stage renal failure cases.

What is not permissible, however, is to make the decision to starve a dying person. This is what happens when the decision is made to cut off feeding tubes. I don't know the specifics of your nephew's condition, but there are many levels of unconsciousness before one can be declared "brain-dead." For those who are not completely brain-dead, it is impossible to determine exactly what they can feel.

Starving is one of the most painful deaths imaginable. Who can blame a parent for not wanting to subject his dying child to that?

[Mr. Thorne]

I am arguing against a state of mind that deems the tiniest life of no value.

To my mind, the thought that some abortion is OK gave rise to Roe (unlimited in first trimenster). Once some abortion was OK, how could any be wrong? Thus Doe (removal of all legal limitation).

And thanks for the backhanded insult. I guess my rage is less noble than yours. I was operating in the context of the thread, IMHO.

At what point in development may I become concerned, that I may be properly pro-life? Obviously, I'm starting too early (conception).

Mayhap I should be clear: I am one of those delightful folk that Palpatine rages against on these boards. Abortion is a sin, and a crime against life. Whether at nine days or nine months.

If you wish to talk tactics, I'm no purist. I'll take what I can get within the realms of political reality. If that means a ban with rape or incest exceptions, so be it. Better than nothing.

If you want a wider view, I say ban it all, save for the life of the mother (lethal self defense).

[AppyPappy]

I don't believe in the complete sanctity of life. That's why I am pro-death penalty and pro-military. Since I cannot prove that a morning after pill will kill a particular human being, I cannot oppose it. If a woman takes a morning after pill and you arrest her for murder, what are you going to use as the body? Where's the proof of murder? There is no body, no witnesses and no evidence. How are you going to prove she murdered her child?

[Mr. Thorne]

< I don't believe in the complete sanctity of life. >

I can't prove a thing AP. Thus, there must be no crime, since there is no evidence. And probably not even a guilty conscience. It's just a blob of cells, after all...

Please advise, though, regarding my previous post. At what point may I become concerned, in your view? This is not a prod, this is an honest question, since I doubt you are alone in your views.

[AppyPappy]

Once again, you are in theory since you have no idea whether the woman is pregnant and there is no way to tell at that point. She is taking a pill to prevent a pregnancy. She MIGHT be pregnant but 99 out of 100 times, she is not. When a woman walks into an abortion clinic, she IS pregnant.

If you don't have enough to be concerned about with abortion, I can't help you. I don't live in theory, I live in reality.

[HumanaeVitae]

Laredo, you've gone around in circles, over and over again, and still won't concede your point has no merit.

Atheism is the denial of the supernatural. Therefore, there are no absolute rights or wrongs. The very fact that you are talking "good" or "evil" means that you are poaching on theistic ground.

This is the question you simply cannot answer--as an atheist--no matter how much you dance around it. Why would you die to free someone from slavery? (fight in the Civil War for example). If you're an atheist, you firmly believe that this life is the only life; so, why would you throw yours away so that someone could live better than you?

You really can't answer this question adequately (no atheist can), but I'll ask it anyway.

[NittanyLion]

What do you think about Nat Hentoff's view on abortion? He's pro-life, but also anti-death penalty. He argues that it is hypocritical to be any other way.

There's a fundamental difference between an unborn child and one convicted of a capital offense. The child is innocent, while the death row inmate has violated the rights of another person, and hence ceded his/her own right to life.

[NittanyLion]

Again, the question is whether or not an unborn child is a human. The other question--whether or not everything I think is immoral should be illegal--is flawed. First off, if I said that everything that I believe to be immoral should be illegal, then I'd be a moral relativist. In my view, morality is not personal; it is transcendent. Second, if you're for allowing pornography, prostitution, drug use etc. to be legal in society, well guess what, I live in the same society that you do. You're trying to impose your morals on me. I regard the above as trash, and you're littering in my neighborhood.

So what is the standard you use to determine what behaviors should be illegal?

[NittanyLion]

I'm pro-life by the way but with a grey scale.

Kinda like being "almost pregnant"...

[Jim Noble]

>>coinsidently that's when the brain waves start.<<

Please provide a reference for your assertion that cerebral electrical activity does not start until after 26 weeks.

[Kevin Curry]

The judge is not sentencing the thief for being immoral. He is sentencing him for breaking the law.

A dancing fool devote of the Clinton word waltz, I see.

[snowstorm12]

Look folks, not all human cellular life is sacred. The question is whether early human cellular life is deserving of any moral status. Advances in science have shown no moral difference between somatic cells and embryos. To have moral significance you need a fully functioning brain and body, in other words you have to be A PERSON. What it means to be a human or a person is not a single cell, 4 or 100 cells. PEOPLE are fully functioning brains and bodies. No body, no brain, no person. It's just that simple.

[MHGinTN]

Kev, I think you've discovered a new definition of parsing ... clinton word waltz! I like it, especially when applied to the Axis Of Acorns, the bitter little nuts fallen from the clinton dead-tree, unfit for aural consumption.

[NittanyLion]

A dancing fool devote of the Clinton word waltz, I see.

Is it your position that illegality always equals immorality?