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...
You really can't answer this question adequately (no atheist can), but I'll ask it anyway.
Although I'm no athiest, I'll try to answer, but worry that your views are held so tightly, you'll find nothing more than those beliefs satisfying.
Theists, athiests, and others understand there was a yesterday, that is, we didn't spring, full-blown into existence today. We have a history, and that history is part of what we are today. It is exactly that history that may hold part of an answer your question. We may owe our existence to the fact that our ancestors, in some fashion, held survival of our species dear. Because of that, they cared for their young and did their best to see they survived and prospered. A desire to help their off-spring may contribute to a decision to fight to free slaves, because it will make the world a better place for their progeny.
If your conjecture were correct, that without God, I wouldn't throw my life "away so that someone could live better than [me]" why would I expend so much effort on my children? And I can assure you I do. Why would I come on this forum and spend this much effort espousing ideals like life and liberty? Because there's something in me, that's why. Something that can say, "That's not right," even when there's nothing in it for me, other than to resist evil. How would you explain that?
Let me add on more observation. Take it for what it's worth. I see a lot of Christian bashing out there. You, i.e. Christians, don't deserve it. Do you want to know what I think the greatest thing that ever happened is? It was when a bunch of Christian guys sat around and thought up the Declaration of Independence, then went out and took on the greatest power on earth to back up their beliefs, and succeeded. Maybe it's because I appreciate what others have done for me that I want to make things better for others.
How does denial of the supernatural equate to no absolutes? Are you asserting the natural has no absolutes? 2+2=4, no? If I build on the principle that 2+2=5 and my creation comes crashing down, am I not wrong for ignoring absolutes?
The very fact that you are talking "good" or "evil" means that you are poaching on theistic ground.
I cede ownership of these concepts to no one.
2+2=4 is an opinion, like everything else.
ah interesting, so now pro lifers are changing their holy grail theory that life begins at conception. Now it's implantation. I've noticed that alot because obviously they recognize the major problems with the conception theory.
Your money is safe, at least from me. 8~)
My position is that morality exists as a fact in its own right (Human Vitae's smug voluntarily moral blindness and studied obtuseness notwithstanding) and serves as the foundation of all just laws. Many acts and behaviors that are immoral are best discouraged by informal personal censure without the intervention of government. But when this informal personal censure breaks down and dissolves, when each man is the arbiter of his own morality without regard to the external costs he thereby imposes on his neighbor, destructive anarchy can be avoided or forestalled only by the imposition of external controls on behavior. A man who will not control his immoral appetites internally runs the risk that a tyrant will seek to control them externally.
I would much rather live in a libertarian society comprising moral and just men and few laws. It is the moral relativists who have made that society impossible.
So, I'll just take a moment to reject out-of-hand your conclusions as to how God's nature would/should be expressed with respect to a woman unwillingly carrying the child of a rapist.
God plainly allows suffering in this world, whether it is a result of one's own choices or a result of other's violent acts to which we are a victim.
Sorry - I don't buy it. By your logic, your group of believers uses its interpretation of scripture to put both believers and nonbelievers into a box when they don't agree with your interpretation. There is no good whatsoever to forcing a raped 9 year old to give up a percent of her life to bearing the baby of her attacker - and that level of coercion is not designed to lead people closer to God. I can easily posit that many would view a deity who would require such an evil as unworthy of worship or respect, and would see the theology as concocted by man as demonically inspired.
Personally, I would not make a 9 year old give birth. I do see that as inconsistant with my assertion that a fetus deserves protection. But it is no more inconsistant than jailing adults for theft while allowing preschoolers to get away.
As far as I know, conception has always meant when a sperm and egg unite.
One person here has mentioned implantation. Perhaps you ought to read the thread more carefully.
Thought we were on the same side, Kev. Anyway, I suggest you pick up any dictionary of philosophy and look up the fact-value perplex. You'll learn something. Don't worry, it won't hurt you.
I agree with you. There is simply no way to confirm whether a conception has occured 6-12 hours after the event. I give it a pass. I also give a pass to the pill in general.
Sometimes the pill does result in a conception not finding a healthy place to implant. Sometimes that happens without the pill. How does anyone know? Are we surmising that this has happened in a percentage of cases because of probability?
If it is that unclear, I'm willing to let it go.
An earlier poster mocked me because of my feelings for the 9 year old (I do that because I have a 9 year old), yet forgets that the core of the pro-life movement is about how they feel.
I cannot accept an argument that says "s*** happens, get over it, you have to have the baby because society says you do and we have to be consistent" to someone like a raped, pregnant 9 year old. I would probably get involved in an underground railroad for that sort of thing were the procedure not available to someone like that.
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.