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...
Let's just insert some other moral wrong in there and see how that line of reasoning holds up:
"I'm Personally Opposed to [MURDER, RAPE, THEFT], But Won't Impose My Beliefs on Anyone Else"
I'm not in disagreement with that, although there are some very serious obstacles to doing that. Until that happens, all anyone honestly can say is "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but I can't impose my beliefs on anyone else."
I feel differently too but I'm not wise enough to determine the exact dividing line. Without that wisdom the only safe place to draw the line is conception.
What is the difference?
Feelings aren't decisive. Reason should be.
False assertion. We do in fact have many laws regarding who can have sex with whom.
I feel that killing a baby at 8.99 months is blatent murder but morning after pills and BC's, which cause miscarriages, are not. So does a brand new sperm/egg cell have a soul and a spirit? That is a moral/religious question. Does a man have a soul and a spirit? Another religious question. I believe a man does and I don't know but seriously doubt an egg gets a soul/spirit when a sperm penetrates it. But science can't even prove that a man has a soul/spirit.
That is the most dishonest position to take.
Honest positions to take are, you are pro life and the unborn should not be killed, you are pro abortion and believe the baby deserves no protection or you believe that somewhere in the continuum of human development the baby should be protected.
The I'm pro life but you can kill'em position is drek.
1. Do you support, or oppose a rape exception to any scheme of law outlawing abortion.
2. Would you have forced the raped 9 year old in Nicaragua (discussed on several threads) to bear a child.
3. Do you require absolute, beyond all reasonable doubt proof that a pregnancy to term will kill a mother before you will allow an abortion.
4. Do you oppose giving a rape victim a D&C, or abortifacient drugs like a morning after pill immediately after a rape, on the basis that a human soul may have been created?
I'll be asking these questions of every GOP primary candidate for office in my area, and I hope others will do the same.
Then as the issue is stated here, this doesn't apply to you. It is an issue for those who think abortion is wrong for them because such life is precious but not wrong for others. With the possible exception of your exceptions your posistion is not inconsistant.
If government can't decide which entities have rights, it can't do anything. When do you think a human organism acquires the right to life?
The question is whether it has a soul and a spirit.
I visited the DU today and your attitude belongs over there, not here.
Euphemisms like "miscarriages" are not useful. Nor are qualifiers like "blatent".
Your basic probelem isn't with the killing but with the timing, at least it seems that way. If not please explain.
Statements like that confuse a common behaviour of eating meat yet not participating in the hunt or slaughter with taking a moral position.
The fact that I am restrained from preventing abortions because of the rule of law doesn't mean that I agree with the law.
However, I support candidates who pledge to make abortions not only rare but illegal.
Hits the nail right on the head. Unfortunately clergy of all demoninations ceased giving that message a long time ago and now the number of women who have had an abortion and those who were part of that decision, are now a critical voting mass. "and they wanting to justify themselves ....."
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.