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...
In the case of rape, the child is an innocent victim
2. Would you have forced the raped 9 year old in Nicaragua (discussed on several threads) to bear a child.
Red herring. The child assumes too much risk to birth 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.
Nonsense. The doctor decides that ahead of time in all cases.
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?
Since we don't know whether a baby is present, it's not the same as abortion. Of course, the pill should be legal. People have been taking them since the 70's.
Yes, otherwise abortion purists, which I'm not for many reasons, must admit that BC pills are as immoral as a partial birth abortion. The next micro step backwards is "every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good".
Are you taking offense because I pointed out that the embryo is in possession of it's own unique human genome while your sperm and ovum belong to Dad and Mom's genome?
If you are, well, tough.
Neither can I but the issue is should you ? If there were a vote tomorrow to ban it should you vote for a ban ?
And since you cannot decide in either case, murder must be ok with you.
"I'm curious, WHY do you personally oppose abortion?"
Don't respond until you get a clear answer. WARNING -- it may take forever to get a clear answer.
Their eventual answer will put them in one of two camps: 1) I believe it ends an innocent human life 2) I think it is an unpleasant medical procedure on a woman's own body which has sad consequences.
If they belong to camp #1, then your response is obvious. How can anyone support the legality of ending an innocent human life without his/her consent? There are many counter-arguments to clarify that this position is silly and giving parallels to other crimes should quickly expose the moral vacuum in this position.
If they belong to camp#2, then they may be showing themselves to be one who simply says the "personally opposed" line for political/cultural cover with relatives, in their church, etc. Or they may just not understand the issue, since the facts are rarely discussed in the media (conservatives and liberals alike run away from this issue.) You can flesh this out further by asking questions like:
"Oh, since that's your position, then it's really no different than how I personally wouldn't get a Tattoo, but support it's legality for others, right? Or I personally wouldn't commit adultery but support it's legality for others, right?"
"So, in essence, you believe a woman getting an abortion is ethically and legally similar to personal choices such as tattoos and sexual partners???"
Taking the argument further requires a whole different approach since you would need to convince your listener of the humanity of the unborn. I suggest reviewing material from http://str.org/ Their tape series is quite helpful, and there are several free commentaries which make the issue clear.
One parting shot you might want to throw in if you don't want to engage fully is something along these lines:
"Hey, do you remember that recent story about the woman who abandoned her two young children at home while she went on a lengthy trip? I hear they took her kids away and she's facing criminal charges -- but all she was doing was DOING WHAT SHE WANTED WITH HER OWN BODY (i.e. put it on a plane). Considering your position, don't you think they should drop the charges against this woman?"
Likely answer: "Don't be ridiculous. What she was doing 'with her own body' was harming another person, that's not comparable!"
Your response: "So, if I can show you scientific proof that the unborn is actually a seperate human being -- a living human genetically distinct from the mother -- then would you change your position?"
Likely answer: Mumbled response letting you know they hold their position based on emotion rather than facts.
What does logic tell you? Every baby that is 8.99 months along was an embryo at one point. You were as well and so was I. The difference between murdering a baby at 8.99 months and murdering a baby at .5 months is just material. One is a little more explicit than the other.
That is why there are a few pro-aborts who support a ban on PBA. The graphic nature of the murder tugs at their conscience, and some of them can't stomach it. It is an inconsistent stand (though I am glad to have their votes to ban PBA) because if killing a baby is a "right" than it is right, regardless of how far along the baby is, or even if it is viable. To follow pro-abortion logic, if it is in the woman's body, she has the right to hire someone to kill it.
I think that in God's opinion sex outside of marriage is a much bigger issue than the death of the newly conceived life due to the pill. I think a lot of Christians totally blow that issue off.
The reason why we don't take the law into our own hands in this case is that the act of doing so would, in the long run, result in more babies being aborted, because the act of killing an abortionist would diminish the likelihood of the criminalization of abortion. The reasons are prudential.
A wartime analog would be the following. During WWII the allies cracked the German code. Churchill knew where the Germans would attack. He could have put this intelligence to use instantly but instead he chose to postpone the use of this intelligence until it would provide the maximum benefit to the allies. In the meantime, however, he had to sit quietly and allow English cities and military targets to be destroyed.
That isn;t the issue raised here. The issue raised is
If you think abortion is wrong for you because its the taking of an innocent life then a belief that its ok for others to abort is illogical and inconsistant.
It is relativist to the core but it is still a moral in itself held by whomever says it.
'Nuf said.
Other than sodomy, laws which are falling left and right, and prostitution laws, which the government is also caving on, what ones are you thinking of. If those are the laws you are talking about, then for all practical purposes the gmt is NOT making laws about sex.
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 would be happy to discuss the issue of rape and abortion when it becomes relevant. Given that only a tiny fraction of the abortions in this country are associated with rape, that time has not yet come. Much more fundamental issues have yet to be resolved.
Also, in most cases of abortion, a threat to the life of the mother is not even remotely an issue.
You have held out two extreme cases in this discussion not unlike pointing at the mouse in the corner while ignoring the elephant in the middle of the room.
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.