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...
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.
And setting off bombs in crowded shopping plazas is bigger than both---which doesn't address the issue at hand.
Oppose, unless mothers life is in danger.
2. Would you have forced the raped 9 year old in Nicaragua (discussed on several threads) to bear a child.
A variation of the question is "would I let the unborn child die" ? See aanwer to 1, same question.
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.
I would be happy with beyond 51% of doubt.
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? Yes. See 1.
Which happens to be the consitent posistion of the RC church.
The soul is the form of the body. Its' existence can be known with certainty.
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.
Timing is everything, yes. When does the sperm/egg get a spirit and a soul or what ever part of that distinguishes us from the animals? And it doesn't matter anyway because you can't prove that a man has one or is different from an animal in that regard. So as far as proof to the heathen, we will never have it.
You mean, like chattel slavery?
There is plenty of scripture supporting death for murederers. Having said that a position the position taken by Christians and others like Nat Hentoff that all life is sacred is a defensible one I respect though I would disagree.
I would certainly oppose the death penalty as it was practiced in Illinois - where as many were exonerated as executed
There have been no documented executions of the innocent in quite sometime. What Governor Ryan did in Illionois was reprehensible from my standpoint. He issued blanket amnesty while he should have judged individual cases. It would be instructive for you to search google and find what the victims relatives had to say in their testimony regarding same.
Rape or incest are the only cases whereby I would personally condone abortion, where a criminal complaint would be required to be issued in the first case, and certainly at least contemplated in the second.
Meaning, of course, that your answers on those aspects of this question will not tend to curry favor for the militant side of the prolife movement, and that by remaining silent, you hope to avoid spurring on intense opposition.
In the case of the 9 year old, that was real - I wasn't dragging out strawmen. A Nicaraguan Archbishop excommunicated everyone involved with it (he didn't name the rapist as one of the excommnicants, though), including the heartbroken peasant parents of the 9 year old, for "promoting" abortion. How can your ultimate goals not be relevant?
"I'm Personally Opposed to Abortion"
Right to life people - vote for me
"But Won't Impose My Beliefs on Anyone Else"
Pro-choice people - vote for me.
I want to stay in my cushy government job where I don't have to actually WORK so I'll try to get both sides to vote for me with a statement that says I'm for both sides of the issue.
Whether they actually ARE opposed or not is irrelevant when seen through this filter. They will say whatever is needed to continue to be elected.
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?
Oh is that what that was. Go visit the DU and see how they behave there, I dare ya. It really changes the way you want to treat freepers even when you don't agree with them.
I don't recall God putting weights on the ten commandments do you ? Do we have a weighted average for our sin ?
We do know that Elizabeth's unborn baby, Johm the baptist, jumped in the womb when Mary wa carrying Jesus. We do know that Jesus put much value on the children and even encouraged his disciples to become more like them and Jesus reserected a child. We also know that he forgave a woman for adultry. So all in all, God trusted his own son in the womb of a woman, Jesus placed the value of a small child above his disciples. Pressed to determine which would take precendence I would have to say the unborn innocent child would take precedence over adultry.
Reason in the sense of more than bare logic. Reason includes self-evident First Principles, such as the fact that the good should be done and evil avoided.
Consequently, I think each state ought to be able to decide whether abortion is murder. Some states might outlaw it entirely, others might allow it under some circumstances, and others might allow the doctor to deliver a baby and shoot it right there in the delivery room, although that seems unlikely.
I, personally, would not want to have my wife give birth to a baby that we knew had severe birth defects, especially if we knew that very early in the pregnancy. (I might add that because she's had a hysterectomy, this is obviously hypothetical) On the other hand, I know full well that late abortions are the killing of babies. My son was born three months premature and he's a healthy teenager today.
This issue is easy for people who believe that a baby exists at the moment of conception. It's a lot more complicated for everyone else.
For what it's worth, I agree with you. I'm sure many won't. Some still adamently oppose nearly all forms of birth control. It wasn't that long ago that condoms were illegal.
If it's murder when ever we cause a sperm/cell combination to die then we need to start having funerals for minipads don't you think? You call it murder one minute and think nothing of it when one dies of natural causes and is flushed down the toilet. This is pretty selective human definition don't you think?
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.