[Dog Gone]

Do you believe that everything you consider immoral should be illegal for everyone else?

[RAT Patrol]

By not imposing their views on mommy they are imposing their views on baby. For mom, it's a nine month "sentence" (if she views it that way). For baby, it's a death sentence. I just can't see that the two compare.

[Pete]

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

Here is the best response I have seen to this statement. It is excerpted from this article

Issue:"I would never have an abortion, but the choice is for others to make for themselves" or "If you don't like abortion, don't have one"

It is not inconsistent for someone who would never box in their life to want boxing to remain legal. Someone may hate the very taste of coffee, but that does not mean they need ban it. They could always simply stop drinking it. It would not necessarily be hypocritical for someone who hates fox-hunting to believe in others' liberty to hunt. Some try to extend this liberal principle to abortion: just because someone may think abortion immoral, distasteful and wicked, it is argued, they need not oppose it.

Having categorised boxing, coffee and hunting as three things one can quite consistently dislike without believing they should be banned, we ought to examine some things one could not consistently oppose without wanting them banned. A clear example would be rape. It would be utterly absurd to say "Don't like rape? Then don't commit any". This is because when someone is saying they find rape distasteful, they are not simply talking about disagreeing with the choices others make, as may be the case with hunting, but they are opposed to the very idea that anyone should force a woman to have sex with them.

The question is whether abortion goes into the first category - a matter of choice, like boxing or coffee-drinking, with no essential rights involved - or the second - a matter of fundamental individual rights, which cannot be negotiated and are not simply about the preferences of one person. Whichever side one takes in debating it, abortion does not fit into the first category, as both of the above statements wrongly suggest.

If one holds that innocent human life is sacred and valuable and that this value remains whatever the preferences of others, then abortion is clearly a matter of individual rights. No one can hold that abortion is a violation of individual rights while thinking it should remain legal anyway. That is what is so absurdly hypocritical about those who claim they personally oppose abortion but still want it legal. Logically, the only reason to believe that it would be wrong personally to have an abortion is if you thought the baby that would die has a right to life. But if your own baby has a right to life, why doesn't anyone else's? If the baby in your womb is an innocent human being, how does that change for babies that end up in the bodies of those who would be willing to have an abortion? Does the body know at conception whether the mother is pro-life or pro-abortion and produce a human baby in the first case but not the second? What if the mother changes her mind in the middle of the pregnancy? It is here that the absurdity of this position becomes clear. They are essentially arguing that someone's right to life should depend on the standpoint their mother took on abortion - that their own children have a right to life but the children of pro-abortion women do not. If this is not hypocrisy, nothing is.

Equally, to say that opponents of abortion should simply "not have one" is to miss the argument completely. Pro-lifers are not saying that it is their personal preference that individuals have rights, but that innocent human life should be protected whether in the body of a fervent pro-lifer or a conscienceless woman on her seventh abortion. It makes no sense at all to argue that if someone doesn't like slavery, they don't have to buy a slave. Yet that very argument was used in the US in 19th century, and is used now as a defence of abortion. Abortion is either murder or it isn't. To sidestep this question and pretend it is merely a matter of preference, like the choice between washing powders, reveals either ignorance or dishonesty.

[craig_eddy]

Well, I believe that owning a gun is moral (not to mention a right) and the liberals don't. But yet they wish to impose THAT morality on the rest of us. So their argument is, once again, hypocritical.

[Charlie OK]

My governor {shudder} Brad Henry, has taken this same stance on abortion. He also is trying to pass a bill to legalize gambling here in Oklahoma. He recently asked the members of the state house and senate to "set aside their morals" and pass this bill.

Oh BTW, he is a Deacon in his Baptist church!

[Stone Mountain]

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.

The judge is not sentencing the thief for being immoral. He is sentencing him for breaking the law. Surely you don't believe that everything immoral should be illegal or vice-versa?

[Mark17]

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

I wonder if she is also against adultery, but would not impose that belief on her significant other, if she indeed has one?

[biblewonk]

Should the government make laws about who can have sex with whom? If not then it becomes pretty hard to justify their having the ability to make the moral decision about when a life begins or when a sperm/egg combination is a living human being.

[FourtySeven]

Excellent post! You bring up some points I've been struggling with, as of late actually. At what "point" do we say, "Ok, I have to let this abortion thing go"? Let me elaborate.

If we believe that abortion is the murder of a baby (which I do), then where do we stop in our defense of that baby? In other words, is there ANY justification for the "lunatic fringe" on the abortion debate that actually "take the law into their own hands" and KILL abortion doctors?

If not, why not? Is it because "killing is always wrong"? Would it have been wrong to kill Adolf Hitler, if given the chance? If the practice of abortion is not comparable to the atrocities the Jews suffered in WWII, then doesn't that say something about what we're REALLY saying the babies aborted are "worth"?

These are the questions I struggle with, currently, when talking about abortion. REST EASY though, all fellow FReepers and lurkers, I'm NOT another "Eric Roberts" or whatever his name was, that's suspected of bombing abortion clinics or killing abortion docs. I have no intention of going out and killing abortion docs, or bombing clinics, or any of that, because OBVIOUSLY the line has to be drawn before that.

All I'm really asking is, given this obvious line we can't cross, how can we still fulfill our moral obligation to protect the lives of the unborn, without doing such actions? In other words, what other things can we do that satisfy our moral obligation to the unborn just as well?

Any thoughts would be appreciated, thanks.

[Egregious Philbin]

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.

[amused]

This sentiment is what is carried by liberals who find abortion repugnant but are cowed by the much more vocal pro-choicer. A simple statement like "I do not believe in abortion" will elicit responses that the person making the statement wishes to force their beliefs on someone. And that is "wrong"....unless you believe in leftie ccuases.

[VRWC_minion]

I used to hold this posistion until I started debating stuff on the internet with folks. I was challenged by someone to look at the issue from the unborn childs view point.

If in fact I was against abortion because I felt it was the taking of an innocent life, how could I be ok with someone else taking an innocent life.

I did argue for several weeks that this wasn't a fair way to describe the problem but I finally let logic and consistency rule and had to accept that I should be against abortion by anyone. I didn't want to accept this because it then placed a burden on me to express to and confront pro-abortion friends.

It did take a while for me to alter my viewpoints on this issue and all of its related issues. So, I can understand how others are reluctant to face this truth that their view isn't logically consistant.

[Terriergal]

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

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"

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Four questions:

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.

[ER_in_OC,CA]

IMHO, the appropriate response question to those who say "I personally oppose abortion, but support it's legality" is:

"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.

[Solson]

Actually...the belief that you won't impose your morals on anyone else....is a moral in itself that you impose on all others.

It is relativist to the core but it is still a moral in itself held by whomever says it.

[Aquinasfan]

"I'm personally opposed to murder but won't impose my beliefs on anyone else"

'Nuf said.

[NYFriend]

Interesting idea. There are a number of fine points here. First, Let's say I'm morally opposed to abortion. Does that mean I believe that it is universally wrong? Does that mean that I accept any universal moral code? Like Homer Simpson said; "If the Unitarian's have the one true faith, I'll eat my hat".

The real question is, on what grounds are you morally opposed to abortion. If the anwer is, because it's murder, then for any government official to support the state or federal murder statutes, should require them to believe that abortion should be criminalized.

Now, what about abortion to save the life of the mother? Is that morally wrong? Socrates would say that it IS wrong. A moral wrong is always wrong, regardless of the situation. However, he might say that we can perform such an abortion, not because it's right or because it's ok, but because we have to. Necessary and moral are separate issues, just as morality and justice often are different. If killing is morally wrong, then shooting a suicide bomber before he runs into a nursery is wrong. It may be justified and thus legal, but not moral under any of the systems that require universal morality.

I would say that the same holds true for the death penalty. If killing is wrong, then executions are wrong. However, the immorality of executions may be the cost we must pay for a civil society.

War with Iraq would also be immoral. One could say that it would also be immoral for the United States, with it's resources, to allow Saddam to stay in power because he posses are real threat to his people and his neighbors. But even if this is true, it would not make war moral. This is where the phase "necessary evil" comes from.

The point is, when we get into moral absolutes, we are going to run into a great number of areas when the only explanation is that we may have to permit immorality out of necessity, such as tolerating a killing in self-defense or a war with Iraq. There is some, at least internal, logical consistency with the Liberal position that it is immoral to impose one's will on another. However, the fact that they selectively apply their will on guns, tax policy, even abortion (there have been plans to force doctors to lean to perform abortions) and contraceptives (there have been proposals to require hospitals to dispense morning after bills on demand) on others, certainly detracts from the ideal asserted by the speakers referenced in the first paragraph of the article.

[onedoug]

Essentially the whole body of American secular law derives, and hence is imposed from the Law of Moses, which admonishes murder.

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.

[Just another Joe]

You have looked at this through the wrong filter.

"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.