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

Vanity | 2/28/03 | Humanae Vitae

[AppyPappy]

1. Do you support, or oppose a rape exception to any scheme of law outlawing abortion.

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.

[mikesmad]

I assume your exceptions are rape and incest (those seem to be the popular ones). Why? I know these are traumatic to the women and I know that it may cause them more trauma to carry the child to full term. Is it right to kill the innocent child to "protect" the innocent victim of rape or incest? I think not. I cannot think of a perfect comparison but will offer this. If my neighbor rapes my wife should I have the right to kill his innocent twin brother because every time my wife sees him it causes her trauma/bad memories?

The child is innocent no matter the method of conception. Innocent life should always be protected no matter the circumstances.

If someone believes that the child is not a human being until the moment they are born, then that person is totally blind, ingorant, stupid, or whatever adjective you want to use. If you believe they become a human at a certain period then we need a discussion of when that is and why that arbitrary time, because that is what it is until we can be 100% sure that science has progressed so far that the question can be answered with absolutely no doubt. Until then we must at least err on the side of caution or we are killing an innocent life.

There is one exception that should be allowed for abortion and that is the life of the mother. Then and only then it becomes the choice of the mother and none of us have any say so in the matter. Self defense is a valid argument whether you are religious or secular in your reasoning.

[biblewonk]

You've got my attention. Does the timing of an abortion affect whether abortion is just or unjust?

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".

[jwalsh07]

And what is wrong with my attitude Mr Wonk?

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.

[VRWC_minion]

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."

Neither can I but the issue is should you ? If there were a vote tomorrow to ban it should you vote for a ban ?

[Protagoras]

The question is whether it has a soul and a spirit.

And since you cannot decide in either case, murder must be ok with you.

[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.

[Zack Nguyen]

I feel differently about the two.

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.

[FourtySeven]

Good questions. Here are my replies, briefly.....

1. Oppose: It's not the baby's fault his/her father was a monster.

2. I don't know enough about the case to really comment, but let me say that if the 9 year old could not have safely carried the child to term, then I would support any medical treatment necessary to save her life. Note, I don't reguard a medical procedure used to save the life of a woman, if said procedure does have a SECONDARY affect of killing the baby, as an "abortion". That's because the primary goal is to save the life of the woman in such instances; the primary goal is NOT to kill the baby.

3. Expert medical opinion, supported by science and agreed by most in the profession is sufficient for me.

4. Yes, I do. See #1.

Asking these questions of potential candidates is a good idea. Like I said, they're good questions.

[biblewonk]

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.

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.

[Aquinasfan]

These are the questions I struggle with, currently, when talking about abortion.

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.

[ex-snook]

Well I heard of a bumper sticker that read "I'm personally against killing abortion doctors "

[VRWC_minion]

Is being against murder or abortion in the realm of reason? I'm not so sure... (for the sake of argument)

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.

[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.

[biblewonk]

False assertion. We do in fact have many laws regarding who can have sex with whom.

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.

[mikesmad]

In the context of "pro-life" meaning do not kill innocent life, people that recieve the death penality are not innocent (ignoring any arguments about an innocent being falsely convicted).

We should always defend innocent life, "guilty" life may be open to different opinions. In my view the death penality is a valid penality whether you use religious arguments (for Christianity, Islam, and Judiasm at least) or natural law arguments.

[FourtySeven]

Thank you. Your post was very helpful.

[Pete]

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 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.

[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.