Discussions
Hillary and Abortion
Posted by dota • 10/16/07 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: politics abortion religion hillary clinton
The abortion detbate hinges on one consideration: If you feel the child is a small person, you have to oppose abortion. If you don't think the child is a person yet, you can support the mom's decision to carry or not.
For most Christians, the child is a child, and abortion is one of the worst forms of murdering innocents possible.
But not for Hillary:
Hillary scores a 100% rating from NARAL and a 0% rating from the National Right to Life Committee. While, like Bill, she is willing to compromise on numerous political issues, she will not budge on abortion. It is neither uncharitable nor inaccurate — nor name calling — to say that on the subject of abortion Hillary Clinton is fanatical.
There is no issue that impassions her more. She has not changed her position on any meaningful life issue, from federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research to banning partial-birth abortions to supporting funding for ultrasound machines to backing legislation to protect babies injured in the womb by outside parties.
But here is maybe the saddest part of her intransigence: As a lifelong committed Methodist, Hillary sees no contradiction in supporting abortion. Quite the contrary, she points to her church’s leadership as a source of guidance.
After all, her denomination, the United Methodist Church, is pro-abortion — a member of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, along with a bunch of other Protestant denominations.
The United Methodist Church’s Book of Discipline — the equivalent of a Catechism to Hillary — remains a major source of guidance for her on moral questions. It states unequivocally: “We support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures.”
More background here: ncregister.com/site/article/6285/
What do YOU think?
User Comments
-
I think she has every right to her stance as much as you do to your stance.
-
Of course she has the right to whatever political stance she wants.
-
I think she has no hope of winning because people like you would never vote for her because she is too liberal for you and people like me would never vote for her because she is too conservative and conniving. I think she is absolutely right on this particular issue, but I would NEVER, ever vote for her. -
When you say "right," do you also mean from a religious perspective? Or just right to support abortion?
-
I dont know much about american politics or presidents but didnt the president you have now commit to a war that has cost thousands of innocent lives of both countries involved? Whats the difference? He made a judment call based on what he believed was right at the time for all involved dont pregnant women do the same thing and who has the right to judge?
guidetolifeblog.com-
excellent parallel, Robin. Thank you.
-
The president can't (and didn't) constitutionally declare war. The congress has to declare war. They didn't - congress specifically turned down a bill to declare war on Iraq. We are not in a war. Congress authorized military action (and spending), but did not declare a war. My point is that it was not the president's judgment call that put us in Iraq. It was the congress.
That being said, it's as if you are trying to trump Hillary's stance with a poor stance of Bush's. No one here is saying how grateful we are for our Iraq military presence, so likening that to a woman's right to choose does not make sense. Unless, of course, you are making the point that a woman's right to choose (to abort) is as detrimental to society as this Iraq conflict has been. (that argument would also make no sense, for other reasons)
I stand by what I said earlier. Difficult issues such as abortion should be decided at a local level, not by a one-size-fits-all federal law.
-
-
What is the difference between war and abortion? You're alluding to the fact that both kill innocents, I presume?
The difference is that a war is supposedly fought against an evil, like Hitler. In the process of fighting the war unintentional collateral deaths occur.
Abortion, is the intentional taking of an individual life.
Even if you support abortion, you still wouldn't equate war and abortion as the same. I don't think that's in the NARAL pamphlets. -
I support the right of every person not to be judged by the moral code of others .....walk your pathway but dont push others into it.....speak your truth but dont claim ultimate truth because there is no such thing....stand for your beliefs but do not stand on a soapbox......you have the right to your opinion as I have a right to mine....I have never been in a position of having to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy or not..so I cant say what I would do....when a soldier stands in from of another soldier and fires his gun isnt his intent to take a life isnt the gas chamber an intent to take a life isnt the decision of a person to hop in a car and drive drunk an intent that may take a life I think it is not as black and white as people make it out to be that was my point why target one group? I am sure there are numerous intellectual arguments that refute everything I have just said....it always amazes me though that those who quote God tend to want to play God all the time by stepping into judgment :o) this is my truth it may not be yours and that is okay
-
you do have my apologies because I may have stepped on that soapbox my self lol
-
I support the right of every person not to be judged by the moral code of others .....walk your pathway but dont push others into it.....speak your truth but dont claim ultimate truth because there is no such thing....
This applies to many things, but does it apply to murder? There are some natural laws that you can never relegate to subjectivism. Murder is one of them. Were we wrong to hold Hitler to our moral code?
With this thread I was actually hoping not to debate the actual abortion issue but rather to see a discussion of Hillary, her stance on abortion, and how that comports with her religious values.-
How about the stand on abortion of the candidate your party is about to nominate? Or the stand of the candidate that is running second. Mitt Romney has supported abortion rights all his life. So has Giuliani. And yet, because they want to court people like you, they get up on stage and say "Oh no, I saw the LIGHT! I am a CHANGED MAN! I am SAVED now!" An people like you lick that up like a kitten takes to milk. Yet you know that right up until the time they announced they were running, they were fighting to protect abortion rights.
Knowing FULL WELL deep in your heart what your candidates truly believe, your party will nominate someone that goes against everything you claim to hold dear, and nominate a pro-Choice candidate.
Who is the bigger hypocrite here...liberals who support Hillary or Barak and vote their beliefs, or people like you, so enraged with hatred for the name Clinton you will turn your back on your beliefs and vote against the principals you claim to hold so dearly?
Seems to me that your part is having a serious hypocrisy moment here. Lets see...you have two choices, assuming Hillary is the nominee. 1) Go to the poll and vote for a known abortion supporter, telling yourself it's ok, because at least it's not Hillary and hes IS a republican, after all 2) Stay home, and don't vote at all. Geez, I wonder WWJD?
-
-
"and people like me would never vote for her because she is too conservative and conniving."
Well, I can agree that she is conniving. I can also agree that I would never vote for her
She is definitely not conservative. She represents and supports the rights of groups, not individuals. Groups are nothing without individuals. She also has little to no regard for fiscal responsibility. Our country is 9 trillion in debt and we are already taxed ~ 50% of our income. More taxing and more spending is not the answer.
Of course, the definition of a conservative has changed over the years, but my definition hasn't: conservatives protect our civil (individual) liberties and are fiscally responsible. Bush politics are not conservative either.
As for her stance on abortion: it's a shame that she and most other candidates to date bring this up as if it were a federal issue. Since there exists such a schism in our country, we should let the states decide rather than federally mandate one stance that may or may not bode well with the majority of US citizens. Difficult issues are best dealt with at the local level, where each person's voice can be heard more clearly.-
cindy,
hillary is a Wholly owned subsidy of Mega-massive-screw-the-workers-and outsource-to-india.com and any window dressing like courting the Emily's List money crowd is just that, window dressing. To fail to see her as a conniving power player thoroughly devoted to an unstated agenda (that of her big money corporate owners) is to seriously 'mis-underestimate' the woman. -
libdrone,
It sounds like you are agreeing with me? I don't know - I definitely agree with what you wrote here. -
Cindalou, do you happen to recall the state of the deficit when Bill Clinton left office? -
"As for her stance on abortion: it's a shame that she and most other candidates to date bring this up as if it were a federal issue."
Cindalou, the fact is that it IS a federal issue at present because the scope within which the states can legislate is currently controlled by existing United States Supreme Court decisions. You may wish that it was a state issue, and in fact it may be that it should Constitutionally be a state issue, but the practical fact is that it is currently a federal issue and will be such until federal action changes that. Were federal officials simply to decide not to participate in the issue any further, that decision would leave us with existing limitations and guarantees as interpreted by past decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court with no mechanism for clarification or re-interpretation. In fact, the outcome you seem to desire--complete freedom on the part of states to control their own abortion laws--would be ruled out for all time by those existing decisions if some action were not taken at the Constitutional level to remove existing restrictions. -
MadameX
I have seen charts. The deficit was significantly less when Bill Clinton was in office. Bush has spent more than all of the previous presidents combined. He is definitely not a fiscal conservative. It is ironic because he ran on a no foreign entanglements foreign policy.
On abortion, are you referring to Roe vs. Wade? That is something that a president I would vote for would try to repeal. -
Roe v. Wade is one of several Supreme Court decisions relating to abortion legislation in the states, Cindalou. And, of course, U.S. Supreme Court decisions can't be "repealed" by a President (actually, nothing can be repealed by a President, but Supreme Court precedent can't be repealed at all). I think, though, that you've demonstrated my point. If your Presidential candidate would be working to appoint a Supreme Court that would overturn Roe v. Wade and its progeny or to support a Constitutional amendment that would render it moot, then that candidate would very much be recognizing that abortion is currently a federal issue--if that candidate believes that abortion legislation should be reserved to the states and is free from Constitutional limitation, then his views about how to handle the existing federal issue may differ from those of other candidates, but he could not (if he had an adequate understanding of the operation of the federal and state governmental systems to be a viable candidate for President) ignore the fact that his goals could not be achieved without federal action.
-
Yes, a federal action that would remove federal jurisdiction over an issue implies the federal government has jurisdiction over the issue (if only one last time). I sure hope there is nothing wrong with that or else a federal law could never be re-examined.
Dr. Paul, as president, would introduce the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, which would remove federal jurisdiction over abortion and hand it over to the states.
Check it out here:
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.776.IH: -
Cindalou, once again I think you're expanding this far beyond my initial point--which was that you objected to Hillary Clinton and other candidates "persisting in seeing abortion as a federal issue". It is a federal issue for whomever takes office at this juncture in history, even if that person's only goal is to change that--which you seem to have agreed with in your last comment.
-
-
infonistacrat,
You are extremely presumptuous here. Did the OP ever indicate his favorite candidate? Being upset with Hillary's abortion stance does not at all indicate one to be a rudy/fred/mitt supporter. I, for one, don't like any of those three.
Also, don't assume you know what "our" party will nominate. Take a look at Ron Paul. Try to tell me he is a hypocrite.-
No, he didn't indicate it. But I am not so stupid as to believe he is not a Republican. And when your party nominates a pro-Abortion candidate, people like him will have a tough choice. Turn your back on your beliefs and vote for him, or stay home and watch Hillary or Obama or whomever win. It's my believe that people like him will walk away from their beliefs and vote for a pro-Abortion candidate, because this not really about abortion, it is about Hillary.
Ron Paul is not a hypocrite. He won't be the nominee either. He reminds me an awful lot of Howard Dean...popular with the internet crowd, but deserted at the polls.
I'll make a deal with you. If the GOP nominates Ron Paul, I will personally donate $100 bucks to him, and campaign actively for him in Michigan.
That being said, I don't know who the GOP will nominate. I know who the GOP should nominate...but you know, Gov.'s who come from Hope, AK just aren't real popular with republicans. :-)
-
-
ifonistacrat,
An people like you lick that up like a kitten takes to milk...
or people like you, so enraged with hatred for the name Clinton...
Seems to me that your part is having a serious hypocrisy moment here
I would have to agree with cindalou that you are presumptuous. I don't like Rudy, Fred, or Mitt either. In fact, I'm disappointed in the Republican party these days.-
Yes, I am being presumptuous here. But then again, can you honestly say that if the GOP nominates Rudy of Mitt, you won't go to the polls, and vote for them regardless of the fact that they have consistently been pro-choice right up until the fact that they announced their run for president?
And on the Rudy front...here is the guy who is the leading GOP candidate telling the world the he is not really a Republican, and in fact is really a republican. Geez, I may be mistaken, but I have never heard Hillary say that she was not really a Democrat.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGcPHiL0Fvc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftpmelectioncentral%2E... -
Sorry, I meant to say that Rudy declared the he was actually a liberal.
-
That is a funny video. Wow, he was really telling the truth. He really isn't a republican, and he's all over the place.
I'm not sure who will get the nomination. But I don't like what I see. Ron Paul is kind of okay but I have two major disagreements with him that are dealbreakers (that I'll save for/if cindalou makes a Ron Paul thread.) -
dota - I've made several! Definitely interested in hearing your complaints about Dr. Paul. Have you joined libdrone's political debate group? We can discuss it there if you prefer.
-
-
Your quotation of the UMC Doctrine is incorrect as you conveniently chose only the portion you wanted. This is the official abortion stance of the UMC:
"Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother, for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy. In continuity with past Christian teaching, we recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures. We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection."
Hillary Clinton directly defies the stance of the UMC by supporting abortion. -
Where did you find your quotation?
And how does that comport with the UMC's declared support for the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=4&mid=9239):
WHEREAS, The United Methodist Church was a founding member of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice in 1973, and...
WHEREAS, the Religious Coalition supports the right of all persons to have access to a wide range of reproductive health services including sexuality education, family planning services, contraception, abortion services, affordable and quality health and child care
And this (archives.umc.org/interior_print.asp?ptid=4&mid=991):
We believe that continuance of a pregnancy that endangers the life or health of the mother, or poses other serious problems concerning the life, health, or mental capability of the child to be, is not a moral necessity. In such cases, we believe the path of mature Christian judgment may indicate the advisability of abortion. We support the legal right to abortion as established by the 1973 Supreme Court decision. We encourage women in counsel with husbands, doctors, and pastors to make their own responsible decisions concerning the personal and moral questions surrounding the issue of abortion
This last one makes it sound like its okay to end the pregnancy if the child is handicapped. Ouch.
I would think it fantastic if the UMC had a stronger position on abortion, and Hillary were called out. -
"I'll make a deal with you. If the GOP nominates Ron Paul, I will personally donate $100 bucks to him, and campaign actively for him in Michigan."
Deal! In the mean time, I will do everything I can here in North Carolina to get this man the republican nomination.
By the way, Ron is not just popular on the internet. He has won 7 of the last 8 GOP straw poll events. His latest victory was at the 3 day Conservative Leadership Conference in Reno, Nevada, where he won with 33% of the vote. Romney, who spoke at the event, came in a distant second with 16%.
Here you can find the results of the not-internet straw polls:
www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/-
Cindalou, I will say this much...I think that Ron Paul would represent a return to the libertarian roots of the GOP. That might actually be a good thing. Of all the pub's running, there are really only two I find honest and not full of it, and that Ron Paul and .....wait for it...Mike Huckabee! Believe it or not, Huckabee is who I think would be the best candidate. Except that the guy in the White House took the term Compassionate Conservative and made it almost as laughable as the term Trickle Down Economics. Because Huckabee is actually the real deal...a very compassionate conservative.
Good luck to you on your endeavors to get Ron Paul nominated. If he wins, I will be true to my word, and I'll send you a picture of the check for your blog. -
PS: Here's an interesting article for you, I thought you might like to read it.
politicalinquirer.com/2007/10/15/ron-paul-and-the-real-numbers/
Interesting stuff. -
Thanks infonistacrat I am well aware of the CNBC poll story. I voted and watched the grassroots response when they took it down - phenomenal, to say the least. John Harwood from CNBC was actually on TV talking about the unprecedented response he heard from supporters.
-
-
The quotation I listed is also from the Official Doctrine of the UMC, of which I am a member. I have actually forward the article you listed to my pastor and associate pastor to find out exactly what the Methodist seminary teaches. But I can assure that at least at my home church and the others in my area, not one of them supports abortion as a means of birth control. I will post again when I get answers from my pastors. But I have always been taught in the UMC that abortion is an option only when deemed medically necessary by doctors.
-
I'm glad to hear that. Abortion as birth control is a very sad thing that unfortunately has become acceptable and promoted.
-
-
Okay, here is a response from my associate pastor, a recent seminary graduate:
The position on abortion is found in the United Methodist Social Principles. The UMSP are a "call to all members of the UMC to a prayerful, studied dialogue of faith" but they are NOT church law; therefore, what is expressed in these principles is intended to promote dialogue and study but is not legally binding in any way. Methodists are encouraged to at least thoughtfully reflect upon these principles, but it is recognized that many Methodists out there probably don't agree with part of the UMSP--and that's ok, b/c they are not church law. In fact, it's difficult to really agree with all of the principles, as many of the principles are written so vaguely that they really aren't taking a position on anything. So with that in mind, I would have to say that there is really no official, legally binding position on abortion.
But the UMSP does have a paragraph on abortion, and I will share most of the paragraph with you (minus some intro stuff at the beginning of the paragraph). "Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother, for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy. In continuity with past Christian teaching, we recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures. We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection. We oppose the use of late-term abortion known as dilation and extraction (partial-birth abortion) and call for the end of this practice except when the physical life of the mother is in danger and no other medical procedure is available, or in the case of severe fetal anomalies incompatible with life. We call all Christians to a searching and prayerful inquiry into the sorts of conditions that may warrant abortion. We commit our Church to continue to provide nurturing ministries to those who terminate a pregnancy, to those in the midst of a crisis pregnancy, and to those who give birth. We particularly encourage the Church, the government, and social service agencies to support and facilitate the option of adoption. Governmental laws and regulations do not provide all the guidance required by the informed Christian conscience. Therefore, a decision concerning abortion should be made only after thoughtful and prayerful consideration by the parties involved, with medical, pastoral, and other appropriate counsel."-
Thanks for providing that. I'm sure Hillary is out of step with the majority of practicing Methodists (even Bush is in the UMC), but has wiggle room to justify her position. A trained lawyer (like Hillary) could certainly find clauses in the above to fit her own position through. Such is life.
I hope that Methodists will speak out as Hillary attaches herself to religion, maybe even ironically say "Not in our name!"
-
-
Frankly, dota, I think you will have a long wait for the Methodists to turn on Hillary. As the quoted post from the pastor clearly indicates Methodists are by no means firmly committed to a pro-life position and attempt to craft a policy that leaves room for believers on both sides under a big tent. While I have not been a practicing Methodist for many,many years I did grow up in that church and can tell you that Hillary is in many ways a very typical Methodist.
And when I said she was conservative I meant it in the George W Bush sense of the word-- deeply committed to the interests of millionaire cronies and paying only unconvincing lip service to standing up for the poor, which has been the historic mission of the Party she seeks to Lead. -
"The abortion detbate hinges on one consideration: If you feel the child is a small person, you have to oppose abortion. If you don't think the child is a person yet, you can support the mom's decision to carry or not."
I quit reading after these sentences. Why? Because the debate hinges on much more than this for many of us. If you're going to tell me there is only one way to frame the debate, then no dialog is possible.
Also, the use of so much bold type puts me off. In this framework, the bold type is shouting, and it is impossible to have a civil dialog under such circumstances.-
Mark, you know that oversimplification of political issues makes my brain explode, but do you really not think that the idea of the fetus as a sentient human is dispositive for most people? Obviously there are many other issues involved on both sides, but I don't believe I've ever heard a pro-choice activist or politician (or even just a guy in a bar) say, "I believe the fetus is a living, conscious human being just like you and me and that it's perfectly alright to kill it".
-
-
Your characterization of Hillary Clinton's position is, frankly, ludicrous. She is a supporter of choice, which is not synonymous with being a supporter of abortion, let alone a "fanatical" supporter of abortion.
I am Catholic, and not in a loose, a la carte kind of way.
I do not support the use of birth control, but I would not entertain the possibility of outlawing it in a secular country like the one we live in.
I do not support missing mass on Sunday, but I would not support legislation that required you all to attend, regardless of your own religious beliefs.
I do not support sex outside of marriage--but I sure wouldn't vote to criminalize it.
I do not, in fact, support ear piercing--I think it's a sin to mutilate healthy flesh, however slight that mutilation might be, in the interests of vanity. But I can promise you that I will not be lobbying for legislation to make sure that none of you get your ears pierced.
In fact, if I happened to have a seat in the legislature and any such legislation was proposed, I'd oppose it. Perhaps loudly and consistently enough that you'd call it "fanatical". -
"I do not support the use of birth control, but I would not entertain the possibility of outlawing it in a secular country like the one we live in."
Since many people believe a fetus is a person, this has to be asked: Do you not support murder? Would you entertain the possbility of outlawing it in a secular country like the one we live in? Recall "Though shalt not murder."
Personally, I say get the federal government out of the support or opposition of abortion altogether. Let the states decide.-
That's sort of irrelevant to the issue at hand here. The allegation made in the initial post is that Hillary Clinton is a "fanatical" supporter of abortion. My point was to illustrate that it is entirely possible and in some cases the only sensible course to be actively opposed to something and yet not support legislation to outlaw it. In other words, the fact that Hillary Clinton (of whom I am no fan) does not support outlawing abortion does NOT mean that she "fanatically supports abortion"--any more than I "fanatically support" birth control or premarital sex because I don't want to legislate your decisions on the issues.
-
Cindalou,
Your argument totally discounts the people who do NOT feel the fetus is a person. What latitude do you give those people who do not feel the way you do?
As far as leaving it to the states...lets say that we do that. Now, lets say that my state of Michigan says abortion is legal. North Carolina says that abortion is illegal. Now, lets say a woman travels from NC to Michigan, gets an abortion, and then comes home. Do you try her for murder? Or no, because she was in a safe zone? How about if she moves to Michigan and has an abortion before she establishes residency. Will NC now move to have her extradited to NC to stand trial for murder, because she was still a resident of the state? If a woman conceives while on vacation in NC, is that child then a citizen of that state, subject to it's law, protections and services? If you don't try her for murder, aren't you then condoning that murder?
Before you answer those questions, think carefully. Because if you say no to these, then you are still providing a legal way for a woman to get an abortion, so whats the point of making the changes? To say that you live in a moral state? But how moral is it when you still allow women to travel with impunity to those states where abortion is legal, obtain said abortion, and then return to get pregnant another day.
If you say yes, then you are setting the stage for states that allow abortions to tell other states to don't to bugger off. Not a good situation for this Union of ours. -
Actually, Info, the questions that you raise aren't difficult to answer at all, because they come into play every day in the form of our existing state laws. If I live in North Carolina and I travel to Michigan and kill someone there, the state of North Carolina cannot try me for murder, despite the fact that both states have laws against murder--acceptable behavior is governed by the state in which you are acting. You may not like that outcome, but it's not a legally complicated issue--the answer is crystal clear under existing law. Residency has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
However, if a state wanted to attempt to control the actions of its citizens when outside the state (a rather bizarre scenario, so far as I can see), it could pass legislation that, for instance, made it a crime to cross the state line for the purposes of obtaining an abortion or assisting another person in obtaining an abortion. There might be Constitutional issues involved, but if Cindalou had her way and the federal government took an entirely hands-off approach and the U.S. Supreme Court opted not to hear a challenge, then nothing would prevent a state from passing and enforcing such a law. -
"Your argument totally discounts the people who do NOT feel the fetus is a person. What latitude do you give those people who do not feel the way you do?"
To oversimplify my stance, I am pro-choice. Again, you assume you know the unstated position of a post-er. You raise good points and MadameX answered them well.
"and the U.S. Supreme Court opted not to hear a challenge, then nothing would prevent a state from passing and enforcing such a law."
Well, nothing except the people of that state. The same people who will have more control locally then they would federally. The state does not exist without the people. -
As far as MadameX's first response:
True - this is a bit off topic. I wouldn't say Hillary is fanatical in her abortion stance.
-
-
-
Stoneman / MadameX,
The abortion debate hinges on wether or not you define abortion as murder. That's it.
If it's not murder then legislation against it is indeed a moral judgment, and all the arguments about "legislating your morality" ensue.
If it is murder, it's indefensible.
You can't say, "it's murder to some, but not others," because that lets you off the hook of any moral responsibility, because surely you can't abide murder. What is it to you?
Is it murder? Or not?-
Dota, I think you've missed several layers of complexity here. First of all, "murder" itself is a term that must be defined. I notice that you use "murder" and not "killing" and assume that is intentional--if so, you clearly recognize that not all killing is murder. Note, though, that there are those who consider all killing wrong, whether or not it's classified as murder, and so would be against abortion even if it were demonstrated to everyone's satisfaction that it was not murder. Or, some might determine that it is murder when it's elective, but not when it's a life-saving measure (similar to most states' laws on self-defense)--those people might nonetheless determine that it's unacceptable. And, of course, there are many people who are quite comfortable "legislating morality" for whom the debate would not be ended by the fact that "all the arguments about legislating your morality ensue".
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that "surely you can't abide murder" is a big assumption. I can't. I also can't abide people speaking unkindly to strangers on the street. But the fact is that there are many, many people--even entire subcultures--that not only abide murder but have accepted it as part of the operation of the society in which they live. The fact that YOU can't abide murder and don't think any reasonable person could doesn't automatically end the debate for those who see the world differently. You may think they're categorically wrong, but that doesn't end the conflict. -
Putting aside for now the case where you are choosing between the life of the mother or the unborn child....
What is the ending of a viable pregnancy to you? Murder? Or not? -
That's not a question I've ever asked myself, and to answer it for you would require far more time and analysis than I'm willing to invest in something that would serve no purpose except to satisfy a stranger's curiosity. The point of my response was to point out that for many people, that's NOT the "hinge" issue...it's not going to become mine simply because you've announced that it should be.
-
You don't have to answer it for me, but I think you have a moral responsibility to answer it for yourself, especially as a practicing Catholic who feels the church is wrong on this issue.
I think inescapably the murder question has to be a part of everyone's decision...either they think it is, isn't, or ignore the question. That latter two are pro-choice. It's not my opinion, it's a reasoned response. You yourself have just placed yourself into the third category, and that is the reason for your ambivalence on the issue and your pro-choice stance.
I've enjoyed reading through these various comments...
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
