"I am opposed to murder, but have no problem if you do it."
In the current topic on fetal gene sequencing, the otherwise articulate and insightful Prof. James R. Brenner of the FIT chemical engineering department said that he would not terminate a pregnancy because to do so would be anti-life, but neither would he stop someone else. Jim is not alone. More than once, here in the Gulch, other people have made the same claim. They are opposed to abortion but believe that the government should not be involved in a personal decision.
Why would you feel (believe, conclude, surmise, deduce, induce...) that something is _wrong_ "for you" and then say that it might be right for someone else? I am not talking of chocolate-versus-vanilla but basic moral questions.
Why would you feel (believe, conclude, surmise, deduce, induce...) that something is _wrong_ "for you" and then say that it might be right for someone else? I am not talking of chocolate-versus-vanilla but basic moral questions.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
I, too, believe that abortion is a sin. I also believe in liberty and understand that others may not have the same belief system as do I. I explained my rational for how to address the issue in a rational manner below.
Your stance is entirely rational and non-contradictory. Anyone saying otherwise has to check their own premises.
Some define "life" as starting at the first fertilization of the egg by the sperm. There are different theories as to why this is, but the two leading ones are that 1) a new complete sequence of DNA equals a new life, and 2) the religious view that at conception a soul is created in that completed joining of egg and sperm.
The other issue for those not ascribing to those two specific theories is more a medical issue on when a grouping of cells becomes viable of independent living. Thus, at first fertilization that single fertilized cell is incapable of existing independently, thus is not a unique "life." At the other end of the spectrum, the moment immediately prior to birth the accumulation of cells has certainly attained a state of "life," with mere minor time passage being the only real difference - a difference that is inconsequential. This approach then calls for one to make a decision as to when the transformation from not capable to exist independently to able to exist independently occurs. There is no way to make a clear distinction when that occurs, so it is only rational to make that distinction in the most conservative manner possible to ensure that any mistakes are made to ensure that possible life does not have its inherent rights violated.
The first instance, which would not permit any form of abortion, calls for either a religious or scientific/medical perspective that many may not hold. In a free society we cannot force others to accept theories that they do not agree with.
In the second instance, there is a time period when abortion (the elimination of living tissue) would be permissible, but beyond which it would not.
The problem comes from the definition of "murder." The believers that the first cell division or conception creates a unique life with its own inherent rights, particularly to life, would then deem any intentional cessation of that life as murder, while others would not. For those of the second type, murder would not be a factor until later in the development of the tissue. Thus, for one person an aborted fetus could be thought of as a murder, while for another person it would not.
Those with the position that a baby does not attain inherent rights until it has passed through the birth canal (or been extracted via caesarean) have an immoral view in my opinion that is not worthy of even discussing. Such a view does not take into account the fact that a baby 2 mins prior to birth is fundamentally equivalent to one 2 mins after birth, and thus provides for infanticide.
Let me clear on the abortion issue.
1) As I said earlier, it is anti-life.
2) I could not live with myself or anyone else if I did it.
3) I agree that it would be wrong for anyone else to have an abortion, but frankly that isn't my business.
4) In the same post, I said that the persons involved with the abortion would have to live with the consequences.
5) While I view unborn babies as not only alive but as possessing the right to live, not everyone in this mixed up society does.
6) I did not say that abortion would be right for someone else. This was your misreading of either what I wrote and/or implied.
While I can see how you came to that conclusion, it was not my conclusion.
7) Before coming to the Gulch, I had never had anyone call me a racist or bigot or say that I was in support of murder. Now I have. I am a man, and I can take it.
I am not self-contradictory, and I have no guilt about what I have done or not done. I will not let you or anyone else make me think less of myself. Guilt is something that many people, Christian or non-Christian, struggle with. False guilt is something no one should have to deal with, but we have plenty of people in America who are willing to dole it out. I expected that sort of behavior in America, but not in the Gulch.
If and when I do something that ought to make me feel guilt, I will feel guilt, because my conscience is properly formed. I know right from wrong.