Quote:
Should people make up their minds about the illegality of robbery, rape, or murder? Should those actions not be illegal?
Euangelion:
To me, this is a false equivocation. I had never said that people should be allowed to make up their own minds about everything - I had said that they should be allowed to make up their own minds about the abortion issue. In other words, they should be free to make a choice about abortion, on the basis of their own situation and their own personal world view.
DCY:
Please forgive me for butting in on this highly volatile discussion, but...
I happen to have taken a couple courses in logic during my university days and, as far as I can tell, there is no 'false equivocation' being made here at all. The individual who posted the questions at the top obviously sees abortion in general as a moral evil, along with the other activities that are listed. Naturally each is not exactly the same as the other, nor end in the same results, and are therefore punished diversely. But they are all nevertheless wrongful--as is abortion, which, no matter the particular situation in which the procedure is decided upon and thus performed, ends in the death of a yet-to-born human baby. That is the bottom line and must not be dismissed nor forgotten.
Euangelion, the scenario you present as the 'only' one in which you would 'personally' find the abortion procedure an acceptable option--the 'life of the mother' exception--is one which, in this day and age, is exceedingly rare (thank God!). Indeed, the incidence of a mother's life being genuinely put in jeopardy as the result of her producing a live baby are so rare as to be virtually negligible. It is seriously a situation where, if such circumstances really were the only instance in which an abortion is justifiable, it would, for all intents and purposes, put an end to the practise almost altogether.
Projill, I am sincerely saddened that a pregnancy of yours (or any pregnancy, for that matter) ended in a miscarriage. And I am also saddened that your church community failed to show you the sympathy appropriate for such a terrible event, no matter what your politics might be. (Though I can honestly say that, until you, I have never heard of any Christians reacting thusly to such a situation). However, at the same time, you designate yourself an ideological liberal. That being so, liberals generally pride themselves on standing up for 'the little guy', speaking out on behalf of those who have no voice and fighting for those who are comparatively defenseless. Why is this not so when it is the littlest 'guys' who are in mortal danger? Why are these principles of advocacy not extended to those who are truly voiceless, who are completely defenseless and whose very lives are jeopardised? This is an egregious inconsistency. Please, don't allow the bitterness you likely have a perfect right to be feeling toward those particular Christians who mistreated you to compromise your liberal principles, because in the end, your voice goes out not against them, but against babies.
And to all those who claimed not to feel a sense of shock at the photo of a sliced-up baby: I don't at all mind saying this. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Unless, of course, instead of shock, the feelings that were elicited by the picture were those of revulsion, profound sadness and righteous indignation that any baby should meet with such a truly horrible end. Personally speaking, I have seen countless such photos over the years and they have never once failed to profoundly upset me. And it really shouldn't matter which side of the abortion debate you come down on, if pictures like that don't upset you, well then, I'm sorry to say this, but you might just as well turn in your humanity-card right now.
