Comments on: Abortion and Moral Relativism

By: Heather

Heather — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 06:19:43 +0000

People attempting to justify taking the life of an innocent, unborn child frustrate me. By all accounts women do have a right to make choices with regard to their bodies. However, the choice about your body should begin with the choices that you make which put you in the position to even be contemplating an abortion. If you do not want to be pregnant then utilize birth control. Furthermore, if you are not willing to face the potential consequences of having sex, which, pregnancy does pose as a possibility, then maybe you should not be having sex. You want to have choices and be in control of your body, then take control and make responsible choices with your body and then you avoid unwanted pregnancies. Lastly, if a woman should have rights and should be able to make choices regarding her body, why then does the unborn baby, whose voice cannot yet be heard, have no rights to their body? The unborn baby’s heart starts beating between 18 and 25 days after conception, well before a woman even knows that she is pregnant. It has little arms, legs, hands, feet and all organs are there. It is a whole little human being, who only needs to grow and be given the opportunity to be, to live, and to fulfill its purpose in life……
Heather Davis

By: Tristan l

Tristan l — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:23:50 +0000

Excellent post, spot on the mark.

@Suuz Tompkins.

“Mayor Giuliani, like yourself, is against abortion. He, like yourself, thinks its morally wrong, he, unlike you, does not impose his opionion on the world and expect everyone to submit to his value system. We can’t make everyone like what we like, value what we value, and do what we do. If a woman wants an abortion, its her life, its her choice. Not yours.”

The attitude of “morally neutral” (everyone make up their own mind) is self-defeating and incomprehensible.

You say that it is her choice, leave her alone. Yet then you tell others to abide with your moral choice, to leave everyone to their own choice. Inconsistent?

(And yes, the attitude “let everyone make up their own mind, to not force your opinions on others” IS forcing your opinion on others. People can make up their own opinion AS LONG AS it doesn’t affect me/others is forcing your opinion).

Tristan Ingle, Sydney

By: Lars Munk Sørensen

Lars Munk Sørensen — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:32:34 +0000

An unborn child is conceived the moments the sperm penetrates the egg. After that, it will evolve until it is a grown old person who dies a natural death. Any humanly planned deadline, before which it is lawful to kill it, is arbitrary: 5 seconds after that line, it is murder to kill it. 5 seconds before, its lawful in my “civilized” country of Denmark …
Lars Munk Sørensen

By: Lars Munk Sørensen

Lars Munk Sørensen — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:01:21 +0000

In my country, Denmark, a memorial park for the unborn victims of abortion has been ruled unlawful, because it offended the ethics of abortionists. But I believe that accepting abortion on grounds such as euthanasia (“It´s better for a child to be dead than to be adopted or live with unfit parents”) or pro-choice (“It is the mother´s body, not the child”) puts us on the same level as the Nazis killing “unfit humans”. However, the nazis were cruel, but honest. How can we critisize unfit dictators around the Third World, if we keep killing our own unborn babies?
Lars Munk Sørensen, Denmark

By: ania majdali

ania majdali — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 04:14:46 +0000

Suuz,

You’re all for freedom of choice and women’s rights. Well if women have the right to abort their babies, we have the right to oppose it.

It’s not as simple as ‘her life, her choice’. It’s not her life, it’s her child’s life. She just gets to choose whether or not she wants to end it.

Ania Majdali

By: Bill Muehlenberg

Bill Muehlenberg — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 01:41:27 +0000

Thanks Suuz
Of course that is as helpful as saying, “If a man wants to own slaves, its his life, its his choice. Not yours.”
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

By: Suuz Thompkins

Suuz Thompkins — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 01:30:38 +0000

Mayor Giuliani, like yourself, is against abortion. He, like yourself, thinks its morally wrong, he, unlike you, does not impose his opionion on the world and expect everyone to submit to his value system. We can’t make everyone like what we like, value what we value, and do what we do.
If a woman wants an abortion, its her life, its her choice. Not yours.
Suuz Thompkins

By: Aurora

Aurora — Thu, 24 May 2007 10:32:43 +0000

Excellent article, Bill. You’ve articulated exactly the problem with all moral relativism. It struck me as I read your comments about all tastes being ‘equal’ under moral relativism, that this is the same argument being used to push the multicultural agendas which seek to elevate every religion, every culture to the same level. Surely a culture which has institutionalized sadistic killings or slavery cannot be considered equal to one that has institutionalized protections and safeguards for freedom based on a strong Judeo-Christian foundation. It’s funny how, as we accept that all cultures and religions are equivalent, we’re losing that which made our own unique in the world in terms of morals, human rights, success, prosperity and freedom.
Dee Graf

By: david skinner

david skinner — Mon, 21 May 2007 14:46:28 +0000

Bill, the illustration of the old lady crossing the road is not fanciful. I remember in 2001 a case of a man, in Britain, driving his car at an old lady crossing the road, and being begged by his passengers not do it; but he did it all the same – just for the buzz. Since then, in Britain, and I am sure elswhere, we are daily seeing violent crimes committed against people simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Francis Schaeffer’s prophetic words have become concrete reality.
But on the point of “If all morality is subjective, then personal taste rules the day, and there is no independent umpire to say that one preference is better than another,” I would like to suggest that there is an idependent umpire and this is emergence of unelected commissioners set up by governments like the Commissioners for Equality and Human Rights, in Britain. What is emerging in the chaos of equivalence and relativistic thinking is totalitarianism. Modern, consumerist society is driven on to satisfy its insatiable appetites and the need to experience ever stronger stimulation, whilst it unthinkingly conforms and marches in step to whatever is the consensus of consumer opinion, or as the communists call it, collective thought .Without any fixed point of reference, like a ship without a captain, society drifts in a sea of relativity and changes its attitudes and values according to the political climate. The only moral compass is a constantly changing political correctness. The government takes over the intellectual, moral and spiritual reigns. It becomes the supreme authority; it becomes that than which no greater can be thought (parody of Anselm’s definition of God as the “Being than which no greater can be conceived.”) Our freedom to think, to reason and to engage in dialogue is taken away; we are only allowed to believe that which the state oppressively dictates. What might be shocking and completely unacceptable behaviour can almost overnight become respectable and what was previously considered to be decent and responsible behaviour can become criminal. Morality is completely turned on its head. Without any fixed, absolute point of reference, human nature has a way of accommodating and becoming comfortable over a period of time with a state of hell. It can gradually sleep walk into becoming hardened, desensitised to cruelty, barbarism and evil, until what was considered abnormal or deviant becomes the acceptable norm, as happened in Nazi Germany, Russia, China, Cambodia and now with alarming rapidity in Britain.
David Skinner, UK

By: Jeremy Peet

Jeremy Peet — Mon, 21 May 2007 06:01:14 +0000

Good article Bill.

Should we take the illustration of slavery further? What should we do if we found out our next door neighbour was having slaves? Do we simply argue on opinion sites that what he is doing is wrong? Should we make sure our legal powers – courts, parliamentary representatives, etc – know it is happening and plead them to stop it? Do we arrange protest marches to raise public awareness of the immorality of slavery?

I think the slavery issue illustration is a good one but it’s not entirely accurate. One day in the life of a slave is not a ‘Life and Death’ matter. Perhaps an example like … “If you knew your next door neighbour was about to murder their two year old” What would you do then?

With a family to support, I need to think very seriously about what action I should take as people end up with prison terms for obstructing abortion clinics. However, the lobbying and protesting about the moral argument just doesn’t seem adequate.

(By the way, this is no criticism of your efforts, Bill, nor anyone else who has worked in such ways to fight abortions. But should we be doing more?)

Jeremy Peet