Yesterday I posted a diary that I think was not clear to many who read and responded to it. Perhaps I explained too much, or took too long to get to my point. In the interest of clarification, here is what I believe:
I think that abortion is morally wrong. But becuase abortion involves very personal issues and is not cut and dry (for example the fetus is INSIDE of its mother) I think that abortion should remain safe and legal. I also think abortion should remain safe and legal because there is not a concensus on the issue, and many people think that abortion is morally right when they choose to terminate a pregnancy.
Indeed, my moral position is uncertain. I think that abortion is morally wrong, but I don’t think it should be made criminal. I do not know how to reconcile my belief that all stages of human development deserve protection with the fact that the fetus is INSIDE of its mother, and that abortion is therefore different from, for example, murder. That’s why, despite my moral stance on abortion, I think it should remain safe and legal.
I just read through your comments (and BTW, you did not respond to every one as you said in your response to me) on that diary, and I am still left asking the following:
What IS your moral stance on abortion? (aside from “it is morally wrong” — what does the word “moral” mean to you?)
And given your answer (should it appear here), why is it that you are not content to hold/act on your moral value/opinion and let others hold/act on theirs?
Would I like to see a society, hell a himan race, exisit in a state where abortion would not be necessary and issue, etc. etc. HELL YES. But it is not bound to happen any time soon, ESPECIALLY if we preach morality at the symptom-level and to the CAUSE level.
And one more thing, for now, when you find the parent(s)-to-be who are “fully prepared” (your words) to have a child as they make the choice to have sex or not. Please point them out to me and give them my email address — no one is fully prepared. Especailly not in the face of ever-changing social cirumstances….
himan = human
and
“ESPECIALLY if we preach morality at the symptom-level and to the CAUSE level.”
is supposed to be:
ESPECIALLY if we preach morality at the symptom-level and ignore the CAUSE level.
not happen. There should be an end to the practice of murder.
I am not content to act only my own view because abortion, like many moral issues, involves not only the mother, her fetus and the medical profession, but it also reflects on our society as a whole. I oppose wars that I am going to fight and will not be direct victim to. I oppose childhood poverty that I did not and will never myself experience. I oppose the killing of cows for food consumption, and I will never be a cow or eat one myself.
As for the prepared or not situation, I don’t understand the point. We don’t kill babies because the parents are not ready. If you don’t think a fetus warrants protection, that is your position. But I doubt it is because of parent’s right to be prepared. For me, the issue is not the parental level of prepartion, but the life of the fetus itself.
I mention birth control because it is an effective way to reduce abortions. I want abortions to be ended, and birth control is one step to such an end.
Why? Why should abortions not happen, in your moral view?
And, um…what??
I oppose wars that I am going to fight and will not be direct victim to.
Typo?
As far as reflecting on society as a whole, couldn’t you thing of maybe one or two other things that reflect “more badly”?? And, hey, maybe if we started thinking about those and working to take care of them, they might help with your moral dilemna?
As far as the “fully prepared” arguement — if you don’t see the point, then why did you write in the comments in your other diary that no one should make the choice to have sex until the are “fully prepared to raise a child”?? And yes, I’ll link to it if you force me to, but I would hope that you could remember what you wrote so recently.
If all life is sacred then how does one decided who should live or die in the case of it being either the mother or a fetus? If any one of a thousand medical reasons say the mother will die if she continues pregnancy then what’s the decision?
And her doctor does as she requests. And we all support her, regarldess of what she decides.
WHAT EXACTLY IS YOUR POINT???
The only thing you seem to be pushing is your selective “morality” … and trying to equate abortion with immorality. This is find very distrubing coming from a gay man who the greater part of society views as immoral. You sound like that GOP consultant who developed the gay wedge issue… who just recently married his gay lover in liberal Massachusettes and adopt a child. There is a lot of self hatred coming through in your posts… or your are just incredible hyppcritical… or more likely a paid propandist.
Wouldn’t it be in all of our best interests if people like you would just stop labeling other people andd get out of their panties. For heavens sakes… there is something about glass houses…
I do not have, or should not have, a moral code?
First, I have labeled no one. I have simply said that I believe that abortion is wrong. That is no different than saying the stealing is wrong, or that lying is wrong, or that killing animals to eat them is wrong. Moreover, just as with eating animals, while I think abortion is wrong I don’t think everyone who eats animals (or who has abortions) should be put in jail. I am only saying that I believe that there is a moral issue at stake, and that I think that abortion should be ended.
I am not a member of the GOP. I am a radical liberal, interested in the moral dimensions of civic life. I believe that indidivual morality, how we live our lives, matters. I am totally opposed to the way in which we have allowed ourselves to be part of a society that devalues life to the point of killing 100,000 civilians for an immoral and illegal war. And I am interested in changing the cultural landscape, of getting us back on track to a morality that is based on love, compassion and life.
How you could think that my moral stance on the issue of abortion has anything to do with the person I sleep with confounds me. I have not said that homosexuality is immoral, other people hold that view. In addition, I believe that there is value in secularism, which trumps many moral concerns in civil society. That value is one reason why I believe that abortion should remain safe and legal. And it is also why I beleive that legal equality should trump moral concerns when it comes to how society treats gay and lesbian citizens.
While I am opposed to unequal treatment of gays and lesbians, I am not opposed to people having views (and sharing those views) about what they think is moral in relation to my life. I don’t agree with them. I don’t really like what they have to say. But they should have moral posistions, and should be advancing them.
Finally, the government does have role in our lives. Only libertarians don’t think so. Liberals, in fact, understand that the role of government in people’s lives is essential. There some issues of great moral import that we rely on government to advance. In a democracy we rely on civic and political processes to reach a consensus on what these issues are. And in a liberal and secular democracy, we balance moral concerns with the rights of the minority and the principles of liberalism.
I think that abortion should be ended.
You are really confused…
Statement that “We Invent Morals”:
So then the inventors of morals and ethics who have the loudest voices, or the most access of the tribal rule, then get to decide for everyone. . .interesting. So the once and perhaps still sacred cows of India. . .my! That must be a most disgusting thing for those from India who subscribe to that belief to see the rest of us wanton heathens devouring their sacred ancestors!
And if you truly believe as you continually say, “All life is sacred” then how do you square yourself with the life you don’t see as sacred. . .plant life, vegetable life, fruit life, and perhaps cattle, foul, and sea creature life? You’re the biggest and most capable of killing them, so you get to decide that those lives are not worthy of saving?
Your morals and ethics are interesting to say the least.
I eat plants, becuase I must. But eating plants does not justify eating animals. We draw lines somewhere, and eating what I need to live seems like a good place. Plant life is sacred, and even though we must eat plants we should respect plant habitats and species diversity and treasure plant life as part of our homes and communities.
As for who decides on morals, we all do. The process is complex, collective and historical. Part of this process is people saying “I believe this” and others saying “Well, I don’t.”
Whose aren’t?
cause the other diary by Tom has gotten too big for me to open.
I don’t know what has been said before, so I apologize if this is a redundancy or out of place.
I recollect women and children, not so long ago in our own country, were considered “property” of the husband/father. He could do whatever he wanted with them and to them.
I think “crimes against humanity” is a new concept – a new set of morals – that came out of the horror of the concentration camps of WW2.
Our (western) definition of “good” parenting has changed from that of our parents and grandparents.
I don’t know if “invent” accurately describes the process – maybe “evolve” is more apt. Ideas evolve and change. Why not morals?
I just noticed this new diary and posted on the last, so can we continue the discussion over here.
I am having trouble with the morality aspect you have presented.
Morality being a man made thing and morality differs for everyone.
If it is wrong to kill a fetus in your personal morality, without souls, spirits or higher powers, then do you support preserving all life in the same way, say ants, roaches, mice, rats, maggots, etc. Without a soul would they not all be the same or are there exceptions to your morality rule.
Man ‘without a soul’ seems nothing more than a collection of cells to me, that functions in different species on different levels. Some stand upright and speak and think, others do not speak, but do they not have their own existence that is just as valid as human beings?
I am still not judging you, I am just asking how you align that all together.
murky as it becomes harder and harder to relate to differnt animals. In all, we should avoid causing pain to all animals that experience pain.
That said, I am not sure what is right or wrong when it comes to drug development. I am a human, and as a human I relate much more to human suffering. I am confused on this, and think about it often.
I would add another question (none / 0)
If “sperm meets Egg” is a viable person. . .then one would have to suppose that sperm is a pre-viable or potential person, and egg is a potential person. Every time a man ejaculates, he is killing potential persons, if there is no egg there to meet it.
So since millions of the little swimmers never meet an egg, it sure seems that men then are killers of millions of potential persons. And Dang it, women pass of an egg every month for a good share of their life, so are aborting all the time. Killers all? Is that the line you take Tom?
And Invetro surely is a horrible killer, and all those implants that do not take. . .more murder, you see. Then all the frozen embryonic petrie dish dwellers. . .get tossed out in the garbage one day. Killers everywhere.
Let’s stop the murder. . .we must make women become incubators of those eggs, and men must stop ejaculating unless they fertilize an egg. . .but the system is all wrong for that. He should only get one sperm, seems like eveolution or creation, whichever one chooses, really screwed up here.
There is no end to the ridiculous lengths this can be taken.
I can hardly wait for the definition and “proof” of what the life force is. Since you say the “spark of life” is not the “soul” and you don’t believe in a higher power. . .
Enlighten me. . .
are not viable life forms – they are cells from an organism which are not essential for its survival in the least.
the sperm and egg or the organism (woman/man)??
essential for the survival of the man, and the egg is not essential for the survival of the woman.
But you say if one of those sperm meets one of those eggs, then that is a “person”. . .so why isn’t the sperm and the egg equally as sacred before they meet?
And what punishment should there be for the woman who constantly miscarries? There are a lot of them, at least many that I have known. Her body is refusing to allow that “person” to grow and be born. What should be done with her? Perhaps she should be sterilized? Many of these women are ones who go to have invetro. You never told me what the punishment for failed invetro should be. Invetro should actually be immoral as well, then shouldn’t it? Most of the women I know who had invetro had to go through the process several times before the pregnancy actually took. Those were pre-fertilized eggs. . .sperm met egg so a “person” didn’t make it through the process, right? So that is some sort of medical murder in your thoughts, I would guess?
and I don’t think it either.
of woman’s choice to have or not have an abortion because the decision isn’t yours and you know nothing about how or why the decision is being made. To think you can do so is pretty immoral itself — to say that your own beliefs are more important than another person’s judgments about her own life, needs, desires, future.
So none of us can tell a woman whose life or physical or mental health could be destroyed by a pregnancy that her choice to have an abortion is immoral.
Or a woman who has suffered from post-partum psychosis and worries that she will harm her children.
Or a pregnant rape victim.
Or a woman whose family might become homeless as a result of the cost of a pregnancy and lost wages.
Or a woman whose fetus has severe abnormalities.
Or a woman who is simply not ready or capable or willing to have a child.
It’s her life, it’s her body, it’s her pregnancy.
of anything. I have no absolute power to assert absolute morality. But I can tell you what I believe is right and wrong. And that is what I have done. Moreever, I agree that the factors you mention should be part of the reason for why, while immoral, abortion should remain safe and legal.
No you don’t agree because you keep making blanket statements that abortion is immoral so you are perfectly happy to assert an absolute morality.
And you seem unable or unwilling to deal with the fact that your moral concerns about life include a disregard for life when it comes in the form of a woman with a working uterus.
To keep repeating your meaningless mantra that “abortion is immoral but should be legal and safe” is just a way to avoid engaging in a real discussion while showing us all what a fine moral person you think you are. But all you have shown me is that you have a closed mind and a closed heart.
“abortion is immoral but should be legal and safe”
ya’ think he’s got an agenda…
Tom Kertes is a media and messaging consultant committed to advancing the values of the Moral Left.
Notice how many times he equates abortion with immorality…
That is what strikes me about most of this man’s entries, as well.
The rank hypocrisy of thinking his morality should apply to everyone, when he has as much as stated himself that as a gay man, he pays little to no heed to others’ moral views of his own lifestyle.
What is the point of all these entries, sitting in judgement upon populations that he has no interaction with regarding issues that he has no personal involvement in? What kind of gall does it take to pronounce your own personal opinion as a moral absolute?
Oops.
*judgment
I hate typos.
Not that I disagree with you at all, but where do you go in your thinking if you consider women who are sexually active, use no birth control, and rely on abortion to end pregnancies they don’t want?
What do you think when you meet or read about women who have had two, three, four, or more abortions?
What do you think about a woman whose life will not be destroyed by a pregnancy in the manner you list, but who just doesn’t want to be responsible for another human?
women who do not want to bear a child so I think it’s clear what I think.
And I also think the idea that there are all these women who use abortion as a form of birth control is pretty much a right-wing myth. But it’s irrelevant anyway; the existence of such women doesn’t make abortion immoral anymore than the existence of drunk drivers means that drinking is immoral or the existence of rapists means that sex is immoral or the existence of animal rights extremists who harm people and destroy property makes being a vegan immoral.
There are two reasons that people use blogs and forum type discussions. One is to impart their knowledge unto others; the other is to learn and formulate more complete views.
It is my impression that Tom is posting these diaries for the latter. He is not trying to change your opinions, or my opinions, he is looking for help in resolution to an internal conflict that he is feeling.
Tom, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong on that point.
With that being said, Tom, you put yourself into a difficult moral position because you’ve thought yourself into a corner. Your intellect and feelings have led you to a place that you don’t like, but from which you can defend why you’re there indefinitely.
So I’m not sure how to help you get out of there. My views on the sanctity of the life of a fetus are quite different from yours and irrelevant to this discussion, and I can’t offer you any real guidance to coming to grips with your moral paradox. I think you’re probably, in the end, just going to have to accept that your heart is going to break each time a woman has an abortion, and I think that is OK; in my book, that is much better than trying to prevent your personal heartbreak by forcing your morality on others.
I am here to share, to think, to relfect, to learn, to revise, all of the above.
I have already spent considerable time arriving at this conclusion, but I have also never been certain about how to reflect on abortion. That’s why I think it should remain safe and legal. I am with Clinton: “Safe, Legal and Rare.”
I appreciate your insight, but I don’t feel like I am in a corner. That said, I am learning a lot about not only my own thinking, but that of others. And I have changed positions before, and may again. Most likely not on this, but who knows.
Tom I wish that you would go to the diary that booman posted that arose out of my questions to you on this subject of morality….Diary is called ‘answer to diane101.’..
We have expanded the discussion quite a bit and I would like your opinion.
I am a little tired tonight after all the writing, so I may not check back until tomorrow, but I would like to continue the discussion with you.
BTW I really liked what emjw said above and I second most of it.
In a perfect peaceful world I would agree wholeheartedly with you. But we live in a world with so many things that ‘go against nature’ and we are forced to try and survive accordingly. The fact that one does have free-will and ultimately the last say in one’s choices regardless of the ‘societal’ consequences of the choice’s actions we have to deal with others reactions. If real peace existed among all people there would be no violent actions against ‘moral’ issues. One must walk in another’s shoes and not make judgements as to the why someone did something that we ‘think’ we would never do.
Never say never.
Tom is just trying to create a non wingnut “secular” frame against abortion.
Tom,
You should be aware of the vicious personal attacks on you on this thread, where Parker accuses you of being, among other things, a paid propagandist and a hypocritical, self-hating homosexual.
I have made it clear to hime several times… and so have others…
And I haven’t said anything that isn’t true.
Yeah, I have browsed his abortion entry now and see that you’re hardly alone in your campaign of hostile invective and innuendo directed at someone whose only ‘crime’ is to argue that abortion is wrong yet should be permitted.
While differing with Tom Kertes on the morality abortion, I’m deeply disappointed with a lot of regulars when it comes to tolerating dissent and debating an emotional issue rationally and without abuse. I think I’ll limit my participation here on Booman Tribune hereafter.
Oh, I guess we should “celebrate” along with Tom for women who give birth from being raped…
Sirocco, I am having the same problem you are with this thread and the one booman started at my request. Folks seem to have past history with Tom and have carried it to this diary.
I find no fault with what he has said here, are you guy coloring his words with past words.
I have not to this point seen anything out of line in what he has said. What the heck is going on.
Don’t give me a lot of ‘he said, this or that in this or that diary. ‘
I have started to write this several times and erased it, now I think this time I will post.
this is not what we do on Booman and I am not at all happy with this.
I am trying to have a rational discussion with him, and this other nonsense keeps breaking out. If you have personal problems with him, then don’t read this diary and don’t post. I want to have a discussion and find it well nigh impossible with the other stuff that comes creeping in.
Take a deep breath everyone.
It’s starting to sound as if the ‘thought police’ have made there way over here.
Sadly, you are right.
here. All blogs go through this, but Booman will keep the tone right – he has stood up for me and that is what matters. SusanHu and Booman deserve our support and participation.
Thanks for the heads up.
it is hard to fathom these kinds of comments about me.
On Internet-land no one really knows anyone else, so I guess you can just make stuff up.
But what I know is that I am a radical liberal. I opposed the first Gulf War, and protested and organized against it. I voted for Ralph Nader two times. The first presidential candidate Democrat that I voted for was John Kerry, becuase in all other elections I voted for the furthest left candidate. I was an AIDS activist when I was 19-22, and then I worked with day laborers and public housing residents. I owned a children’s book and toy store, taught preschool and adovcated on early childhood issues.
I am opposed to the death penalty, to immoral and illegal war. I am vegan. I support welfare and universal health care.
I don’t know what I can say more about how far I am from being a right wing mole or hack. I find the charges not only baseless, but a little bit insulting. Just becuase I take one unpopular stance on one issue, I am now being branded as something that I am totally opposite of and opposed to. Yuk!
Incidentally, I’ve posted a diary entry with a tight philosophical argument against foetal rights based on the very latest scientific findings. That entry is getting no traction at all. Clearly, it’s much more fun to insult, and invent outlandish stories about, your person than to actually argue about the issues rationally.
If anything, I think you’re being too forgiving. I’m not at all convinced that all of these people are operating in good faith. I suspect some of them just enjoy ganging up on somebody.
Or maybe we are just passionate about our right to choose Sirocco. It is one of those hot button issues that may bring out the worst in some. There were several instances in that thread where I asked a direct question to Tom that I do not feel he answered or only wrote the I think it is immoral line. I for one do not agree with attacking the person and do not care for some of the derogatory remarks but I can understand where they are coming from. I participated in a similar thread with Tom quite awhile back at kos. What I do not understand is that if a thread contains a majority of voices differing from the diarist that doesn’t necessarily mean we are ganging up just that a majority differ on our views.
No, but I think you know quite well what I’m talking about.
It truly baffles me that here we are less than twenty four hours later on a second diary on the same subject by the same diarist. We are giving Tom exactly what he wants. A place for him to try and convince others that he is right and we are wrong. This will be the last time I participate in anything that Tom writes. He has his right to post whatever he wants as long as he isn’t a prick. I have the right to ignore him and so do the rest of you. If we stop feeding the stray animal it will go elsewhere for its food. IMHO