My most recent quote of the day came from pro-abort Yellowhammer's blog:
If I got pregnant right now, at 21, less than a year away from my batchelor's degree, what would I do? I would probably have the child because a) the child would have two cool, loving parents b) because, although it would be inconvenient for my career, I could still get my education and find a job c) because we'd be able to support the child financially and d) (and this is the selfish reason) the karmic consequences of having an abortion would be really big.
Of course, my point was to show the inconsistency of one who supports abortion but thinks abortion brings "karmic consequences," in her words.
Actually, Yellowhammer stands out as someone honest enough to verbalize what most people who consider themselves "pro-choice" must certainly think deep inside. Polls consistently show that pro-aborts dichotomously believe abortion should be legal but is morally wrong, as Gallup stated last month:
There is a fundamental tension within U.S. abortion attitudes between Americans' respect for individual rights, and their respect for the life of the unborn, particularly in later stages of pregnancy. For instance, most Americans will agree that the abortion decision "should be left up to the woman and her doctor." At the same time, a slight majority (51%) believes abortion is morally wrong; only 40% say it is morally acceptable.
... These numbers fluctuate, but as of Gallup's most recent survey, the slight majority of Americans (53%) consider themselves "pro-choice" on abortion, whereas 42% call themselves "pro-life."
(To be argued in another post is whether those calling themselves "pro-choice" are really that when questioned more specifically.)
Almost all - no matter the religious or atheist belief - believe ones committing moral wrongs are punished in some way.
At any rate, Yellowhammer emailed me, requesting that I remove her quote, stating I took it out of context. When I asked her how I took it out of context, she responded, in part:
As a Buddhist, I feel that there are few cut and dry moral decisions. To me, instead of there always being black and white, there is a lot of gray area where it's hard to know if you're making the right choice. Ultimately, if a mother aborts her child wrongly, she alone will have to suffer the consequences, while the aborted child will simply be born again into another body. This is also the general belief in Japan, for example, where they simply have a funeral for the aborted fetus and move on.
I don't feel that you've taken my words out of context in the sense that you've misrepresented what I said. I stand behind it. However, if you wanted to expose my seeming moral inconsistencies to your readers, I would have appreciated that you talked to me first about my beliefs and why they are the way they are.
There is much to dissect there, but again, another time. I decided since Yellowhammer agreed I didn't take her quote out of context but just wished I'd checked with her first was not a reason to take her quote down, since her blog is public. So I left the quote up until this morning, when I changed it as I normally would. (You can read our complete email exchange on her blog.)
In her Jan. 31 response to my posting, Yellowhammer stated:
I realized that she was just trying to expose a hypocrite to her readers. I guess that's OK, since I said that people could call me a hypocrite for being a pro-choice vegan....
I confirmed elsewhere in her site that Yellowhammer is a vegetarian not for personal health issues such as allergies but because she believes in animal rights.
So yes, Yellowhammer, you're right, some people would indeed call you a hypocrite. Me, for instance.
the 'inconsistency' that frustrates many folks here (that pro-aborts decry as poor logic) is a divergence between what one 'thinks' and how one 'feels' about any moral situation. Because 'feelings'= their moral infallible compass, it defeats all argumentation proposed. So since "I 'feel' abortion is OK therefore abortion IS OK!"
This way you can logically speak of morality and simultaneously act in an opposed fashion eg. below - the operator of an abortion mill claims she is pro-life.
Pro-lie efforts like 'Silent No More' can help change feelings.Posted by: John McDonell at February 2, 2007 9:20 AM
John, liberal Whoopi Goldberg was on O'Reilly's show two nights ago and gave a classic example of what you're saying (you can read the entire transcript here):
O'REILLY: But don't you feel it's his [actor Tim Robbins] responsibility if he or Jane Fonda and the rest and you too are going to take strong policy stands, because people do listen to you...
GOLDBERG: Yes. Yes.
O'REILLY: ... that you know what the heck you're talking about?
GOLDBERG: Well, I think he's very clear that he is not for the war in Iraq. It's not a new stance that he's had. He's also for years been a peace activist. So this can't come as a surprise to anybody.
No. 2, when I take a stance on something, all I can talk to you about it how I feel about it and why. And I don't have to justify it, and you don't have to listen to it. But it is important for everyone to know that they have an opinion and they have a - have a right to express it.
O'REILLY: But your opinion is a little bit more heard than somebody - than Sally in Charlotte, North Carolina.
GOLDBERG: No different than yours.
O'REILLY: No, but I back mine up all day long with facts and everything else.
GOLDBERG: But you know what? Your opinion is your opinion. And if you want to go...
O'REILLY: Based on facts.
GOLDBERG: And if you want to go and get lots of facts and not go from your heart. I go from my heart. I don't - listen - I'm not - I wasn't a fan of the war in Iran. I'm still not - I'm sorry - in Iraq.
Classic stupidity. Feelings can't be trusted, nor do feelings necessarily equal reality.Posted by: Jill Stanek at February 3, 2007 5:51 AM
Jill, that sort of thing frustrates me to no end. "I believe that people should live together before they marry so they can find out if they really should be married." But statistically those who live together before marriage are more likely to divorce. "Well, that's what I believe. You can have your beliefs, but I have a right to my beliefs!"
I once had a long discussion with another Christian who insisted that the actual meaning of a word in a verse was irrelevant because she "believed" it meant something else.Posted by: Michelle Potter at February 3, 2007 12:31 PM
Jill, I am a lurker on your blog but your post and rebuttle to her was classic!
She is a hypocrite big time, but many on the Left are like that - she is not a real Buddhist to me - a real Buddhist is usually a vegetarian, and doesn't hurt animals, and believes in peace - but she believes in hurting the unborn in the womb? The ultimate from of warfare, genocide, slavery, and violence! Call my argument simplistic but I think if one is a "vegan" then they have no choice (pardon the pun) but to be pro life.
Hey Mario, what's a blog lurker?
And the arguments are indeed very simple. The other side tries to complicate them obviously to distract us and confuse the world into complacency and acceptance.
That worked for a long time, but no more. Lies and evil are always exposed.Posted by: Jill Stanek at February 6, 2007 7:49 PM
A blog lurker is someone who has read your blog for sometime but has never commented until now.Posted by: mario at February 7, 2007 10:51 AM