A couple of posts ago I was accused by a commentor of forcing my opinion on others because I believe that abortion should be illegal. The argument was if I supported such a law and the law passed then that would be forcing my opinion on others. Of course the commentor fails to see that the opposite must also be true as well. Passing any law ca be considered one group of people forcing their opinion on another group. A perfect example is the HHS contraception mandate. This mandate forces all employers (with a very narrow exception) to provide contraception, sterilizations and “morning after” pills to their employees whether they have a religious objection to them or not.
But then this is the typical secular argument. They see all issues from one side, and one side only. If they think something is right, it is right, end of story, and anything which has to do with religion isn’t right so it is bad and must be destroyed. Even though killing and murder is wrong they will defend it, doing everything they can to “soften” the fact that it is murder, that they are taking a life. An innocent one at that, one who doesn’t have a “choice”.
A good example of this backward thinking from the progressives is the recent statement by Mayor Menino of Boston who said he would do anything he could to keep Chick-Fil-A from opening a store in “his” city because of the COO views against same -sex marriage. According to Menino he would allow any group to be discriminated against, even though this is exactly what he is doing. Obviously looking at the recent turn out at “Chick-Fil-A” appreciation day more people agree with the COO that the Mayor.
When it comes to morality, there is no grey area. It is black and white. Killing is either wrong or it isn’t. It isn’t okay some time and not okay others. When you begin making moral decisions using that grey area, where do you draw the line? Here in Massachusetts we will be voting on a ballot question in November legalizing assisted suicide. Even though we are told it will be only allowed in certain cases, if passed we will open the door to more and more special cases, and more and more deaths.
We can call abortion or assisted suicide by many names, trying to make it sound all pretty and nice. We can change the names of babies or claim we are making life better for those who we decide to kill, but it doesn’t change the fact it is still wrong, if not in the eyes of the law and the secularists, certainly in the eyes of God.
The Wayward Catholic 
Absolutist thinking is some pretty scary territory in itself. So how many people who kill in self defense would you have up on murder charges? Following what you say – “there is no grey area” – those killing in self defence deserve the maximum penalty under law, even the death sentence.
Morality is all about “shades of grey” because no morality is ever perfect, except for being perfectly atrocious when it comes the idea absolute morals.
LikeLike
Killing in self defense is different than willingly killing someone such as a baby just because the baby is unwanted or of a certain sex or perhaps deformed. Same with allowing assisted suicide because one feels they can no longer contribute to society. when we start to make judgments on whp deserves to live or die, we have some serious problems.
LikeLike
So how does the above square with this:
Both your words. So it seems you’re for absolute morality, but only when it suits you. Not a particularly moral stance or defensible ethical position.
It is understandable though, as it seems like you would like to dictate what women do with their bodies. I suggest that it isn’t your business, and that you should really stop advocating against women and their personal autonomy.
LikeLike
I don’t dictate to any woman what she chooses to do with her body. If she chooses to kill an innocent child that is her “choice”. i guess the baby doesn’t have a choice though do they?
LikeLike
Pingback: The DWR Sunday Disservice – Killing is Wrong(?) « Dead Wild Roses