Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Moral clarity?

November 22, 2011

Advertisement

To the editor:

Isaac McPheeters’ letter (Journal-World, Nov. 19) regarding Leonard Pitts’ column on moral clarity is a textbook example of Pitts’ claim that those with compelling moral prescriptions damage the social fabric by arrogating decisions “unto the state under the guise of moral clarity.”

McPheeters is insistent that a fertilized egg is a human and demands the protection of state power over any right any woman may claim. Ten percent of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. Under the proposed Mississippi law (defeated overwhelmingly) would a woman have criminal charges against her for this natural occurrence?

The moral clarity crowd wishes to bully us for our moral failings. We know what righteous fists are full of: censorship, prisons, torture and beatings. Mankind’s history has demonstrated that goodness does far more harm than good and that moralists are hanging judges. Moralists have sent untold millions to early graves. Moralists deny the legitimacy of a particular group, here women, over their choice, fertilized eggs (DNA blueprints without brains, organs or limbs). Can a fertilized egg now defined as a person get a gun permit or purchase property?

How about state support for these proposed parochial laws? If the state insists a woman carry an unknown rapist’s baby to term and support this baby to adulthood, then the state should also tax all male citizens to 1) support maternal health for the pregnant woman; 2) support efforts to reduce infant mortality; 3) educate and finance young mothers for the care of their babies; and 4) give these children educational and health support until they reach their majority.

Comments

Fred Mertz 3 years, 1 month ago

While I understand the point you're trying to make you go about it in a very silly fashion when you ask ridiculous questions such as, "Can a fertilized egg now defined as a person get a gun permit or purchase property? Of course it can't. Everyone knows the answer to that question so while you're trying to make a point it just makes you look unitelligent to ask it.

Here is the issue. Most would agree that it is wrong to kill an unborn baby in the 40th week for no reason except choice of not wanting it. Why is it wrong? Because it is a viable human being - right?

So now the issue becomes when is that fertilized egg a human? This is the argument of when in the life of that egg is it wrong to kill it. Each side has its own views. No side is evil because it fights for what it believes.

Promote your point of view but realize the other side is not evil.

Getaroom 3 years, 1 month ago

"evil" is your construct, not the writers and it is obvious why he used the the type of questions he did, it is simply that you do not like it. If he did not realize that there other points of view, why bother writing the letter? What, another silly question? Everyone knows your views on the subject, it's about time someone responded.

Fred Mertz 3 years, 1 month ago

No one suggested that he did not know there are other points of view and the LTE writer wrote, "We know what righteous fists are full of: censorship, prisons, torture and beatings. Mankind’s history has demonstrated that goodness does far more harm than good and that moralists are hanging judges. Moralists have sent untold millions to early graves"

There are evil acts that he says the right have committed. If he believes that the right has committed evil acts then does that convey that he believes the right to be evil?

It doesn't matter if I like his opinion or not. It is silly to question whether an egg can get a gun permit.

Fred Mertz 3 years, 1 month ago

Yep, evil people on both sides do evil things. To suggest that all who oppose abortion are evil because of Roeder is then to suggest that all OWS protesters are evil because of acts committed by individual OWS protesters. Neither is true.

mloburgio 3 years, 1 month ago

i have often wondered, if abortion is murder would using a condon be kidnapping?

verity 3 years, 1 month ago

Those who claim to have moral clarity usually have it only for other people.

Too often they set themselves up as God (and saying that you know what God wants is doing that) and are only too willing to destroy the lives of others and feel superior as they do so---in their arrogance not even realizing what they are doing.

It can be very dangerous to set yourself up as the conscience of another person. We should be looking to our own conscience before we attempt to control others.

voevoda 3 years, 1 month ago

The abortion question raises very serious moral issues concerning the creation, sustaining, and termination of human life. People of good sense and good will can reasonably arrive at different conclusions. Given the lack of a single clear ethical choice in regard to fertilized human eggs, the government should not intervene. The people who regard abortion, even the sloughing of a fertilized egg, to be immoral need to recall that not all immoral actions need to be criminalized. After all, only 3 of the 10 Commandments are actually illegal.

Isaac McPheeters 3 years, 1 month ago

Stu, you say I am "insistent that a fertilized egg is a human and demands the protection of state power over any right any woman may claim." Can you please point to a quote in my letter indicating that?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 1 month ago

Why don't you save Stu the effort, and either confirm or deny his claim?

And while you're at it, answer this simple question-- should the state or the woman in whose body the fetus is growing have the ultimate say in whether it is carried to term?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.