I am gay. I am in a wonderful relationship with the man I love. I am totally fine with being gay and consider myself lucky to have a supportive family, to live in a liberal city and to be loved by my partner.
I believe that gays and lesbians should be treated with equality before the law. I think that marriage rights should not be denied to us. I understand that many gays and lesbians are not as lucky as I am, and this is a shame.
Please stop pointing out that I am gay to make a point about my politics. It is happening more and more, and it is bothering me. How do you expect me to respond? Do you think I’ll change my mind becuase you have pointed out the obvious, that I’m gay? It has little to do with my politics on issues like child care, war, poverty, the envirnonment, education and foriegn policy. I rarely invoke my status as a gay man to make a political point. I request that it be invoked by others just as rarely.
You’re right. It’s ad hominem. It was cheap for people to make you the issue, rather than the substance of the argument. But, try to understand, that when you bludgeon people with moral pronouncements, they get testy. There are women on this board who not only support the right to choose, but who have themselves chosen abortion. So, you got a little personal there, yourself. You basically called members of this community immoral. It’s one thing to talk about your own beliefs and internal struggles of conscience. But, I would recommend stating them, in that way, rather than as pronouncements from some higher moral ground. It’s off-putting. It’s insulting. And, the fact that you don’t want it to be illegal, is irrelevant. It is a little like someone saying, “You know Tom, even though you’re a deviant, I don’t want you executed. I tolerate you in spite of your disgusting lifestyle.” Whatever your views, a little sensitivity goes a long way. That’s all I’m sayin.’
make a distinction between the person and the behavior. When I say that abortion is morally wrong, I am talking about the act of abortion – not the person having the abortion. Likewise, when I say that there is moral choice in war, I am simply making the point that participation in war is a choice. We all make these choices, and we rely on community standards and dialouge as we decide what is right for us to do. There are some actions that are so wrong and horrible that I will pass judgment on the person, such as war crimes, leading a nation into immoral and illegal war, stealing the retirements of 100s of thousands of your employees. And there are other actions that I believe it is best to reserve judgment, such as abortion, partication in war as a soldier.
Oh, how kind of you. So instead of condemning women who support abortion to the deepest pits of hell, you’ll just reserve judgement? Why, how positively generous. A very font of tolerance, you are.
Please. When you say “X is immoral”, you are also, implicitly, saying “People who do X are immoral”. If you do not intend to say that, you should not be “using the language of morality”.
I’m trying to think of an act that is immoral where the actor is not. I’m drawing a blank.
The best I can come up with is the concept of mitigation.
If we declare abortion to be in itself an immoral act, we can then assign varying degrees of mitigation to it so that, in some cases the actor is relieved of any immorality for taking the action.
We do this with murder and even theft. Still, if Tom wants to pursue this angle he should make clear what mitigating factors he considers as alleviating moral culpability.
For example, the self-defense argument applies to a woman whose health is at risk from a pregnancy.
A woman that kills her fetus through bad lifestyle choices could be on a par with negligent homicides, or involuntary manslaughter, and so on.
You can at least make a coherent argument along these lines.
However, there is a whole other area of concern, which is whether women can be held responsible for their own impregnation in many cases, and whether they should be forced to live with the consequences if they are responsible. Tom seems to have a blind spot because he thinks in very idealistic terms. Ideally, women would only have sex when they want to, and they would always use contraception, and the contraception would always work. None of those things are true, nor are likely to ever be true.
I should do what I can to bring about an end to abortion.
Becuase I believe that secular values of liberal democracy trump many moral values, I should do what I can to keep abortion safe and legal.
Because I think that wars of aggression are immoral, I should do what I can do stop them from happening.
My point is that the action is directed at me. I am responsible for acting on my morals.
If you do not think abortion is immoral, then you will accrodingly.
If you think that wars of aggression are just, you will not stop one and you may even fight for one.
That I assert that something is morally wrong does not mean that I am judging those who hold different views. I am simply asserting my own contention that act is immoral, and hope that my moral appeals may change the views of others. But until those others views change, I will remain fully aware that our morals differ. And that is how come I am not overcome with concern when I interact with people who do things that I find immoral. So long as they acting according to their own moral code I can relate to them. I may oppose their political or cultural agenda, but I can relate and respect that they act according to their own morals.
of reasoning is not very convincing.
I think its lack of coherence is one reason people are assuming the worst of you.
First, there is nothing inconsistent with you taking moral positions and acting according to those principles to the best of your ability.
However, if you think an act is immoral then presumably you think someone who does not think so is wrong. If you act to change their opinions, and therefore, hopefully, their actions then you are trying to edify them. The act of edifying presumes that someone needs moral education.
So, you are acting as though other people are wrong in their moral judgments and in need of moral instruction, yet you are simultaneously saying that you don’t judge people and are content for them to follow the dictates of their own conscience.
I hope you can see how tenuous such a position is. It seems insincere because it is not logically consistent. Yet, I don’t doubt your sincerity. I think the problem is that you are clear in your mind about why these positions are inconsistent.
To go back to the attacks on your sexual preference, people were trying to make the point that it is impossible for someone to simultaneously see your sexlife as morally wrong, and not to pass judgment on you. This is essentially correct. Although, the concept of mitigation can come into play, as I pointed out in my last post.
If someone is doing something that they think is right, I oppose what they are doing and not the person doing it.
If a person does something that they think is wrong, I have no respect for the person, and if what they are doing goes aganist my values I will oppose what they are doing as well.
We are, as humans, equal. But our actions are not. I judge actions by their actions. I judge humans by their humanness.
My first two values are love and compassion. So even if I judged someone, I would love them and act with compassion towards them. We can love someone and also say that what they are doing is wrong (in our view).
I don’t understand what is hard to accept aboout this.
making a distinction between acts that are done in good conscience and acts that are done in bad conscience, even when the two acts are the same.
That’s okay. It’s an important distinction.
But it gets tricky if/when you begin trying to create a bad conscience in someone who does not have one.
To put it simply, you are engaged in an effort to change people’s minds about the morality of abortion so that they cannot have one in good conscience, and then you hope that they will listen to their conscience. If they do change their minds, but do not listen to their conscience, then you will have no respect for them.
This puts you in a rather aggressive position, whether or not you intend to be aggressive. And it is judgmental.
As for compassion, it is one of three great virtues in my book. The other two are forgiveness and humility. Of the three compassion is the easiest. Humility is the toughest.
being aggressive about the issue of morality as it fits within progressive politics. I have taken a stand on this, and am continuing to do so. I think that there is value in having a moral dialouge, and value in a Moral Left.
But I do not think that I am being aggressive towards individual persons.
Yes, I am hoping to change the values held towards abortion – so that people will then change their behavior. For those whose values do not change I make no judgment – and I retain respect so long as their values are consistant with their actions. But my hope is that their values will change.
I understand better where you are coming from. But I will not accept that holding moral posistion implies holding judgment against those whose moral stance is different.
Why do you assume that your moral pronouncements are any more welcome to us than, say, a wingnut preaching to you about the evils of homosexuality? I want you to really think about how that would make you feel. This is not an attempt to denigrate you based on your sexuality – this is people trying to point out to you the flaw (and hypocrisy) in your tack.
Your goal is unlikely to be met with the approach you take. You are much more likely to anger people and harden them against what you are trying to say when you assign them immorality-by-proxy by proclaiming your personal beliefs as absolutes. For instance, though you plug your website in every diary and comment, I have no intention of ever reading it.
person make moral pronouncements and not be a hypocrite?
In the way that you have done, no they cannot. They’d be just as much of a hypocrite as you have been.
It was your approach that was so off-putting – it had nothing to do with your sexual preference (which was being used to illustrate an example). I hope you can see this and rethink your approach if you truly mean to be listened to seriously.
Moral People suck. Morals are the fiefdom of the leisure class. Go work for a living.
that humility is indeed the toughest. A truly humble person does not in fact know that they are acting with humility.
The other side of the coin is that many people, relate humility with humiliation and it has no connection with it in any way.
I constantly seek these three great virtues, compassion, forgiveness and humility, without them my recovery becomes stagnant and I begin the slow arduous descent into relapse.
I don’t know Tom, I don’t particularly like his aggressive tactic of Moralizing and from where I sit, prostelysizing his morality has greater value that others. This is only my interpretation of what I have read in the two diaries that I have taken the time to read. I may be way off base, yet I listen to my gut today and I sense this on that level.
I come from a place of no morality, no compassion, no forgiveness and no humility. Today these are the values that I strive to implement into my way of living. My morality has no less value in the real world, simply because I will not and can not deem that abortion is morally reprehensible.
The morality of abortion is between a woman, her doctor and her spirituality or humanism. To claim that abortion is immoral yet the person having this medical procedure in not immoral, seems to me to have a dissonance that is overwhelming.
Just this old Indian’s perspective.
Just this old Indian’s perspective.
While I hesitate to disturb your modesty, ghostdancer, after reading your diaries and posts for awhile I wouldn’t feel nearly as discomfited should you assume the mantel of arbiter of The Moral Left. I would at least understand that you had thought things through without the benefit of layers of the protection offered by money, race, situation and gender. OTOH, and because I have read your posts for the comfort, genuine compassion and, most of all self honesty in them, I know that you would giggle at the thought of proclaiming yourself a moral authority.
I think the basic problem here is one of terminology. To the people on this site, abortion appears to imply a “global” judgement. Moral people may disagree on right or wrong, but things that are immoral (like murder) are simply so far out there that those that support them are best described as “insane”. As Boo said, this, combined with your subsequent assertions of “no judgement” and “personal rights”, gives your posts the air of a “stealth troll”, trying to post some controversial or objectionable opinion without drawing fire.
In short, the language of morality is overrated, and you seem to be making a stronger statement than you’re intending to make.
Unless you are intending to say that abortion is on par with murder (in a global sense, IE, there is no uncertainty whatsoever, reasonable people may not disagree, this is an absolute evil that should be legal just because making it illegal would get you flamed). In which case, I don’t think I could express my opinion without violating Boo’s rules.
Morality appears to imply. Typo-tastic!
any of my recent entries on the Moral Left could be perceived as anything other than serious.
Understanding the Moral Left
Values of the Moral Left
However, there is a whole other area of concern, which is whether women can be held responsible for their own impregnation in many cases, and whether they should be forced to live with the consequences if they are responsible.
There is, of course, the other blind spot you don’t mention here which is should men be held likewise responsible. If you folks are serious about reducing the numbers of abortions wouldn’t it be wise to examine the other side of this? I mean, even for a moment? If both partners are willing even then the male is 50% responsible and we live in a culture where male responsibility for their sex acts is even less than is was in the ’50’s rules for women exclusively’ world which so many of the ‘pro-life’ crowd wants to return to.
If a woman who kills her fetus because of ‘bad lifestyle choices’ and is (possibly) subject to severe criminal penalties what responsibility does the ‘bad lifestyle choice’ hold? Did she create the guy who took off too? And, for that matter, what responsibility do rapists hold?
anti-abortion folks. For one thing, I support safe and legal access to abortion, so I differ in a major way from the outset.
Men are responsible for their actions. If a man is totally opposed to abortion, he should not do anything that would require one. That of course would require that he never have intercourse, which I imagine very few men would consent to.
Since the fetus is inside of the mother, the choice to have an abortion rests with her. But men can do many things to make certain that a abortion does not occur on their doing. Men who oppose abortion can only have sex with partners who they believe share their beliefs about abortion, and can only have sex in committed relationships and can only have sex with double birth control. They can also provide for their child’s material needs without any strings over the mother attached.
Please don’t group me with other anti-abortion folks. For one thing, I support safe and legal access to abortion, so I differ in a major way from the outset.
I am not doing that Tom and nothing I’ve written indicates that I am anymore than I’ve been saying you have no right to moral opinions because you are gay. Indeed, please find anywhere I said or implied either of these things and I will explain, rephrase and apologize but I’ am pretty sure these charges won’t hold up under scrutiny. I fully recognise that your arguments differ in some ways from those of the religious right. (although they also bear many similarities which I think you’re not recognising)
I do take exception to your assuming the mantel of ‘The Moral Left’ and particularly when you’re so resistant to exploring the context of abortion. Because if you wish to reduce poverty and reduce the number of abortions you really need to do that and I cannot even get many guys on the left to agree that it’s deeply wrong for adult males to have sex with 15 year olds. I greatly fear that the biases in your arguments will become codified. Because men can do those things but the majority do not. (and yes, I’ve got the stats)
What I greatly fear is that we’re going to end up with a few million more children a year their mothers cannot afford to feed rather than the enormous number we now have that everyone is ignoring.
I can see that in your heart you and I are concerned about many of the same things. I do not eat meat either (but mostly because when I look at meat I see the faces of the animals it came from which is… offputting), I’m a fierce defender of the poor and have been since I was 17 and got a scholarship to study in India for a year where I saw what the results of uncontrolled reproduction and great poverty
and this has made a great well of sorrow in my heart for my entire life. Indeed, one of the reasons I’m so fierce about women maintaining control over their reproductive functions is because I understand in real life terms what happens when we’re not allowed this control. So, from my perspective, while we share many of the same concerns, I don’t think that fairly limited discussions about morality or lecturing women who seem, on the whole, exceptionally moral and deeply concerned about the direction of our shared culture is particularly effective. I also think that your arguments lacked a lamentable understanding or empathy with women and, thus, compassion.
you know the thing that is so frustrating is that we should be able to reach a consensus in this country that it is a very unfortunate thing for a woman to become pregnant when she is not prepared to become a mother, or even to carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption.
At the very least, having an abortion is an invasive uncomfortable procedure. And most people have some qualms or guilt or sadness associated with it. We all would like to minimize that.
And yet, we cannot get the anti-abortion crowd to join us in doing the things that will make unwanted pregnancies less common, or that make it easier to be a single mother. I suppose we could work on adoption to make it easier for both the mother and the surrogate parents. But even that is hard because the right will use that against us.
It seems the goals of the right are really about keeping sex as potentially costly as possible in order to discourage it. So HPV cannot be vaccinated against to avoid cervical cancer, condoms cannot be dispensed, sex education cannot be taught, only abstinence.
I swear, they do everything they can to make sex a disease and guilt ridden affair, and damn the consequences. It makes me angry.
You bring up an excellent point, Booman. A somewhat lesser known issue is adoptee rights. There are groups such as Bastard Nation which advocate open records laws. The fighting over this is ferocious and the “other side” who fight to keep things closed are the exact same groups that oppose abortion.
Like the issues you list such as contraception, there’s no real logical reason for the opposition and plenty of evidence that open-ness and education would be better for all involved and would surely help their stated goals. It seems clear after delving into the issue, that their underlying agenda, perhaps unconscious, is to maintain secrecy and shame.
“If you folks are serious about reducing the numbers of abortions wouldn’t it be wise to examine the other side of this?”
This was the sentence that I read that way. Reading your other comment cleared it up for me and gave me more insight into your thinking. Thanks for such a great post.
My response was to the idea of being one of “you folks” because the anti-abortion folks are generally totally annoying to me. I oppose almost all of their agenda, and think that they use abortion for a bigger social and poltical agenda. I don’t like the agenda and I don’t how they use abortion for that agenda. I think that they are generally oppressive and are opposed to the basic human rights of women and girls. So I don’t want to be grouped up with them. Not at all!
the reason this issue gets so little attention is that no one is seriously contesting that abortion is properly a choice for a woman to make. A woman can and should consider the potential father’s views, but the decision is hers.
I don’t agree with Tom’s starting point, so I’m playing a little bit of devil’s advocate with him.
But within his construct, I would say it is critically important what level of responsibility a woman holds for her own pregnancy. Did she forget to take the pill, did the condom break, did she give no thought to the potential for pregnancy, was she forced or coerced, was she sober and clear in her mind, all of these types of issues would weigh in Tom’s system as mitigating or incriminating factors.
Taking it to the next level, who cares how it happened, what is the best thing to do now?
And here the man also has a role. Is he going to help out, or give support? Can the woman afford to provide for food, clothing, shelter, and medical care? Is the woman addicted to drugs or an alcoholic, or too young or irresponsible to take on raising a child. Is the father abusive, a drunk, untrustworthy?
All these factors and more should be considered when passing judgment (if judgment must be passed at all).
safe and legal. The issues are not clear cut. There is no consensus. Secular values often trump moral values in a liberal democracy. This applies in this instance.
Each person holds themself to account for thier own moral choices in relation to their own moral values.
You keep saying ‘secular values’ trump moral values which in itself implies ‘secular’ is somehow a bad thing…what exactly is your definition of secular?
values makes them higher than moral values – but differnt. Secular values, I think, are more outcome based than are moral values. Secular values seek civil outcomes, seek to establish a process by which people can form a civil society. They operate without regard to the values being processed through the secular process. And example of this is when the ACLU supports the right of Nazis to march through an African American neighborhood. Sure, we strongly disagree with the message, but support the right free speech. I don’t see freedom of speech as moral value, as it morally neutral. I would consider it secular instead, and would apply the value of freedom of speech to both speech that the majority considers moral and immoral.
A couple of comments. My understanding is that we were speaking of ‘leftist’ morals and values and these are certainly the issues I’ve been addressing. I simply don’t think it’s adequate or at all helpful to view abortion as a stand alone object so to speak, outside of the numerous contexts in which it happens and outside of the general arena of sexual morality, an area which I think the left and humanists need to do some serious thinking. I mean if we seriously wish to reduce poverty, unwanted pregnancies and, of course, the number of abortions.
So hate the sin and love the sinner? That’s your answer? And you wonder why you’ve gotten peoples’ backs up. I don’t happen to think the act of abortion is morally wrong. Nor, do I think military service is morally wrong. You are not the arbiter of right and wrong. I hate to break it to you, but you’re not. Your morals are not mine. But you speak in such absolutes, it’s hard to have a reasonable conversation with you. There is no spirit of enquiry to your writing — just a lot of self analysis, resulting in a kind of certainty that does not invite discourse. It’s masturbatory. Here’s the thing Tom. I don’t agree with you. I don’t care what you think. And, you have written nothing that makes me care, because it’s damnably clear that you have decided that people who live as I live and think as I think are immoral. You’re insulting. You want people to leave your personal life out of things? I want you to damn well stay out of my personal life, and keep your opinions to yourself. How’s that?
I should do what I can to bring about an end to abortion.
Becuase I believe that secular values of liberal democracy trump many moral values, I should do what I can to keep abortion safe and legal.
Because I think that wars of aggression are immoral, I should do what I can do stop them from happening.
My point is that the action is directed at me. I am responsible for acting on my morals.
If you do not think abortion is immoral, then you will accrodingly.
If you think that wars of aggression are just, you will not stop one and you may even fight for one.
That I assert that something is morally wrong does not mean that I am judging those who hold different views. I am simply asserting my own contention that act is immoral, and hope that my moral appeals may change the views of others. But until those others views change, I will remain fully aware that our morals differ. And that is how come I am not overcome with concern when I interact with people who do things that I find immoral. So long as they acting according to their own moral code I can relate to them. I may oppose their political or cultural agenda, but I can relate and respect that they act according to their own morals.
If this were really the case, then your diary would have been titled “I Think Abortion is Morally Wrong” or better yet “Why I Think Abortion is Morally Wrong.” Your judgement comes in when you make an absolutist statement, rather than stating it as your opinion. Thats where I draw the line and quit listening.
serves a fucntion. I trust that the interested reader will read the entire diary and then respond to or reflect on the diary as a whole.
The fact that a title on a blog serves a function is exactly my point. In quarters like this, an absolutist statement like that will turn me off. So don’t complain when people either don’t listen or get critical.
I have thus far not participated in any of Tom’s diaries because frankly, the “level 5 veganism” vibe expressed in them is difficult to address.
If I have anything to about the “morality” expressed in Tom’s diaries it is just this: The world is a messy place. Choices have to be made, even if sometimes all the available options suck. Yes all life is sacred, but all life also dies — often in service of some other creature’s life, as in animals eating other animals, or parents deciding to terminate a pregnancy because it would jeopardize their ability to thrive — or the ablility of their already or yet-to-be born children. There is a give and take in operation in the material world, any individual slice of it may seem tragic or unfair, but we cannot see the whole from where we stand.
so that you can see that I often write about how things are messy. I am very explicit about that, both when talking about the moral conduct of war, and (more recently) the moral issues of abortion.
It is because I understand that things are messy that I believe that abortion should remain safe and legal, despite my belief that abortion is immoral. And is because I understand that things are messy that while I beleive that there is moral choice in war that there no call to judge those who believe otherwise and particpate in wars they are called upon by government to partake in.
that making the best conscious choice available within the range of less than perfect options is indeed a moral act? People do the best they can, they are not immoral for making choices different than yours.
You seem to have a self-analytical bent. Have you ever studied the enneagram? I can’t help but see type one stuff all over your writing. Why so much focus on berating yourself or others with such harsh cut and dry judgements about being “immoral?” Most people, most of the time are actually not so bad!
and not people. People try to sort things out, as best they can. Most want to do moral things, and do their best to do that. Some don’t. We all have our own moral code. We all apply it differently. But at some point we have to decide as a society which moral issues matter and should be reflected by government policies and priorities.
Do you believe that there is a Great Bearded Monkey on a Throne, dictating Truth from on high?
This may be the problem. Otherwise speak of mores.
With respect, Tom, you have written a number of diaries this week in which you have passed moral judgment on how other people choose to live their lives.
The subject of your being gay has been brought up by people who have asked how you feel when the moralizing finger is pointed in your direction. Your response has simply been that you do not agree with people who believe that homosexuality is immoral. Well, I don’t agree with those people either–but I also think it is rather hypocritical for you to continue to make sweeping pronouncements about what is and isn’t “moral.” You may disagree with others’ choices, but “morality” implies an absolute judgment and invites a harsh response.
I guess the proper response to your diaries on what is moral behavior for others is a simple “I do not agree.” Or else, “I refuse to pass judgment on others, because I do not stand in their shoes.”
of I feel about people who think I am immoral by fact of being gay.
Others have implied that I should not advance moral values because I am gay, and therefore (I assume) must be tolerant of all human behavior.
Being gay does mean that people will say that I am immoral. But I don’t really care that they say that – it will have not affect on my values or how I view myself as a person. My reason for supporting equality before the law is not because I am gay, but because I am a liberal democrat (small d) and I believe that the secular value of civil society based on equality of the law trumps most moral vales.
If you are curious about how it feels to both hold moral views and be the object of others views, go ahead and ask. But if you want me to be tolerant of all values, all behaviors and all ideas because I a gay, I will tell you that your point is very annoying and ask that you stop with the question.
I think it is ill-advised for anyone, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual preference, national origin, disability, or age, to presume to judge the personal, private, lawful choices that people make in their everyday lives.
You have referred to abortion as murder; ergo, women who have abortions are murderers. In other words, you’re slandering women for exercising a constitutional right. That’s not moral behavior in my book–that’s hate speech.
that was legal becomes illegal? Then is it okay to express a moral view on the behavior?
I think we differ on the value of moral discourse, which is fine. But I doubt we’ll see eye to eye on things related to this.
I have never stood in the shoes of a war criminal, but I will pass judgment on his actions for eternity. There are times with it is okay to pass judgment. We draw different lines, but at some point we will pass the point of tolerance and will try to stop something that we find to be immoral from happening.
If your goal is to cause divisions and put people on the defensive, then by all means go ahead and judge them. All you’ll accomplish is discord.
In the end, we each have to make our own choices based on what we experience in our lives. None of us appreciates being told that we’re immoral for having made a choice that we believe to have been the right choice within the context that it was made.
You have every right, of course, to make your pronouncements on morality. So do the right-wingers. But perhaps you might want to ask yourself just what such judgments are intended to achieve.
As I said in another reply to you, by your definition of what make abortion “immoral”, nature has made women inferior to men, and (by implication) we should just suck it up.
I had an abortion of “convience”, the way I think you measure these things. My choice wasn’t because of economic necessity. However, my husband and I had already decided not to have children (yet); my IUD failed, and abortion became “plan B”.
Social pressure, even without laws, is discrimination, and I don’t like your efforts to accept the inferior status that nature has given me.
It would be different if we all were hermaphrodites (sp?), and it was a toss of the coin, with every sex act (or with every birth control failure), which of the pair would become pregnant. I think culture would have come up with more equitable traditions, if everyone was liable to get pregnant.
There is a huge difference between judgement and discernment.
some people are toying with getting banned for their over-the-top arguments about Tom being gay. Some of it has been very close to hate-speech and I found it extremely offensive.
Now I just hope the issue will die down and go away. I am getting a bit paranoid seeing my name in so many comments… (that was meant to be a joke…)
Glad to hear this, because it was.
For the record, I mentioned it because I thought it was odd that someone who was, ah, unlikely to be on either end of an unintended pregnancy would have so much to say about it. And of course the moralizing thing would have been obvious to anyone reading the diary.
I have only written one essay – on or off line – about abortion in my life. And I don’t intend to write too many more. I am more focused on issues of early care and education, poverty, animal compassion and the pro-peace movement.
This is hate speech
Change the title from “Abortion is morally wrong” to
“Homosexuality is morally wrong”
and I am telling you why.
The clear implication of your continuous comparison of homosexuality and abortion, is that homosexuality is a choice that a person makes in the same sense that abortion is a choice a person makes.
Even worse, you spent considerable effort accusing Tom of being celibate for some reason, even though he clearly said he was not. He said he had an intercourse-free sexual relationship, but he never said he was celibate, in fact quite the opposite.
On top of this, you have accused him with no evidence of being a paid troll repeatedly.
On top of this you have resorted to name-calling and rank insults.
On top of this you have engaged in ad hominem arguments that have zero merit.
You are taking the position that anyone who thinks having an abortion is an immoral act must hate women. Where do you get this shit from?
You are taking the position that all gay men have no right to oppose abortion or else they are hypocrites. A more idiotic position can scarcely be conceived.
I once shoplifted baseball cards as a child, so am I precluded from thinking money laundering is immoral now? How about stealing? How about murder?
The bottom line is that Tom’s thinking is sloppy and offensive to many people. But your reaction to it is far worse.
The point is if ANYONE wrote the EXACT SAME diary but switched Abortion for Homosexuality… they would have deservedly been banned.
The prepetuation of Tom’s so-called “morality” IS hypocritical and ignorant.
Giving him credit for not hating women but wanting to control their reproductive rights according to his personal flawed morality is nothing to praise.
Several I and several people have asked him to explain but he refuses:
Re: Please note this: (none / 0)
I have never said that women who have an abortion are wrong, or bad, or worthless or should be shamed. I have said that the practice of abortion should become something viewed as unacceptable behavior, but that is not the same thing as attacking those who engage in that behavior.
I asked:
So pray tell how do you make viewed as unacceptable behavior without attacking those who engage in that behavior?
———-
Re: I just wish to add one thing (none / 0)
“I think we can end abortion without make it criminal or inaccessible.”
Thousands of years man has not accomplished this… so pray tell how do you expect to do so WITHOUT violating a woman’s civil rights? And without CELEBRATING Rape Births…
——
Again no respone…
The clear implication of your continuous comparison of homosexuality and abortion, is that homosexuality is a choice that a person makes in the same sense that abortion is a choice a person makes.
No… the reaction is if Ton Kertes wants to dig around in someone elses panties, he better be damn well prepared others to dig and probe into to his…
and now Tom is proselitizing how people should organize their lives
Yes, I would consider it a disgraceful invasion of Tom Kertes privacy if were to preach to him how he should organize his homelife with his male lover… but Tom Kertes finds it morally correct to preach how a families should organize their lives around their children… again according to his personal moral code….
number one: two wrongs don’t make a right.
number two: any insult to you on Tom’s part is through implication, not through overt attack, slander, and innuendo.
number three: there is no equivalence between being anti-abortion as a matter of moral principle, and being anti-gay as a matter of moral principle.
number four: he has answered your questions in the threads. I don’t blame him for not responding to your every post because you have slandered him, called him names, misrepresented his sexlife, equated being gay with making a choice, and told him that because he is gay he has no right to make moral judgments that anyone who hates gays disagrees with.
I told you I am pissed, and I am.
there is no equivalence between being anti-abortion as a matter of moral principle, and being anti-gay as a matter of moral principle.
Then why have the Republicans won elections by using both as “moral wedge issues”.
he has answered your questions in the threads
No he hasn’t he keeps repeating his morality but NEVER how he expects this to happen without infrindging on women’s civil rights.
equated being gay with making a choice, and told him that because he is gay he has no right to make moral judgments that anyone who hates gays disagrees with.
I just answered this above and you insist on repeating a false hood…
As stated before:
… if Tom Kertes wants to dig around in someone elses panties, he better be damn well prepared for others to dig and probe into to his…
That is the problem when you try to base legislations on personal moralities… not universal values such as freedom and univeral human rights.
In fact, so far Tom Kertes has just paraphrased Rick Sanatorum book “It Takes a Family http://www.nrbookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6692#continue]. He has just summaried it and couched it in faux liberal terms…
It is all there …anti-abortion, stay-at-home parent…faux morality…. let’s see what the next agenda item he comes up with.
Every single word of your response is wrong.
I said there is no equivalence between seeing abortion as wrong as a matter of moral principle and seeing homosexuality as being wrong as a matter or moral principle. Why?
Because the decision to have an abortion (barring medical reasons, or fear of angry violent parents) is a choice. You can put the child up for adoption. Being gay is not a choice. You cannot make a moral judgment about someone’s sexual orientation, only what they do in their sexlives.
On the other hand, you can make a moral judgment about any action that a person takes of their own free will. It doesn’t matter whether the GOP scores points off gay-bashing, if you continue gay-bashing I am banning you.
He DID answer how he expects to end abortion without infringing on women’s rights. He wants to limit unwanted pregnancies through anti-poverty legislation, education, availability of contraceptives etc. Then he wants to provide better alternatives for women that find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy, and yes, he wants to stigmatize the practice culturally, but not in law.
In other words, he answered your questions. His plan his utopian, but you are just wrong that he didn’t answer you.
If you want to dig around in Tom’s underwear using ad hominem arguments, you better be prepared to be banned. Because his sexlife has ZERO relevance to his arguments. Do you need to know the last time I had sex, and with whom, to fairly judge my posts? It’s total utter bullshit.
Lastly, Tom’s problem is that he IS trying to propose policy and morality based on universal values. Those universal values cannot carry the load he is asking them to carry.
He wants abortion to end as a goal, he wants a parent home as a goal. Great. We can all understand the goal. But how realistic is it? Not very. So, does it make sense to add a truckload of guilt on people for having had an abortion or not being there for their kids because they have to work? No. It’s counterproductive and causes more pain that proposing the idealistic goal can hope to alleviate.
I could easily tear into Tom’s arguments as arguments, as morally obtuse, as fundamentally college studentish totalitarian idealistic Leninism. But I’d rather be respectful and see what we can learn from his writing and ideas.
How dare you say that I am gay-bashing!
Tom is woman bashing … and I have yet to “learn” anything from him
I’m serious. Take a time-out and think before you respond.
I can change your argument thusly:
I post a diary saying ‘I think rape is morally wrong’.
You post a diary saying that my post is the equivalent of saying ‘Being hispanic is morally wrong’.
Whatever it is you are trying to say with your hispanic argument is a non-sequitur. It has no relevance. There is no equivalence between an act like rape or abortion, and a state of being like being hispanic or gay.
Everytime you suggest there is an equivalency is bashing-gays.
Moreover, it would be ridiculous to accuse me men-bashing for writing an anti-rape diary using the logic that men perpetrate 99.9% of rapes.
Saying that he thinks abortion is morally wrong is not women-bashing.
The sad thing is that we actually agree on the shortcomings of Tom’s positions. But your way of debating him is totally outrageous.
If Parker had instead asked: “How would it make you feel if I said gay sex were morally wrong?”–would that be gay-bashing?
The biggest problem is lack of respect and personal attacks. You can get away with almost anything if you do it respectfully and in good faith.
Saying how you feel is perfectly fine. In fact, Tom is talking about how he feels about a moral issue, not about criminalizing abortion. The response has been that he has no right to feel that way because he is gay and a lot of people don’t like gays and feel being gay is morally wrong.
Obviously, that kind of response is harsh and disrespectful, and frankly stupid.
So, your proposed question would be totally appropriate.
Here, incidentally, is a comprehensive list of all I have ever learned from your postings:
you’re pathetic
You’re not even that: just an unpleasant, bumbling fool, and a disgrace to this site.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, right? Let’s stop with the name calling please!
(well, unless you think morally two wrongs DO make a right – wouldn’t want to impose my morality on you! ~_^)
I’m guess I’m a lotta outta the loopa.
I haven’t read too many of your diaries, not enough hours in the day sometimes. I did enjoy your earlier one about helping families care for children at home.
I didn’t read as some did. Either I’m naive (stupid) or if I’m unfamiliar with a writer, I try to give the benefit of the doubt and look for the positive. It’s very easy to misunderstand others in a written format, and I’m notorious for coming off a bit more sarcastic than I am, what without the use of facial, intonation and body language which I in real life count on in “readin” people when they share.
I’m just riding this board trying to find the similarities, trying to learn from others, and try to offer support… and sometimes I try to offer an alternative viewpoint someone may not have thought about.
That is what drew me here, and has kept me here.
When a person wants to bring home an injustice and they are not getting through to the other person they do it by illustrating with a counter injustice.
A logical technique. That you are not getting it, in my opinion, doesn’t say anything bad about the person that is arguing with you.
The Right to Control One’s Reproductive System is basic to freedome and should be honored. To say otherwise places a woman’s value below that of a zygote. I have no sympathy for anyone that feels my value is below that of a zygote.
a little further from home. Perhaps the holocaust, or slavery or the 100,000 dead Iraqi civiliams would be better ways to illustrate the point of an injustice since I was not a direct victim of any other these injustices.
In your diaries you are speaking directly to women who are telling you that you are promoting an injustice — it is direct and close to home. But when they try to promote understanding by using a situation that seems analogous to them, you say it’s too direct and close to home.
Why is it okay for you to point, but not for others to point back?
You keep saying you believe abortion is immoral and you should try to stop it. You feel this is similar to stopping the killing of other people.
I believe that what some are trying to point out is that they do not believe this. They are arguing for freedom over their own bodies. Their stance is then this: why should you have any say over someone else’s body, no matter what your feelings?
In that respect, homosexuality is very much a similar issue. Should anyone who feels it to be immoral be entitled to attempt to stop it? Are they entitled to exert control over your body?
To many of the women on this site, classifying abortion in the same category as war crimes is exceedingly repugnant. People are pointing out the correlation between legislating a woman’s body and legislating your own for “moral” reasons. You seem to be hurt that people are bringing this up. That’s how your diaries are making others feel.
I believe that abortion should remain safe and legal. That means that the choice remains with the woman. She decides what to do. Not me and not the government.
It does not hurt me that others find homosexuality immoral. But it seems like poor form to use this in an unrelated argument without even calling it out directly. The point is lost in the ways that my being gay has been handled by some (not all and only a few) have incorporated into their posts directed at me.
And I do not think that abortion and war are on the same level of behavior. Nor do I think it is the same as murder. As for murder, I think it is clear cut and should be criminalized. As for war, I think that Heads of State who engage in illegal warfare should be treated as criminals as well. But women who think that abortion is the right thing to do should have access to safe and legal abortion. Clearly I put these on different planes.
I can respect your position, you’ve made it clear enough for me to see where you’re coming from, and I think you’re sincere. Even if I do disagree with you.
But please, re-read the last line of Izzy’s comment.
That’s important. If you’re going to speak about morality, part of which (a lot, IMHO) is based on compassion, you need to respect this more.
I have tempered my language, taken pains to not attack anyone, and been very clear that I recognize that women who have abortions can and do believe that it is the right thing to do. It is also why I believe that abortion should remain safe and legal.
You are very good at talking.
But you need to work on your listening. (I’m not trying to be inflammatory. This is honest criticism.)
Honestly, I would think that my acknowledgment of understanding your position from my first response would have made it unnecessary for you to, once again, proclaim that you believe abortion should be safe and legal.
I know. OK? I do. I can completely see where you’re coming from. But I still disagree, and you’re going to have to live with it.
What people are trying to tell you is that, despite the fact that you’ve tempered your language so that YOU think it isn’t offensive, people are offended. Despite the fact that YOU don’t think you’re attacking people, you’re putting people on the defensive.
You don’t need to understand why that is, but you need to accept it, and if you hope to have civil discussions, you need to learn when to back off certain things. I think you can understand why they feel that way, if you want to. But to do so, you have to LISTEN.
Again, thanks for the back and forth on this, I started off a bit defensive and now have something to think about.
Yesterday you wrote this:
Today you claim that you do not think abortion is the same as murder.
For someone who pretends to be setting out moral absolutes, you seem to be doing some radical shifting in the breeze.
And that’s why trafficking in “morality” puts you on such shaky ground. You keep trying to find some acceptable way to condemn the choices women make. Why not just work toward improved sex education or fighting poverty without all the moral-speak baggage? You’d probably find that a lot of people are willing to help create a world where fewer women see abortions as necessary if you gave up the more-moral-than-thou attitude.
and the question that I was responding to and all I can say is that that is not very clear and did not convey what intended to say. I was writing out dozens of replies, and clearly misspoke there.
I do think that abortion is akin to killing of the fetus. But as for murder, that is a different categoy altogether. I have addressed this before. Unlike abortion, with murder the issue is cut and dry and it should be criminal. But abortion should remain safe and legal.
Unfortunately I beleive that it is waisted on Mr. Keyes. The rumor is out that he is paid to stir up site by Booman and Kos.
yuk… To spread rumors without even spelling them out. Nasty and brutish tactics. Yuk.
did you make a typo?
I didn’t read the typo because it just didn’t occur to me that that could be the rumor. If you do decide to pay me, send the check as soon as you can – I am going on vacation in October and could use some extra cash. Tell Kos as well (I guess). (And, of course, if you do pay me I will be sure to include it on my disclosure page.)
Why thank you. But honestly, I’m just sort of average looking. 🙂
I have read these last couple of diaries of Mr. Keyes, plus most of the comments, and I am continually astounded at how differently people view the words that you write.
I am also astounded at the sometimes outright hostility sent your way.. I don’t know how you remain so calm.
FWIW I have not taken your words to be moralizing for the world but rather your own internal morallizing expressed in words. I think you have taken great pains to put that point out and fail to see what others are finding fault with.
My dear friend and I even disagree on this and we agree on most things, so I confess to be at a loss and will happily remain that way.
Please don’t anyone now jump in and tell me why, I am not looking to get something started up again.
Mr. Keyes? Och! I sure hope that doesn’t stick.
Just trying another name, got tired of writing Tom Keyes. Sorry didn’t think that would bother you….I am sure you are kidding, right?
politician from Maryland who ran for Senate against Obama. I am Tom KERTES. Mr. Kertes is fine, but Keyes is not someone I’d like to be associated with. 🙂
Boy now I am laughing, I thought for sure I was writing your right name and then I thought you objected to the Mr. part. Really sorry about that…It must be late or I am tired…
saw it there and just went with it. I am LOL as well. Goodnight.
I’ve read all the diaries here and been to the website, but I can’t agree with the diarist on his position concerning abortion. I’ve refrained from commenting because I’m waiting for this carpal tunnel problem to subside. Perhaps in the future I will post my own beliefs about abortion, but the post would be way too long and too controversial for me to post now.
One thing is for sure though, all the comments about the diarist’s other positions are off the mark, imho.
To wit, the Ad Hominem Tu Quoque attacks are not logically helpful at all.
Even if you were to prove that Tom is a hypocrite, it makes no difference as to his argument (or lack thereof) concerning abortion.
I think that have more to do with the credibility of the person making the argument than the argument itself, anyway.
Funny think about highly religious moralizers – iirc the only one who gets to cast judgement on man is God. Do they all just skip that chapter or what?
*that has
god you’re an idiot.
before you go around whining about how
people don’t respect your lifestyle choice,
how about learning some respect for
the choices women make.
Morality is sourced from Man’s interpretation of a Monkey in the Sky’s unknowable will. It’s a simplistic, foundationless joke only necessary for those who can’t see that what comes around generally goes around and be content with that. Morality also seems to be a great way to get dates of all persuasions.
Perhaps if we remove the implied threat of eternal damnation from the convo, people won’t get so riled up. But then there wouldn’t be much to say..
Otherwise this seems like a bunch of miserable people enjoying eachother’s company a little too much. Enjoy your selves as you fall, hands around eachother’s throats, into the flaming pit of eternal insignifigance.. I’ll meet you on the bottom and we can play yatzee.
Sorry to make light of this, but because serious things happen to you and those you care about, doesn’t mean what you have to say is terribly important. At least not so important that an a-moral jester or two can’t have a chuckle. Keep reading.
I heard some things the other day and want to know, Was this hate speach?:
Carlos Mencia on being asked not to tell gay jokes on his Comedy Central show:
“If gays can take a d–k they can certainly take a joke.” I couldn’t get my jaw off the floor for about an hour. About then, another comedian comes on “I’m against abortion. I think it’s murder. But I think it should be legal, ’cause if my girlfriend gets pregnant she best kill that F’in baby!”
I never heard anything more about either joke. Wow! Perhaps there is a context where anything can be said and it is not hate speach. I can’t say what the comedian’s intent was, but I can say that the context seems to have absolved them.
Perhaps this forum is such a context – people vote to express their opinion of what ‘garbage’ is said by whom, and the trash-talkers can live with their lowered estimations in the eyes of the rest of us. I mean who wants to be a Troll?
Are we allowed to create a value out of whole cloth?
Will the monkey permit it? Of course he will.
How about we say that anything that is likely to kill me or make me ill is bad, and the reverse is good? Too complicated?
You mischievous bastard.
Value comes not from whole cloth but purely from the human suffering necessary for it’s creation. Hence it is “bad”.
Yet it is valuable. Hence, it is necessarily true that the more we value something, the more morally reprehensible we become. this includes things that heal you and make you live longer. So yes, it is too complicated.
There is no “Good” or “Bad”, there is only what is done.
On my previous comment, if someone, man or woman, can’t take a joke, does it imply that they can’t take a d–k?
Am I banned?
is distressing.
Say What You Like About the Tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at Least it’s an Ethos.