Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Right & Wrong versus Consequences

What makes something right or wrong?

Is it solely dependant upon whether or not there is a favorable outcome or negative consequence? Is it your ability to get away with it? Is it what is socially acceptable?

While there are definitely things in life where right and wrong are purely situational - like where you live, work, and send your kids to school are based on what's right for you and your family - I would argue that there are some things in life that are right or wrong simply based on the fact that they are right or wrong. Consequences, outcomes, feelings, and societal acceptance are non-factors; they are simply not relevant.

Let's start with an example that we can all agree with. Murder. Not only is murder unacceptable in our western society, it's unacceptable and criminal worldwide. No matter how much we might hate someone, no matter how bad they "wronged" us, it is not okay to kill.

But what if someone is a child rapist? Is it okay to kill them outside the law (we won't even go into capital punishment at this point)? Like, is it okay for you to decide that the child rapist should die and kill them? I mean, let's face it. The world would be a better place with less rapists. Most people would say "no" it's not okay for you to kill the person, even though they did something horrible.

Now, what if they child rapist raped YOUR child? Now is it okay to kill them? Of course you would want to kill them! And most people would not condemn you for it. Hell, they raped your child. And no one would argue that the rapist deserves to die. But is it OKAY, right, appropriate, and permissible for YOU to kill the rapist? What if you could get away with it? You have the perfect plan and no one would ever, ever, ever know you did it. What about now? Can you kill the person now?

No. It is not okay for you kill that person. And it's not because they aren't a horrible person. They are. And it's not because they didn't hurt someone you love. They did. And it's not because they don't deserve to die. They do. It's wrong because MURDER IS WRONG. End of story.

Many things in life are either right or wrong, despite possible consequences, ability to get away with it, extenuating circumstances, exceptions, or societal acceptance.

What about stealing? More people have stolen something than killed a person. I would argue that everyone has stolen something in their life. Maybe not a stereo from a house you broke into, a sports bra from Target, or even a soda pop when you asked for a water cup at McDonald's. Most people have stolen time. Have you ever chatted with your co-worker for 10 minutes instead of working? Have you ever called in sick because you wanted a day off? Have you ever realized you got incorrect change after you got to your car and not go back in to give the $0.30 back? No matter how small the offense, most of us, if not all, have knowingly taken something that is not ours.

And stealing is unacceptable and considered wrong worldwide. But what about the dad who needs to steal food to feed his kids? Yes, this is super sad. Yes, most parents would do this if it meant their child had dinner. But does that make it right? No, it doesn't. This is a sad, extenuating circumstance that we all hope to never be in. But should we legalize stealing, legalize taking something that isn't yours just because there might be a family out there who can't eat unless they steal?

It would do our society a huge injustice to make it okay to take something that isn't yours just so this family doesn't miss a meal. Obviously this is a sad situation and I hope that in cases like this the families are able to get help, food, something from their community, food shelf, etc. But unfortunately, this is reality. But it doesn't make stealing okay.

Here is another example that we may not all agree on (which, actually, furthers my point). Most states have the death penalty. So we'll assume that most Americans are okay with the death penalty as a punishment for extremely bad people (murderers, terrorists, rapists). I, personally, do not think the death penalty is okay. I think it's a "legal" form of murder. I think it's applied unjustly, arbitrarily, and frankly, doesn't serve justice. It's legalized revenge. It's the government playing God. That is what I think.

For this example, let's assume that I am right (and since I am a Clark, there is a good chance I am right). Let's assume that the death penalty, is in fact, wrong. Well, most Americans think it's okay. I mean, they voted for it at some point and haven't overturned the legalization of it in most states. Assuming I am right (had to remind you of that), then my opinion is the minority, which means that most of society has agreed that something that is wrong (the death penalty) is right. Well, is the death penalty indeed "right" just because most people think it's okay? No. Majority opinion does not mean that something is right. Most people voted for Obama (had to say that lol)... but on the flip side, most people voted for Bush...

Now for a more controversial issue. Here is where I will likely lose all the credibility I just established with those who don't agree with the next issue. Abortion.

Abortion is wrong. Once the sperm burrows his way into the egg a life begins. The egg would never have begun to grow without the sperm. And the sperm would never have grown without the egg, despite the fact that he was the fastest swimmer out of millions of sperm. Without each other, human life can't happen.

Left alone, the fastest swimmer and lucky egg will grow into a baby. A child. A human life. This is the only way human life happens. It is not a mistake that it takes 9 months for a child to grow in it's mother's womb. It is not a mistake that the heart doesn't start beating until about 25 days after conception.

Yes. Sometimes things go wrong and the baby dies before it has a chance to breathe in it's first breathe. Sometimes things go wrong before it even develops a heart beat. Sometimes things go wrong before mommy even knows that daddy's fastest swimmer hooked up with her recent drop out.

Just because a baby dies before it's born doesn't mean it's okay to choose to take it's life. Just because the baby's daddy raped the baby's mommy doesn't mean that the baby doesn't have a right to live. And it's a baby. Following it's natural course, uninterrupted, it will be a newborn in 9 months. If that baby is destroyed, it is gone forever. Forever. It will never have a chance at life. Love. Happiness. Pain. Family. Friendship.

A baby's worth is NOT dependant on whether or not it's mother wants it. Why is it a miscarriage if the baby dies because of natural causes at 12 weeks along but "abortion" if the mom decides she doesn't want it when the baby is 12 weeks along? When the baby is wanted, the mom refers to it as her "baby" when she is pregnant. If I choose to remove my baby from my womb because I don't want it, it's called abortion and it's legal. If I am pregnant and someone kills me and unborn child, it's a double homicide. In both scenarios, the same, damn thing happened. My baby died. It's a double standard. And either both situations are okay OR both are wrong. A life was destroyed and the rightness or wrongness, the baby's status should not be dependant on it's desirableness (is that word?).

I get that sometimes a mother must choose her own life or her baby's. If she doesn't abort, she will die and so will the baby. This is a HORRIBLE situation. Unfathomable. And no mother should ever have to make this decision. But should we allow the destruction of a growing life just because of the rare exception?

Should we allow stealing because there might be a dad out there who can't afford to buy food for his family tonight? Should we allow people to kill anyone they want because some people might choose to kill rapists? In both the aforementioned scenarios, it would be ridiculous to legalize something "wrong" just because of a rare exception. Abortion is no different. It's not about a choice; sure, the baby is growing in the female body, and the baby is dependant on her body, too. But it is NOT her body. It is NOT her soul. Your 3 month old, 3 year old, 13 year old is dependant on you, too. They count on you to feed them, clothe them, provide them shelter. Should you be able to kill them just because you don't want them? Or because it's inconvenient for you to support them? Obviously not.

Here is where I think my credibility might be lost with those who are "pro-choice" - this post was really not about abortion. There are so many things in my life right now where people are making decisions, justifying things, and trying to drive points home because an outcome turned out okay, because they got away with it, and because other people are doing it.

Outcomes, consequences, and majority opinion or affirmation does not make something right or wrong.

There are some things in life that are right or wrong aside from consequences, societal approval, ability to get away with something, or favorable outcomes.

If we don't have the ability to know right from wrong and we don't make decisions based on the rightness or wrongness of something, despite the consequences, then we don't have integrity.

24 comments:

mom said...

It's been a long time since your last post, but this was definitely worth the wait! You make me proud to be your mother! I love you!

Thought Renaissance said...

while I disagree (politely:) ) with you regarding the death penalty (I'm remembering some verses in the Old Testament we can talk about if you want, but I get that your post was NOT about the death penalty, AND in my opinion, really not worth fighting/arguing/debating over) I LOVE the rest of your post. Thank you for speaking out against abortion. There are not enough people who take the situation so seriously and realize how important it really is - and what a travesty it is that we allow it at all! Thank you for reminding your readers that just because the daddy may have raped the mommy doesn't take away from the fact that it's STILL A BABY!!! I find that so sad that even pro-lifers sometimes argue for the mother's right in case of rape. I could go on but just take my word for it when I say that I totally agree with you and am very impressed and glad for the way you spoke out for those little ones that don't have their own voices!

Grandma said...

THANK YOU FOR STANDING UP FOR THE UNBORN CHILD...IS A LIFE NO MATTER WHAT ONE CAN SAY...

3dingsandadog said...

While I agree 99% on anti-abortion, I do ask this...Let's say you had a 13 year old that was raped...(I know you already discussed that part..) AND not only was this a tramatic situation but because of her age the doctor informs you that this could be life threatening to YOUR child...do you risk your child's life??? This is where I would choose my child...What do you think??

Rebecca said...

Jessica,
Thanks for bringing up the integrity issue. That's actually been something that has been on my mind lately, as I have seen several instances where people I would expect to have integrity, didn't, and where I have been so proud of Josh, who had integrity in a work situation where most of his colleagues did not.

As you pointed out, integrity (the ability not only to discern right from wrong, but the strength to choose to do right even in difficult situations) is at the basis of so many issues! Your arguments were very compelling and I totally agree (except in regards to the death penalty because I believe that it is the duty of a (good) government to administer justice--though I do wholeheartedly agree that our death penalty system needs to be examined to be sure that it is not happening arbitrarily or unjustly).

Choosing the "lesser of two evils" is STILL choosing evil. A person of absolute integrity (which none of us are, as you pointed out, but which is a goal to strive for, nonetheless) would not settle for choosing the lesser of two evils; they would rather suffer being wronged or endangered than to choose evil. I hope to be a person of that much integrity someday, but sadly I know that if I were forced into a difficult situation, I would probably rationalize it away to the easiest, most comforting solution. . . not necessarily the RIGHT one.

Thanks for bringing up the issue and for making me examine myself. I definitely have a lot of room to grow when it comes to being a person of integrity.

--Rebecca

p.s.- you KNOW I wholeheartedly agree with you regarding abortion. thanks for speaking up on behalf of the little ones who can't speak for themselves!

Jess(ica) said...

Thanks everyone for your thoughts and responses :)

Barb- I can't begin to imagine the gravity of the situation you described... I don't have children so I am sure to find out one's daughter has been raped and is pregnant is more painstaking than I am able to comprehend.

My initial reaction is this situation, though, is that abortion should still be illegal despite the fact that this extremely rare situation could happen. And honestly, I would imagine that if abortion was NOT legal, in a situation like this doctors might still choose to abort the baby?

This is another example of an extenuating circumstance that I was referring to where I feel that we can't make wrong things "right" just because situations like this might happen.

But again, this would be a tragic and impossible situation and would never with it upon anyone.I hope you don't know someone who is really going through this =( How awful!

Four peas in a pod said...

Jessica,
This was a well thought out argument. You premise is that the life of a 12 week old fetus (on the way to becoming a baby/child/adult human), is equal to that of the mother. I do not. This is why pro-life/pro-choice people will never agree on the topic (whether abortion is legal or illegal). Arguments for the abortion debate are really all about this one thing – value of mother, value of fetus. Hypothetically, although I have heard of many cases here at the Cancer Institute, a 13-week pregnant mother has a 4 year old child. She finds out she has aggressive cancer. If she aborts, she most likely will live. If she does not, she will most likely not survive. This is a no-brainer to me, although I respect individuals who choose to put their trust elsewhere, even if that means potentially leaving their husband a widow, and their son motherless. It is a judgment where many, including myself, feel the life of the mother has more value.

In the example where Daniel proposed an argument in which a fetus was deemed a human to the point of performing surgery in vitro to save it while in other cases it was okay abort a fetus at the same age. I would have argued, if not for the condescending tone and cockiness in which the question was asked, that again, the difference lies in the value of the woman’s life. One may abort to save the life of a mother, or one may perform in vitro surgery in order to save the life of a fetus so that it may become a baby/child/adult in the case of a mother who is healthy.

I understand that there are people who have a different premise. People like yourself who believe at the instant of conception this being is equal to a human adult. If I had that premise, I would agree with your well thought out argument. However, I do not agree with the premise.

Peace,

A. Lori

Jess(ica) said...

A. Lori- what comment by Daniel are you referring to?

Thank you for your thoughts. It's always nice to hear the "other side" perspective.

My arguement is based on the fact that once the sperm fertilizes the egg, life begins because had that not happened, there would be no life. And because it happened, and ONLY because it happened, there is life and that life takes approx 9 months until it can safely live outside it's first home: the womb.

The two questions I would return to you is: At what point does a person/fetus/embryo go from invaluable to valuable? And what factors (facts, not opinion please) determine someone's worth?

And regarding the example you gave: this is another rare, extenuating circumstance. And it's impossible to factor extenuating circumstances when deciding if soemthing is *right* or *wrong* (in cases of abortion, murder, stealing, lying, cheating, etc). There will always be an extenuating circumstance so either nothing is wrong because there is always an extenuating circumstance OR something is deemed right or wrong soley based on the act.

I do agree that the example you gave is heartwrenching and sad, but it's not relevant when determining the rightness or wrongness of abortion.

Jess(ica) said...

And just to throw it out there... even if I would be willing to justify abortion for cases where the life of the mother is in danger or other medical emergencies, this does not make it justfiable for someone to abort their baby just because it's bad timing, they don't want it, they are too young, etc. And the latter reasons are the primary reasons people have abortions. Not because of the medical emergencies.

Four peas in a pod said...

Jessica,
I don't have an answer for you for at what moment and under what circumstances. This is why it is such a tough debate to have. I stand firm in my premise, and I do not equate a fertilized egg with the same equality as the woman carrying it.

Although through natural progression, I will become a corpse someday, I am not one right now. Eventuality does not make it present in this moment.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

Daniel's comment is the one that lead me to block him. I don't think I have the direct quote, although I might. It doesn't matter. I still stand by my argument in the hypothetical.

The example I give, that is heart-wrenching, IS relavent with my premise. With your premise it is not. Ergo, agree to disagree.

I'm done with the abortion debate. I've stated my argument.

Ending respectfully, which we know is a difficult task for us to all do.

A. Lori

Jess(ica) said...

A. Lori-

In the situation of not having an answer to when life begins and under what circumstances, I would argue that because we do not know, we should error on the side of life. How tragic would it be to find out that life, indeed, began at conception but because we didn't know we decided to do what is easiest. And what's easiest is to say that it's not life until [enter the arbitrary time frame a person feels it's life here].

By your own admission, you don't know when life begins so to say "eventually does not mean present in this moment" does not necessarily even apply to this. If life begins at birth, then yes, this applies. But if life begins at conception, then "eventually" in this case, is NOW.

My point is that if you (and by "you" I mean anyone who is pro-choice) doesn't know when life begins, then how can you know when the destruction of a fetus is murder or not? And if you don't know if it's murder or not, then why a)risk potentially killing a living human being and b) risk committing a crime/sin before God (murder is murder even if you don't get caught by the law)?

I know you most likely will not rebut because, as you stated, you wanted to respectfully end discussing it, and that is totally fine =). Just know that if you change your mind, I can and will continue to respectfully discuss. And also know that I discuss this topic as a matter of fact and while the situation might be personal to some (it's personal to me, not because I've lived it, but I am passionate about it), nothing I have said was meant to be taken personally in the sense that nothing is said as a personal attack =) I just enjoy debating this type of stuff when I am passionate about it.

Four peas in a pod said...

There is "life" in sperm. There is "life" in an egg. There is cellular activity in a fertilized egg which now contains full human DNA. As the cells continue to divide, it is becoming more and more an embryo, fetus, baby, child, adult.

Defining life is not the issue for me.

I have tried to make the point that a fertilized egg (life) is not equal to the woman (life) in MY opinion. I understand why, having the religious views that you do, you would assign equal importance.

I do not agree with your premise, that a 13 week fetus is equal to a mother with cancer, or a mother who has been raped, or a mother who is 16 years old living in an abusive situation.

There is nothing to debate. It is stated.

I feel a "pile on" coming, so I'm out of here.

A. Lori

PS Do you know anyone who has had an abortion? Would their life be different? Would they have the family they have now, or would the path have been different?

PS I have not had an abortion!

Jess(ica) said...

I am not sure if you are talking about me or someone else when saying a pile on might be coming... but I hope you know that that is not, and never will be, my intention. And I will welcome anyone's comments, whether they are piled from the pro-life or pro-choice side of the fence, just as I've welcomed yours. =) As long as no one attacks anyone personally. Then I bust out the can of whoop-@ss! haha

Yes, I actually do know several people who've had an abortion. And yes, in the situations that I am aware of, it would drastically have altered their lives.

Anonymous said...

Can I abort sperm?

Four peas in a pod said...

That "anonymous" statement has Charlie written all over it!!!!

LOL!

I wonder how long it will take for Jess to delete it?

Too funny.

Jess(ica) said...

Haha, yeah, no idea if it was Charlie but I agree... has his name all over it! LOL

Why would I delete it?

Anonymous said...

Why would a woman's life be more valuable than a baby's? Who decides that?

And if it's a woman's "right" to choose, why aren't a female's baby's rights considered?

I find that logic to be similar to the Nazis who decided that Jew's lives were worth less than the Aryan's.

(and yes, this statement has my name written all over it)

Jess(ica) said...

I think those are valid and fair questions.

And really, those questions are essential to know the answers to when deciding if killing an unborn child is okay.

Four peas in a pod said...

A woman's life isn't more valuable than a baby's. But, in my opinion, and we all have our opinions, a woman's life is more valuable than an embryo who is not yet a baby, does not have a concept of self or others, does not have relationships, does not have responsibilities for perhaps other children, etc. If you believe the embryo is equal to yourself, than of course abortion is horrific.

I will not argue this premise. I understand your premise, I respect your premise, but I will never agree with your premise, nor will you agree with mine.

This argument cannot be won.

Meanwhile, back at the inner-city, as one spot in the world where babies have been born are suffering, perhaps helping abused kids is a better way to spend your passion, albeit much harder to do.

Triage.

PS Annonymous? Really? Own it.

You too Charlie. You are too funny to not own it.

Charlie said...

Yeah that was totally mine :D Just wanted to see if people would guess

Jess(ica) said...

Hey, I'm cool with people posting anonymously on my blog :)

And to throw it out there let's say there is someone with a severe mental handicap... they may not have a concept of self or others, do not have relationships (except that they have relationships they are dependant upon like an unborn baby, and are loved like an unborn baby), and do not have responsibilities for anyone. Does this make them less valuable than a mother, too? I don't think value is based on what the person can contribute or know, but their worth as a human being.

Unless yo have anything else you want to add (which I always welcome!) I think that this discussion needs to end for the fact that our arguments are built on two, totally different foundations. If a baby is a baby from conception then of course it's murder to kill it at any point. If it's not a baby until a certain point (sometime while in the uterus? birth?) then to kill it before it hits that "I'm officially a life" moment, then it wouldn't be murder. Until we can agree on that, which it sounds like we won't, the rest of our points are irrelavent :) And it looks like we will have to agree to disagree, but that is okay!

And as far as the abused kids thing goes. Of course that is important, but we all have different passions and from the pro-life perspective, unborn children being murdered is just as horrific as kids who are already being born being abused. They way we see it, one child is being murdered (and they CAN feel the pain) and in the other kid is being abused and neglected. Because a pro-lifer values both lives equally, both are horrific and both are worth fighting for. And there's nothing wrong with focusing my passion on one over the other. I mean, if we look at all the things we are passionate about in life, we'd be spread so thin we wouldn't make any difference. But if we pick just a few things, then we can make a difference :)

Now go forth and be passionate! =) hehe

PS: I hope your tx went well yesterday!!!!

Four peas in a pod said...

The child you describe as severe mental handicap, is in my opinion, different. The child has been born and the parents/caretakers are very much invested in this completely developed child. I think that we still disagree, but that's my input.

As far as picking born-abused babies over pro-life movement. I somewhat disagree. Let me put it this way, if your sole passion is unborn babies, then you should adopt from those who have not termanated and have decided to give up for adoption. Or, people should adopt kids who have been put up for adoption because the parents are unsuited or abusive. If the concern is truly the life of that "baby", including the conception part, then the concern should be consistant even after birth.

To be honest, although I respect everyone's opinion, the only PEOPLE I respect in this regard who are people who actually do adopt the unaborted. I know there are those people out there, and I respect them.

I love your "Go forth a be passionate". It's a lot like go forth and multiply! lol!

Jessica, this is a good ending to a HOT topic. Thank you for making it insightful, respectful, and peaceful.

It works best to not try and talk each other out of our position, but to understand the other. Demonizing the opposition leads to really bad stuff.

I love you, Jessica!

A. Lori

Jess(ica) said...

yep, a very good ending to a hot topic, indeed! Thanks for your input! Even though I respectfully disagree, I feel like I gain a better understanding of the opposing perspective when discuss topics like this!

Love you too!

=)

And thanks to everyone who has participated in this discussion!

Anonymous said...

I'm not afraid to "own" my opinion, I just know that my name evokes strong emotions. -Judi