It makes sense to decriminalize all but the murder of children who have been born, if one accepts the premise that the pre-born are not persons. Measured against reality, this premise is false and indefensible, but the logic of abortion must go here. This regime of thought must accept an underlying utilitarianism, because anything other than utilitarianism re-opens the question of the morality of abortion itself.
Understand that I do not say it's not horrible, evil, and almost certainly demonic. It is. But truthfully, we must also say that all the "moderate" pro-choice rhetoric of previous years and decades was unprincipled in the strict sense. We may indeed be rightly horrified, but for abortion's most ardent defenders, they believe they are calling the bluff of what they saw as a hopelessly contradictory position.
For my part, I don't mind arguments meant to foster consensus for abortion restrictions based upon majority opinion, such as, "Two-thirds of Americans favor some restrictions on abortion." The purpose of such arguments is to put those who favor no restrictions on the defensive as outside the mainstream, so to speak. The danger of such arguments is precisely this: People may mistakenly believe that the moral dimension of abortion is determined by popular opinion, or by majority consensus.
This is the danger of incrementalism at every point as well.
All this is to say that we should keep praying and speaking out, and all of the other things. Yet we should also engage our minds to understand underlying philosophies--especially when they are false--and be mindful of the danger of adopting a false philosophy ourselves, even in service to a good cause.
Understand that I do not say it's not horrible, evil, and almost certainly demonic. It is. But truthfully, we must also say that all the "moderate" pro-choice rhetoric of previous years and decades was unprincipled in the strict sense. We may indeed be rightly horrified, but for abortion's most ardent defenders, they believe they are calling the bluff of what they saw as a hopelessly contradictory position.
For my part, I don't mind arguments meant to foster consensus for abortion restrictions based upon majority opinion, such as, "Two-thirds of Americans favor some restrictions on abortion." The purpose of such arguments is to put those who favor no restrictions on the defensive as outside the mainstream, so to speak. The danger of such arguments is precisely this: People may mistakenly believe that the moral dimension of abortion is determined by popular opinion, or by majority consensus.
This is the danger of incrementalism at every point as well.
All this is to say that we should keep praying and speaking out, and all of the other things. Yet we should also engage our minds to understand underlying philosophies--especially when they are false--and be mindful of the danger of adopting a false philosophy ourselves, even in service to a good cause.
Comments