It is claimed that banning abortion will only drive abortion underground, where it is less safe. (You can find Sen. Ted Kennedy's "wire hangar" speech against Bork for an example.) As an aside, even if this grisly practice were properly regulated--which to the present day, it's not--it's not safe for the baby. Moreover, the claim that abortion is at least physically safe for the mother is false.
Given the fact that abortion supporters and opponents agree that "back alley" abortions are undesirable, it's nevertheless the case that the "choice" side imputes a moral culpability for the harms caused by the illicit procedure on to those who wish to ban abortion as such. This doesn't follow, for one thing. For another, anti-abortion legislators and voters would only be culpable for the harm in such a situation with an unstated premise that abortion itself is morally neutral or good. If abortion were morally neutral or good, the only hardship would be caused by lack of access to abortion.
It's clear that the intent of restricting access to abortion is to make a completed abortion less likely. If a person suffers harm trying to circumvent an obstacle, the blame goes to that person, when the obstacle itself is good, and seeks to prevent an evil. Because most "choice" advocates claim that the common ground should be fewer abortions, they in effect concede that abortion is not desirable or good. Therefore, if abortion is not desirable or good, all those who claim to share that belief should agree that obstacles to its access should be enacted.
Finally, judgments of prudence or pragmatism often substitute for the proper moral judgments of things in themselves. It is a judgment of prudence and justice to say that stealing a loaf of bread should not merit a life sentence in prison. We can imagine the administrative nightmare and moral absurdity of enforcing such a penalty. We cannot however conclude that stealing is acceptable. If there is moral good in preventing some evil by placing obstacles in the path of those who would commit some evil, those who uphold that good should not be ashamed that attempting to circumvent a just law causes harm. The harm belongs to the evil itself, and those who would practice it. They ought to be shown pity and mercy, and those who enforce justice should do so without apology.
Given the fact that abortion supporters and opponents agree that "back alley" abortions are undesirable, it's nevertheless the case that the "choice" side imputes a moral culpability for the harms caused by the illicit procedure on to those who wish to ban abortion as such. This doesn't follow, for one thing. For another, anti-abortion legislators and voters would only be culpable for the harm in such a situation with an unstated premise that abortion itself is morally neutral or good. If abortion were morally neutral or good, the only hardship would be caused by lack of access to abortion.
It's clear that the intent of restricting access to abortion is to make a completed abortion less likely. If a person suffers harm trying to circumvent an obstacle, the blame goes to that person, when the obstacle itself is good, and seeks to prevent an evil. Because most "choice" advocates claim that the common ground should be fewer abortions, they in effect concede that abortion is not desirable or good. Therefore, if abortion is not desirable or good, all those who claim to share that belief should agree that obstacles to its access should be enacted.
Finally, judgments of prudence or pragmatism often substitute for the proper moral judgments of things in themselves. It is a judgment of prudence and justice to say that stealing a loaf of bread should not merit a life sentence in prison. We can imagine the administrative nightmare and moral absurdity of enforcing such a penalty. We cannot however conclude that stealing is acceptable. If there is moral good in preventing some evil by placing obstacles in the path of those who would commit some evil, those who uphold that good should not be ashamed that attempting to circumvent a just law causes harm. The harm belongs to the evil itself, and those who would practice it. They ought to be shown pity and mercy, and those who enforce justice should do so without apology.
Comments