Skip to main content

A Follow-Up On Christian Left Justification For Abortion

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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un