Tuesday, December 06, 2016

Why I am for legalizing murder in some cases

I am inclined to think that there is there are moral issues that can't be fully dealt with by the law, and abortion is one of those issues. The law can act where were have enough consensus to put violators in jail. But if we admit that something isn't so clearly wrong that we should be putting someone in jail who does it doesn't mean that it's just OK.

People are also dealing with these questions from different world-views, religious and nonreligious, and there are citizens representing many groups, all of whom are good citizens of our country. There are many tools of moral persuasion that pro-lifers de-emphasize because they want a legal solution. But three pro-life Presidents have tried and failed to change the Supreme Court so as to be overturn Roe. The chances that a fourth will succeed seems slim to me.

I guess that means I believe in legalizing murder in some cases. Oh well.

13 comments:

Joe Hinman said...

is masturbation murder? the refuse of that process is life it has DNA in it. is timing your nails murder? at some point the fetus becomes a person. When is that? we don't know. That doesn't mean we can negate it just it might not be a person because it might be. But we can safely say that before the sperm attaches to the dell wall it'snot a human life. So give them $U 486 because it only stops the attaching of the sperm to the cell wall.

Abortion in first trimester is not going to be murder. abortion when the water breaks is clearly undrer. Somewhere between the two there's sea change, we can allow it before that point

Rasmus Møller said...

There are moral issues that can't be fully dealt with by the law, _but_ abortion is _not_ one of those issues. The law can act where were have enough consensus to put violators in jail. But _even_ if we admit that something _is_ so clearly wrong that we should be putting someone in jail who does it doesn't mean that it's just OK
... to pretend that it is right to kill the smallest unwanted humans.

The majority is wrong in this case - that in itself does not make abortion right.

Victor Reppert said...

I am not saying it is right, nor am I pretending that it is right (although the issue may be complex in some cases).

Our society has gotten to the place where it assumes that if there is anything wrong with something, the government will, or should, pass a law against it. This is an assumption that needs to go. Democrats have had a tendency to slip from pro-choice to pro-abortion. My party hasn't done a very good job of sustaining this distinction. Abortions are very bad, and in my view most of them are wrong (the difference between badness and wrongness is that badness can arise from the best available choice, while wrongness means that a different choice would have been better). But is it wrong in a way that makes government prevention via criminal law appropriate?

Legion of Logic said...

VR,

To determine whether government should intervene, we can simply ask what the government interest is in punitive action against murder. And then take that answer, and ask why it does not apply to an unborn human.

Gyan said...

VR,
Will you accept any restriction on abortion?
How about fetal pain laws?
How about banning abortion in last trimester?
How about requiring proper cremation or burial for aborted babies?

Victor Reppert said...

I am afraid a lot of liberals really think that any restriction on abortion is a step in the direction of banning it completely. Things like informed consent and waiting periods seem perfectly rational. This is part of the slippage from pro-choice to pro-abortion, and I think this is unfortunate. Maybe people like Obama and Hillary have been fighting the abortion battle for so long they've developed some knee-jerk reactions, and that is not a good thing.

Victor Reppert said...

Government interest in punitive actions make sense when there is a chance for rational
consensus.

Joe Hinman said...

my new blog piece answering Dr. parsons on SOP

Soul, Mimd, Consciousness

Joe Hinman said...

aaaaaaaaa mind---, i hate dyslexia

Mr. Green said...

Victor Reppert: Government interest in punitive actions make sense when there is a chance for rational
consensus.


So are you saying that if you lived in a culture where a significant subset of the population did not accept that, say, black people or Jews were "human" enough to prohibit killing them, that you would oppose laws against murdering them?

Gyan said...

VR,
"Rational consensus"?
There is NO rational argument for abortion. It is self-contradictory for a person to kill his unborn.

Ilíon said...

When people start speaking seriously of evaluating laws, much less direct moral issues, in terms of "government(al) interest", then you know that you're no longer living in a republic.

Legitimate government does not have interests. Society has interests; government exists to secure those interests.

Ilíon said...

Like we didn't see that coming: "I guess that means I believe in legalizing murder in some cases. Oh well."

Thre is *always* a god of the system, and that god *will* be worshipped.