The existence of rights is critical. The rights that utilitarianism allows for are rights that will maximize happiness. But isn't the whole idea of a right the idea that you are entitled to something no matter what, even if your having that right makes things worse for the sake of happiness. For example, do you only have the right to live if it would be best for the balance of pleasure over pain if you stayed alive?
Example 1: If a woman has a miscarriage, should she have to prove that she didn't induce the abortion?
Example 2: A woman's pregnancy is likely to either kill her or leave her with serious physical damage if she carries the pregnancy to term, should we wait until we are sure she will die if she continues the pregnancy before ending the pregnancy?
Example 3: If there is a rape exception, what kind of evidence should be needed that there has been a rape?
I am not implying that these problems can't be resolved, or even that laws in restrictive states don't cover them.
Hark, the herald angels sing:
> "Bultmann is the latest thing!"There is something tricky about Christian sexual morality that I am not sure everyone appreciates. People who complain about this morality assume that people's sex lives occur on a level playing field, and then ask "What are Christians objecting to?" But sex didn't occur on a level playing field when the Bible was written, so what sexual liberation would have meant was the freedom of rich and powerful men to use their positions of power for their sexual advantage, Wife has a headache? Go the the slave tent. Feeling a little gay today? There are some boys for that. Is there a level playing field now, so does that make Christian defense of traditional marriage obsolete? Not so fast. It may be better now, probably thanks to Christians, but men don't get pregnant, and people like Epstein, Weinstein, and (some won't like this) Trump exploit power for sex. You can add Clinton as well, to avoid the appearance of partisan bias here.
If any law-abiding citizen of a foreign country could come here legally in a reasonable amount of time, then there would be far less need for illegal immigration, and therefore less illegal immigration. If America didn't defund efforts to assist foreign nations in creating a more prosperity and safety in the home countries, there would be less illegal immigration. If we invested in adjudicators to decide asylum claims quickly and efficiently, there would be less illegal immigration. As a matter of justice, our leaders need to stop lying about prospective immigrants, and cut out the bald assertions that they are all out of prisons or asylums, or eating pets. We also need to stop discriminating against prospective immigrants based on country of origin (no Haitians, but Afrikaners from South Africa are free to come.) I have trouble seeing illegal immigrants as criminals when we have such Jim Crow immigration laws. Don't unjust laws deserve to be broken?
