From: met48546@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Marc E. Talbot)
Subject: Re: Moral Activity (was Re: Asylum)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:10:30 GMT

jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan) writes:

>In article <BzBMJq.B4u@news.cso.uiuc.edu> met48546@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Marc E. Talbot) writes:
>>jocallag@darwin.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan) writes:
>>
>>>Do we or do we not have laws prohibiting murder, theft, and rape, all of
>>>which seem to be matters of morality and values.  How do laws designed to
>>>prohibit abortion differ significantly in intention from these laws?
>>>Peace and Happy Advent.
>>>John\
>>
>>They differ significantly.  Go take a poll somewhere in your town.  Ask how
>>many people feel there should be laws prohibiting murder, theft, and rape.
>>Then ask about abortion.  I think that you'll find a massive agreement
>>about the first bunch, and something close to an even split for abortion
>>(or maybe a little lopsided, depending where you live).  Most anyone,
>>regardless of religious affiliation, will have some set of guidelines of
>>things which they feel are right and wrong.  When enough people agree on
>>one of these issues, it becomes law.  The reason it needs to become law is
>>that some small fraction of the population will not agree to it.
>>In the case of abortion, a majority of the people in the US believe that
>>it should be legal.  That's why its different from the above-mentioned
>>crimes.

>So it seems you think that laws prohibiting murder, rape, and theft ought to
>be subject to majority opinion.  If for example a community decides that women
>ought to be subject to the physical power of men and at the disposal of men
>to be raped, and their elective representatives reflecting upon the widespread
>opinion their community acted to strike down such laws as prohibit rape, then
>those legislators would be acting aright?  No doubt such a community would
>be IMHO a pervers and corrupt community.  But perhaps a community that does not
>act to protect the most powerless individuals within the human community and
>legislate agains abortion is equally pervers and corrupt; and just as I would
>hope and pray that in the case of a corrupt and perverse community that approved
>of rape, the legislators would do what is right and legislate agains rape, I
>against the opinion of the people, so also I hope and pray that in our
>community the legislators act to protect the unborn against the widespread
>opinion of the community.

Actually, I'm not in favor of having only laws that are subject to majority
opinion, but someone did ask what was different between laws prohibiting
murder and laws prohibiting abortion.  I think you'll find, however, that
in the US, legislators will follow thier voters rather than their conscience
(in many issues, not just abortion).  The alternative is to move the government
away from "government by the people," which is sometimes tempting, but has some
nasty consequences.

>Just to thor a few facts in, however, it is true that the majority of Americans
>favor the availability of abortion in certain circumstances.  But typically
>those circumstances turn out to be fairly restricted, e.g. threat of death,
>rape , or incest.  In other circumstances, the approval turns into disapproval, e.g. health, economic conditions, birth defects, backup birth control, and
>sex selection.  Given your principles, would you favor legislation p[rohibiting
>abortion in those case in which the "majority" disapprove?

Actually, my principles involve freedom of choice, although that means that
a "majority" has the right to take away that choice.  I'm in favor of some
restrictions on abortion, but not in the interest of using them as a stepping
stone to get more restrictions.

Marc

>Peace and Happy Advent,
>John



Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic