Tuesday, October 19, 2004
There is a train of thought among some pro-life Catholics that goes like this:
That political actions (appointment of judges, passing legislation, overturningRoe v. Wade, amending the constitution) directly or indirectly aimed atrestricting or prohibiting abortion are innefective, unimportant and/orcounter-productive, because we must first change the culture so that abortionsare not desired and/or change economic and other circumstances so thatabortions aren't viewed as necessary. Therefore, a politician's stand on theseissues is less relevant to our vote.
A few thoughts on this:
1. Law can itself help to shape the culture we want to create. Consider drunkdriving laws. Or anti-smoking ordinances. Laws of various degrees were enactedfirst, and societal disapproval of these actions subsequently increased,leading to a culture willing to accept yet stricter laws and harsher penalties.Basic point -- neither laws nor culture exist in a vaccuum, building a cultureof life makes pro-life legislation more likely, and pro-life legislation buildsthe culture of life.
2. Even if circumstances changed and abortions were *dramatically* reducedtomorrow, the lack of protection for unborn children in law would remain afundamental injustice! If in the 1840s there were rapid changes in technologythat made slavery less economically beneficial and thus less common, would thathave been sufficient? If a candidate has positions on other issues that youbelieve will, at least temporarily, reduce the incidence of abortions, of whatlasting value is this if he is also committed to solidifying the lack of legalprotection of the unborn child? (so that, when economic circumstances changeagain, there are as many or more abortions than there were previously)
3. There is a sub-corrolary to this that will sometimes say -- if i vote forpro-life legislator x, whatever good he does we'll be blocked by pro-abortionjudge y. At the SAME TIME it says, if i vote for pro-life executive a, hisnominations for judges will be blocked by pro-abortion legislator b. And so itis concluded that the election of legislator x and executive a is futile.Yikes! This strikes me as the perfect way to ensure the continued legality ofabortion, solidify the extremist positions of pro-abortion politicians, anddiscourage pro-life politicians from taking any bold stands or risks.
4. The introduction of legislation is helpful to shaping the debate even whenit is not successful. Witness how the debate on partial birth abortioncontributed to a more pro-life attitude in the public as a whole during theClinton years. When pro-choice zealots are seen to be opposed to even mildlegislation like 24 hour waiting periods and pre-abortion counseling, or theUnborn Victims of Violence Act, of the Fetal pain awareness act (which havenothnign to do with abortion per se, but are opposed because they have animplicit recognition that the fetus is alive and has value)... then the realityof their position becomes more apparant to society.
That political actions (appointment of judges, passing legislation, overturningRoe v. Wade, amending the constitution) directly or indirectly aimed atrestricting or prohibiting abortion are innefective, unimportant and/orcounter-productive, because we must first change the culture so that abortionsare not desired and/or change economic and other circumstances so thatabortions aren't viewed as necessary. Therefore, a politician's stand on theseissues is less relevant to our vote.
A few thoughts on this:
1. Law can itself help to shape the culture we want to create. Consider drunkdriving laws. Or anti-smoking ordinances. Laws of various degrees were enactedfirst, and societal disapproval of these actions subsequently increased,leading to a culture willing to accept yet stricter laws and harsher penalties.Basic point -- neither laws nor culture exist in a vaccuum, building a cultureof life makes pro-life legislation more likely, and pro-life legislation buildsthe culture of life.
2. Even if circumstances changed and abortions were *dramatically* reducedtomorrow, the lack of protection for unborn children in law would remain afundamental injustice! If in the 1840s there were rapid changes in technologythat made slavery less economically beneficial and thus less common, would thathave been sufficient? If a candidate has positions on other issues that youbelieve will, at least temporarily, reduce the incidence of abortions, of whatlasting value is this if he is also committed to solidifying the lack of legalprotection of the unborn child? (so that, when economic circumstances changeagain, there are as many or more abortions than there were previously)
3. There is a sub-corrolary to this that will sometimes say -- if i vote forpro-life legislator x, whatever good he does we'll be blocked by pro-abortionjudge y. At the SAME TIME it says, if i vote for pro-life executive a, hisnominations for judges will be blocked by pro-abortion legislator b. And so itis concluded that the election of legislator x and executive a is futile.Yikes! This strikes me as the perfect way to ensure the continued legality ofabortion, solidify the extremist positions of pro-abortion politicians, anddiscourage pro-life politicians from taking any bold stands or risks.
4. The introduction of legislation is helpful to shaping the debate even whenit is not successful. Witness how the debate on partial birth abortioncontributed to a more pro-life attitude in the public as a whole during theClinton years. When pro-choice zealots are seen to be opposed to even mildlegislation like 24 hour waiting periods and pre-abortion counseling, or theUnborn Victims of Violence Act, of the Fetal pain awareness act (which havenothnign to do with abortion per se, but are opposed because they have animplicit recognition that the fetus is alive and has value)... then the realityof their position becomes more apparant to society.
