Yet another moral inconsistency
U.S. Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.) is the latest elected official caught in inconsistency, saying he opposes abortion morally, but won't legislate against it.
Writes Obey: "[W]hile I detest abortion and agree with Catholic teaching that in most instances it is morally wrong, I decline to force my views into laws that, if adopted, would be unenforceable and would tear this society apart. That judgment may be wrong, but it is a judgment honestly arrived at, and one that I am obligated to make."
Hmmm, Rep. Obey. I believe that murder is already outlawed and accepted by society as morally wrong. If you believe that abortion is murder (which it is), then opposing abortion is simply the logical extension of opposing murder, and fortunately for you that already fits into your mold of what to support for legislation, since the people oppose murder.
By the way, Rep. Obey, if you are "obligated to make" a judgment that "may be wrong," why don't you make complete sure that your judgment is right? Take a real stand, sir.
And another thing: to claim that laws against abortion would be "unenforceable and would tear this society apart" reveals an incomplete view of American reality. Since millions of drivers speed without getting caught, should we simply eliminate speed limits? We keep the limits and enforce them whenever possible (and should do the same with abortion), because it's still safer for the American people. Although many people will speed (or have abortions) regardless of the law, countless others will be deterred, simply because the law tells them not to do it. Should we refuse to help the poor because poverty will never be eliminated? Should we stop collecting taxes because we can't possibly enforce the laws on every person who frauds the government? No. If these laws are important to keep, how much more important is it to protect innocent human life?
Writes Obey: "[W]hile I detest abortion and agree with Catholic teaching that in most instances it is morally wrong, I decline to force my views into laws that, if adopted, would be unenforceable and would tear this society apart. That judgment may be wrong, but it is a judgment honestly arrived at, and one that I am obligated to make."
Hmmm, Rep. Obey. I believe that murder is already outlawed and accepted by society as morally wrong. If you believe that abortion is murder (which it is), then opposing abortion is simply the logical extension of opposing murder, and fortunately for you that already fits into your mold of what to support for legislation, since the people oppose murder.
By the way, Rep. Obey, if you are "obligated to make" a judgment that "may be wrong," why don't you make complete sure that your judgment is right? Take a real stand, sir.
And another thing: to claim that laws against abortion would be "unenforceable and would tear this society apart" reveals an incomplete view of American reality. Since millions of drivers speed without getting caught, should we simply eliminate speed limits? We keep the limits and enforce them whenever possible (and should do the same with abortion), because it's still safer for the American people. Although many people will speed (or have abortions) regardless of the law, countless others will be deterred, simply because the law tells them not to do it. Should we refuse to help the poor because poverty will never be eliminated? Should we stop collecting taxes because we can't possibly enforce the laws on every person who frauds the government? No. If these laws are important to keep, how much more important is it to protect innocent human life?
posted by Seth at 3:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home