Cranky Incorrectualls
It's frustrating to read posts like this at Cranky Liberal. Not only does the author mischaracterize Christians and pro-lifers, but with almost unbelievable (unintended) irony she accuses conservatives of trying to "legislate morality." As if the pro-choice side isn't advocating the exact same thing, just to different effect! It's difficult to argue with these people because I don't know where to begin... Should I start with the complete mischaracterization of the Christian right? Show
how she makes gross exaggerations and then throws them in with other distorted facts to legitimize them? Explain how legislating morality is not only inevitable, but also legal, constitutional and enforceable?
Instead of engaging in a debate (which will take too much time and energy considering it's a fruitless attempt with the abortion-crazy folks at CL), I will simply express my frustration. :)
how she makes gross exaggerations and then throws them in with other distorted facts to legitimize them? Explain how legislating morality is not only inevitable, but also legal, constitutional and enforceable?
Instead of engaging in a debate (which will take too much time and energy considering it's a fruitless attempt with the abortion-crazy folks at CL), I will simply express my frustration. :)
posted by Seth at 11:17 PM
7 Comments:
No, Cranky, every law states that a specific behavior is right and another is wrong. Thus we have laws against murder, theft, racism, etc...These laws legislate morality. Would you rather stop outlawing these behaviors and simply hope that "people make the proper choice"? Would that have worked with slavery? Segregation?
Cranky, we as a nation can't not legislate morality. And even though some folks try to deny it, just listen to the daily quotes from politicians, lobbyist, administration officials, and everyday citizens. Everyone promotes their idea of what should be, how it should be done, and why the other side is wrong. Most want (some of) their ideas exacted into law. Everyone speaks in moral terms whether they admit it or not.
A common misconception of "legislating morality" is that it's different from legislating religion. We must do the former, but we should not do the latter. I'm preparing a more in-depth post on this and the broader concept of legislating morality, so I won't get into any more of that here.
By the way, how did you find this post? Just curious. Thanks for reading...
I commented over at CrankyLiberal's site. There was so much to get into that I'm sure I missed some things, but I think I did well enough for the time being. Let me know what you think.
Your reply was quite good and much briefer than mine. Keep up the good work.
Wiser Man, your response was longer because the scope was so much broader (and you had a mountain of bunk to plough through with your truth shovel). Wow. What a great response...I especially appreciate the argument against Roe from a purely constitutional standpoint. You're dead on.
You keep up the good work!
Haha. If you want me to stay humble you can't go feeding my ego like that. Thanks though.
Not all laws say one behavior is right and another is wrong; criminilizing murder does not say that those who don't commit murder are somehow commendable; only that those who do commit it must be punished.
Pro-choice legislation (as Cranky liberal points out) merely makes it legal for people to have abortions if they choose. It in no way restricts the rights of those who believe abortions are wrong.
In a free and democratic society, most laws must be amoral, geared towards the continuing functioning of that society without pushing people to live their lives a certain way.
"[Abortion] no way restricts the rights of those who believe abortions are wrong."
Ahh but there's the rub. Abortion does in fact restrict the most basic right protected by the Constitution--life. The life of a human baby, to be exact. From a purely legal standpoint, abortion should be decided by the states and not the courts. Secondly, even if it were the court's right to rule on the constitutionality of abortion, here's the simple logic of what the legal situation should be:
The Constitution protects many rights, the most important of which is the right to life. "Privacy" (although it's even debatable whether that's in the Constitution) does not supercede the right to life. There is overwhelming evidence that a fetus is in fact a fully-formed human being, and thus it should be afforded the rights given to the already-born. Yet even if the fetus' humanity is debated (which it is), the court should still err on the side of live, instead of the side of privacy or convenience.
I'll get to your point on morality later.
UPDATE: I read through all the comments at the Cranky Liberal post. Wiser did a heck of a job defending the pro-life view. But one thing interested me in particular. Becks, the author of the original post, wrote:
I have been to Seth’s blog and read what he wrote about this post. He is welcome to his opinion- but, his attitude is part of the larger problem. People who will deride others for having a particular point of view but who are not willing to debate the issues in question do NOTHING positive for the state of our country. You [referring to Wiser]- however- were willing to put your ideas and opinions out there for discussion and for that you have my respect. As I have said- we may not agree, but it is this kind of discourse and discussion between people of differing views that will foster solutions. Not the sideline name calling from the right and the left. Not the vitriolic rhetoric from the likes of Micheal Moore, Ann Coulter, Rush and so on."
If my post here was the only one about abortion, I'd humble say "point taken." Unfortunately, Becks completely missed the reason I chose not to debate in the comments section of Cranky Liberal: I had already done it before and found it futile, hence the link to that discussion. Go read it for yourself and tell me if I derided my opponents and refused to debate.
The fact is, I am completely willing and desiring to debate this issue with people because I want them to find the truth. I simply chose not to debate in that specific forumn because I was frustrated and I had been fruitless there in the past. Fortunately, Wiser jumped right in and fought bravely.
Post a Comment
<< Home