I've been thinking. In the abortion debate, pro-choicers like to talk about "not legislating morality". Their argument is that just because I believe abortion is murder, doesn't mean that they should be forced to agree or live by my standards.
They sort of have a point. When you force someone to do something that they don't believe in, you usually get one of two things: grudging obedience or defiance in one form or another. For instance, obeying the speed limit. Many people either sit in their cars
wishing they could be going faster-- or they just break the law and go faster anyways. Some of them are more obvious than others, of course... Some of them are going five, ten, even twenty miles an hour over the speed limit on a regular basis, and others merely go two or three miles over the limit, so they can go just a little faster, but not get tickets.
And I agree, for the most part, it's not a good idea to force your ideas on others. But there are certain things that require us to do so. After all, we make a moral judgment that some things-- theft, rape, and murder, to name a few-- are bad; then we
legislate that morality. Even regulations such as speed limits are based on the idea that the set speed is the greatest safe speed to drive on this road in normal conditions and that it's
bad to drive at unsafe speeds.
We're not legislating these morals because we want to be some kind of nation of killjoys-- we're doing it to protect the victims and make our country safer. We don't say that theft is wrong because we think there's a problem with the thief's desire to have stuff; we just won't let him hurt others by stealing a laptop, TV, or car from someone else in order to improve his own quality of life. Likewise, there's nothing inherently wrong with the desire to have sex with someone... but we legislate the moral decision that sex in certain situations (such as rape or incest) is wrong in order to protect the victims.
Now, ninety-nine percent of people would agree with me that murder is wrong. But they would differ in their definitions of what constitutes murder. A Quaker or Jainist might say that taking a life under any circumstances is wrong-- even if it's during a war or in self-defence. Someone on the other side of the spectrum might list a number of cases where killing is not the same as murder. In fact, our justice system is founded on the idea that some murders are more heinous than others and deserve worse punishment. A lawyer can tell you that in addition to first and second degree murder, there are categories such as 'justifiable homicide', 'manslaughter', and even 'gross negligence resulting in accidental death'. All of them carry some kind of punishment, because Americans as a whole believe that even if one kills someone by accident, one should be held accountable for it. The victim deserves justice; the family deserves closure; the rest of the country needs the protection of a legal deterrent to such abhorrent actions.
What we as pro-lifers are saying is that we believe an unborn child is no less valuable a life than any other person. And we believe that we need to protect these children, these victims... even if the people who are getting abortions don't see them as people. We look at pro-choicers and see people who are maybe just a bit like Thomas Jefferson-- good people overall, who don't see the irony in arguing that their position creates a better quality of life for women when they're ending the lives of babies who will grow up to be women-- just as Jefferson penned beautiful words about "inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and yet owned dozens of slaves who he denied these rights.
We're not trying to ruin the lives of women who want abortions. We're not trying to take away all of your choices. We just feel that the choice to abort a fetus is as inherently wrong as the choice to own slaves or run a gas chamber to end the lives of people whose lives are "not worth living": it's denying your victim the right to personhood for your own comfort. And we can not stay silent on the issue, because as Elie Weisel put it in his Nobel acceptance speech: "Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim."
We want to find justice for these former victims and protect future innocents from becoming victims. That's why we're trying to legislate morality.
