Legality

[musturde]

Hey guys, I havent been on here in a while but I was hoping to gather some opinions. I will use the example abortion, however this question is not directly concerning it. If, for example, if we were to find that making abortions illegal did not decrease the abortion rate, would it still be required for Catholics to fight for its prohibition? I know this will sound goofy but I'm going to provide an example and exaggerate it to clarify what I'm asking. Let's say we are in Egypt, where abortion is illegal. The percentage of abortions is, at least on paper, lower because of the law but many women are still performing street abortions, which are much more dangerous. Let's apply this scenario to the United States and pretend that we knew for a fact that the percentage of abortions wouldn't drop if abortion was illegal. Keep in mind that women would, instead, have street abortions which are much more dangerous. In this situation, would it be more important for a Catholic to make abortion illegal immediately or to first try to change the population's views on abortion? Also, is the State's official stance against abortion through the law more important than the results of the law?

[add]

[quote name='musturde' timestamp='1320098981' post='2329509']
Hey guys, I havent been on here in a while but I was hoping to gather some opinions. I will use the example abortion, however this question is not directly concerning it. If, for example, if we were to find that making abortions illegal did not decrease the abortion rate, would it still be required for Catholics to fight for its prohibition? I know this will sound goofy but I'm going to provide an example and exaggerate it to clarify what I'm asking. Let's say we are in Egypt, where abortion is illegal. The percentage of abortions is, at least on paper, lower because of the law but many women are still performing street abortions, which are much more dangerous. Let's apply this scenario to the United States and pretend that we knew for a fact that the percentage of abortions wouldn't drop if abortion was illegal. Keep in mind that women would, instead, have street abortions which are much more dangerous. In this situation, would it be more important for a Catholic to make abortion illegal immediately or to first try to change the population's views on abortion? Also, is the State's official stance against abortion through the law more important than the results of the law?
[/quote]

Abortion is immoral. Civil laws declaring said practices legitimate do not change this fact.

[musturde]

[quote name='add' timestamp='1320106454' post='2329558']

Abortion is immoral. Civil laws declaring said practices legitimate do not change this fact.
[/quote]
I appreciate your response but it does not answer any of my questions.

[add]

[quote name='musturde' timestamp='1320106697' post='2329560']
I appreciate your response but it does not answer any of my questions.
[/quote]
does to
P.S. You’re hypothetical questions absurd.

Edited November 1, 2011 by add

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='musturde' timestamp='1320098981' post='2329509']
In this situation, would it be more important for a Catholic to make abortion illegal immediately or to first try to change the population's views on abortion? Also, is the State's official stance against abortion through the law more important than the results of the law?
[/quote]

Fair warning: You're opening up a nasty can of worms with this topic.

But as far as this first question, I think that's a matter of opinion. There are good reasons to support either side, and personally I think we need people working to do both simultaneously. They really go hand-in-hand. As for your second question, I think it's really a question of results-based ethics, which don't work. Both the official legal stance and the results are important...although I'm tempted to say that results/effects are more important, saying so leads to places I don't feel comfortably going...ethically speaking.

[musturde]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1320107637' post='2329572']

Fair warning: You're opening up a nasty can of worms with this topic.

But as far as this first question, I think that's a matter of opinion. There are good reasons to support either side, and personally I think we need people working to do both simultaneously. They really go hand-in-hand. As for your second question, I think it's really a question of results-based ethics, which don't work. Both the official legal stance and the results are important...although I'm tempted to say that results/effects are more important, saying so leads to places I don't feel comfortably going...ethically speaking.
[/quote]

Thank you! This is what I was trying to get at. I was secretly hoping a can of worms would open, I wanted to see an argument presented on sides or to see if the Church had a specific preference of results over official law. I can see how the Church would want abortion to be illegal as a way of the State officially professing that it's not in support of abortion, even if this law does not change the abortion rate. However, I can also see the Church placing more emphasis on trying to change people's perceptions on abortion.

[AccountDeleted]

[quote] In this situation, would it be more important for a Catholic to make abortion illegal immediately or to first try to change the population's views on abortion? Also, is the State's official stance against abortion through the law more important than the results of the law?
[/quote]

It is more important to make abortion illegal first. It is an immoral act and should not be legalised. Then we need to change the populations' view on abortion. Yes, the State's official stance is very important because more people obey laws they don't like than disobey them.

Making something illegal also makes it more socially unacceptable. When my daughter was a teenager she wanted to try marijuana because some of her friends did. If it were legal, I would have had a harder time explaining to her why she shouldn't do it since there are a million arguments that people use to justify its use. The fact that it was illegal made it easy for me to say - you get caught, you will be breaking the law - so no, you can't do it.

I think it is like red lights. It is against the law to go through a red light. So most people stop. Some might go through illegally but most stop. If it were optional to stop or go at the red, what do you think would happen, especially if someone just got tired of waiting?

In Australia it is against the law to turn on a red light (in California we could turn right on a red after a stop). Australians don't turn on a red light. It doesn't matter whether, like me, they think they should be able to (only it would be turn left since we drive on the left) - the law says no.

I think the law makes a big difference to most people - not all, but most. I don't believe that making abortions illegal would result in the same number of abortions - but it doesn't matter - change the law first - it is wrong.

[musturde]

[quote name='add' timestamp='1320107311' post='2329571']
does to
P.S. You’re hypothetical questions absurd.
[/quote]
Many questions relating to moral ethics, even on an academic level, can be pretty absurd. In fact, my example is pretty down to earth comparatively. Like I said earlier, my focus isn't specifically abortion. I'm more concerned about a situation in which a law fails to change how frequently a crime is committed. In fact, laws prohibiting certain actions can sometimes backfire. For example, Tertullian noted that more followers were brought to the faith as a result of the Roman Empire's legal intolerance of Christianity.

[musturde]

[quote name='nunsense' timestamp='1320109165' post='2329582']
Making something illegal also makes it more socially unacceptable. When my daughter was a teenager she wanted to try marijuana because some of her friends did. If it were legal, I would have had a harder time explaining to her why she shouldn't do it since there are a million arguments that people use to justify its use. The fact that it was illegal made it easy for me to say - you get caught, you will be breaking the law - so no, you can't do it.
[/quote]
This is very true. I'm glad you brought marijuana up because it may work as a better example. The prohibition of marijuana and other drugs creates crime as much as it prevents it. The black market operates based on the State's ban of these intoxicants. If the ban on drugs was lifted, much of the deaths associated with the drug wars would decline. Marijuana, though mentally addictive, is less addictive than alcohol and is arguably just as bad in low doses. There are organizations like LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) who argue that lifting the prohibition on these drugs will cause more good than harm. If the government regulates the use of hard drugs, for example, it could keep track of exactly who is using them and could better treat those addicted. It would also ensure that the money from the drugs doesn't go to those currently selling it. I'm not arguing that these points are right or wrong but, rather, asking you guys to consider them in applying how a moral way to deal with this situation. If prohibiting drugs or an illicit action has more negative than positive consequences, how should a state react?

Edited November 1, 2011 by musturde

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='musturde' timestamp='1320111157' post='2329620']
This is very true. I'm glad you brought marijuana up because it may work as a better example. The prohibition of marijuana and other drugs creates crime as much as it prevents it. The black market operates based on the State's ban of these intoxicants. If the ban on drugs was lifted, much of the deaths associated with the drug wars would decline. Marijuana, though mentally addictive, is less addictive than alcohol and is arguably just as bad in low doses. There are organizations like LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) who argue that lifting the prohibition on these drugs will cause more good than harm. If the government regulates the use of hard drugs, for example, it could keep track of exactly who is using them and could better treat those addicted. It would also ensure that the money from the drugs doesn't go to those currently selling it. I'm not arguing that these points are right or wrong but, rather, asking you guys to consider them in applying how a moral way to deal with this situation. If prohibiting drugs or an illicit action has more negative than positive consequences, how should a state react?
[/quote]


You've changed the theme of this thread a little but I still stand on my decision that what is immoral should also be illegal. Hard drugs are immoral - they demean the human being and lead one to perform all manner of vile acts - not just to purchase more (such as stealing) but just because they alter the mind and reduce the ability to make informed choices.

Just because alcohol has become a legal drug (as are cigarettes), that is no reason to legalise even worse drugs, especially ones of addiction.

I don't know how to comment on the marijuana debate because I have mixed feelings about it. It has medical uses, as does morphine, but if it were legal, it would be one more drug that we have to worry about people using indiscriminately like drunk drivers. I am not outright against it because it seems similar to alcohol in its effects and perhaps there could be laws about its use, but I worry about its longer term effects and how this would affect people who use it - like bus drivers, pilots, doctors etc.

I understand that the argument is that if the government took it over, it could regulate the industry and impose taxes and stop criminals - but that might not be true. Criminals will always find some way to make a living off the suffering of others.

[Groo the Wanderer]

it aint an either or. its a both and.

pursue both.

[musturde]

[quote name='nunsense' timestamp='1320111695' post='2329632']
You've changed the theme of this thread a little [/quote]
You're right, but I couldn't help but bring this example up as well.

[quote] I still stand on my decision that what is immoral should also be illegal. Hard drugs are immoral - they demean the human being and lead one to perform all manner of vile acts - not just to purchase more (such as stealing) but just because they alter the mind and reduce the ability to make informed choices. Just because alcohol has become a legal drug (as are cigarettes), that is no reason to legalise even worse drugs, especially ones of addiction. [/quote]
This is a good point. However, with this in mind, would you recommend that alcohol also be prohibited?

[quote]
I don't know how to comment on the marijuana debate because I have mixed feelings about it. It has medical uses, as does morphine, but if it were legal, it would be one more drug that we have to worry about people using indiscriminately like drunk drivers. I am not outright against it because it seems similar to alcohol in its effects and perhaps there could be laws about its use, but I worry about its longer term effects and how this would affect people who use it - like bus drivers, pilots, doctors etc. [/quote]
I agree with your concerns. However, if the situation was that lifting the ban made no difference on the frequency of abuse, would you still consider it important to keep these drugs illegal?

[quote]
I understand that the argument is that if the government took it over, it could regulate the industry and impose taxes and stop criminals - but that might not be true. Criminals will always find some way to make a living off the suffering of others.
[/quote]
Of course. I'm not saying this example is perfect, but i thought it would work because there are people who strongly argue these points.

[add]

[quote name='musturde' timestamp='1320109916' post='2329591']
Many questions relating to moral ethics, even on an academic level, can be pretty absurd. In fact, my example is pretty down to earth comparatively. Like I said earlier, my focus isn't specifically abortion. I'm more concerned about a situation in which a law fails to change how frequently a crime is committed. In fact, laws prohibiting certain actions can sometimes backfire. For example, Tertullian noted that more followers were brought to the faith as a result of the Roman Empire's legal intolerance of Christianity.[/quote]

To presuppose that the number of abortions would remain the same if the procedure was illegal is not plausible, in my opinion. This premiss in itself is illogical, I have serious disbelief that most people would be willing to subject themselves to back-ally abortions given the risk to the mother.
Certainly it would still happen, but I'm just as certain that it would curtail the minority of abortions compared to today's incidents.

It may however reduce the number of accidental births or the need for abortions, if you will, if the barbaric procedure was not readily available.

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='musturde' timestamp='1320112907' post='2329656']
You're right, but I couldn't help but bring this example up as well.


This is a good point. However, with this in mind, would you recommend that alcohol also be prohibited?
[/quote]

No, alcohol is not intrinsically immoral - God made wine to cheer man's heart. The abuse of it is immoral. God did not make hard drugs to cheer man's heart - they hurt the body and the mind and are bad whether used in moderation or excess. Can you seriously justify heroine as a recreational drug?

[quote] I agree with your concerns. However, if the situation was that lifting the ban made no difference on the frequency of abuse, would you still consider it important to keep these drugs illegal?
[/quote]

If they are immoral, yes. Find me a place in scruptures where it says the using these kinds of drugs is permissible and approved by God?

[quote] Of course. I'm not saying this example is perfect, but i thought it would work because there are people who strongly argue these points.
[/quote]

And backyard abortions would be illegal if abortion were illegal, and the people who perform them should be put in jail - whether doctors or not. Doctors have a lot to lose (including their licence) and others should be tried for murder or manslaughter.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='musturde' timestamp='1320109053' post='2329581']
Thank you! This is what I was trying to get at. I was secretly hoping a can of worms would open, I wanted to see an argument presented on sides or to see if the Church had a specific preference of results over official law. I can see how the Church would want abortion to be illegal as a way of the State officially professing that it's not in support of abortion, even if this law does not change the abortion rate. However, I can also see the Church placing more emphasis on trying to change people's perceptions on abortion.
[/quote]

By can of worms I meant using abortion as a topic. People can get very passionate about that around here, and it may not end well. Anywho. Bowing out.