Legality

[musturde]

[quote name='add' timestamp='1320113238' post='2329660']
To presuppose that the number of abortions would remain the same if the procedure was illegal is not plausible, in my opinion. [/quote]
If it helps you, replace "abortion" with "underage drinking". There are articles that argue that the high amount of binge drinking in America is due to the age limit being so high.

[quote]
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.[/quote] It happens in Egypt but this is still irrelevant to the main purpose of the question.

[musturde]

[quote name='nunsense' timestamp='1320113713' post='2329664']

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]
If we follow the argument of St. Thomas Moore, no object is intrinsically evil. I wasn't trying to compare heroine to alcohol. I was just noting that abusing some of the drugs that are currently illegal is about as bad as abusing alcohol. With that in mind, since people abuse alcohol and marijuana, should marijuana also be illegal? We're going way off topic.
[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.
[/quote]
You don't have to be a doctor to perform an abortion, that's why back alley abortions are more dangerous. I'm only arguing this so it makes more sense to you.I apologize if it seems like I'm trying to make this an abortion or drug argument. These views aren't important, whether people actually commit more abortions after laws have been passed was not my concern. The point of my post was to find out how a Catholic should react given that the scenarios I listed above are actually true.

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1320112257' post='2329646']
it aint an either or. its a both and.

pursue both.
[/quote]

I agree, but I also tend to think that the cultural attitude is something that more often precedes legal reform than follows it. There are out-of-date ridiculous laws (don't drive a car with a bear in the backseat) that are still on the books but have lost relevance over time to the point where no one (but a complete jack arse) would prosecute citing those laws.

Legal code doesn't mean all that much if people in general don't agree with it imo

[cooterhein]

How would you distance this exercise from casuistry?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1320112257' post='2329646']
it aint an either or. its a both and.

pursue both.
[/quote]
Amen.

[Socrates]

It's always been the teaching of the Church that laws must be just to be true law. A law which protects the killing of innocent children in the womb is an inherently unjust law and can never be supported by a true Christian.

And it's very dubious that outlawing abortion would in fact have absolutely no affect whatever on abortion rates. That's an absurd proposal. If illegal abortions are riskier to the life of the mother, that in itself would have a certain deterrent effect. The fact is that all evidence shows that abortion rates went up drastically after Roe v. Wade. The nonsense about "millions of women dying from back-alley abortions" pre-Roe is an admitted lie.

But in any case, the law is under no obligation to ensure that murder be safe for murderers (anymore than, outrageous lawsuits to the contrary, homeowners must provide a safe environment for burglars).

I wonder how many of you bleeding hearts would support, say, legalizing rape, on the grounds that rapists will just rape anyway. Same deal.

[Norseman82]

[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]

However, if abortion were illegal, there would be a way to legaly close the abortion clinics, so I beleive that the abortion rate would truly drop. Also, I remember reading that the reason less women died from abortions was not that it was made legal, but rather the discovery of penicillin.

[musturde]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1320278368' post='2330512']
It's always been the teaching of the Church that laws must be just to be true law. [/quote]
Good. Based on this, is it better to have laws that are just or laws that are effective?

[quote]But in any case, the law is under no obligation to ensure that murder be safe for murderers (anymore than, outrageous lawsuits to the contrary, homeowners must provide a safe environment for burglars).[/quote]
Is intention or effectiveness more important? let's say a certain law (we'll call it law x) is trying to ban q. The Catholic Church really hates q but much of society likes q and will not give q up even after law x is put into place. If the enactment of law x does nothing but make a black market for q, would it be more important to put law x into place or to convince the populace that q is bad?

[quote]I wonder how many of you bleeding hearts would support, say, legalizing rape, on the grounds that rapists will just rape anyway. Same deal.
[/quote]
No. I realize that using abortion as an example was a bad idea. I'll humor you by answering this quote. When discussing abortion, rape and murder cannot be used as comparisons. I'd say at least 75% of people do not tolerate these activities. Abortion is a different because there are many people who support it. However, it's not enough of a percentage for it to be a good example for my case.

Edited November 3, 2011 by musturde

[Socrates]

[quote name='musturde' timestamp='1320290705' post='2330662']
Good. Based on this, is it better to have laws that are just or laws that are effective?[/quote]
Morally, it is more important that laws be just. Whether they are effective is largely a matter of enforcement. A law which gives legal sanction to the killing of innocents can never be just, as murder of the innocent is a sin which cries out to heaven for vengeance.
If people refuse to obey a just law, that is the fault of the law-breakers, not the law-makers.

I'd rather have an ineffective just law, than an unjust law that was effective.

[quote]Is intention or effectiveness more important? let's say a certain law (we'll call it law x) is trying to ban q. The Catholic Church really hates q but much of society likes q and will not give q up even after law x is put into place. If the enactment of law x does nothing but make a black market for q, would it be more important to put law x into place or to convince the populace that q is bad?[/quote]
I think I already answered your question above. As others have pointed out, your hypothetical is absurd and not really grounded in reality, at least concerning abortion (though based on your past posts, I doubt you are really being completely hypothetical here, as you seem fixated on making posts opposing laws against abortion). While a black market would certainly exist (as it exists for any other criminal activity), I fail to see how laws against abortion would not have at least some deterrent effect, and make women "on the fence" think twice about getting an abortion. Quite frankly, if anti-abortion laws save the life of just one baby, I would not consider them in vain. And organizations such as PP would no longer be able to continue their butchery while being funded by the government. And as I said earlier, the law has absolutely no obligation to ensure "safety" for those committing or commissioning murders. If they knowingly and willingly choose to kill a baby against the law, any negative consequences they bring upon themselves.

But if this is merely a deliberately absurd or unrealistic hypothetical, such as "what if gravity went in reverse, and everything floated up instead of fell to the ground?" I have better things to do than entertain it.

[quote]No. I realize that using abortion as an example was a bad idea. I'll humor you by answering this quote. When discussing abortion, rape and murder cannot be used as comparisons. I'd say at least 75% of people do not tolerate these activities. Abortion is a different because there are many people who support it. However, it's not enough of a percentage for it to be a good example for my case.[/quote]
And what if most people did tolerate rape, or murder of people already born? Should the law be nothing more than a reflection of popular opinion, without regard for what is wrong or right?

We should work to support what is right and just, rather than sitting around on our butts waiting until we think we have majority opinion before making a move. We may or may not be successful, but if "pro-lifers" continue to support pro-abortion politicians, laws, and policies, then of course we will never be successful. And yes, we must try to change hearts and minds, but we should also do what we can to vote pro-life and support just laws. As has been pointed out numerous times, it's not an either/or deal - it's both/and.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Socrates

[musturde]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1320359090' post='2330944']
Morally, it is more important that laws be just. Whether they are effective is largely a matter of enforcement. A law which gives legal sanction to the killing of innocents can never be just, as murder of the innocent is a sin which cries out to heaven for vengeance.
If people refuse to obey a just law, that is the fault of the law-breakers, not the law-makers.

I'd rather have an ineffective just law, than an unjust law that was effective.[/quote]
Thank you, this is the response I wanted.


[quote] As others have pointed out, your hypothetical is absurd and not really grounded in reality, at least concerning abortion (though based on your past posts, I doubt you are really being completely hypothetical here, as you seem fixated on making posts opposing laws against abortion). [/quote]
*sigh* I mentioned from the beginning that this was not meant to be realistic. I created three different scenarios but people were paying too much attention to the abortion example instead of the question I was trying to ask from it. I tried to defend this viewpoint to help people think in this mindset. I'm not advocating a pro-choice stance.

[quote] While a black market would certainly exist (as it exists for any other criminal activity), I fail to see how laws against abortion would not have at least some deterrent effect, and make women "on the fence" think twice about getting an abortion. Quite frankly, if anti-abortion laws save the life of just one baby, I would not consider them in vain. And organizations such as PP would no longer be able to continue their butchery while being funded by the government. And as I said earlier, the law has absolutely no obligation to ensure "safety" for those committing or commissioning murders. If they knowingly and willingly choose to kill a baby against the law, any negative consequences they bring upon themselves.[/quote]
Interesting point. So the intention of the law is more important than its consequences?

[quote]But if this is merely a deliberately absurd or unrealistic hypothetical, such as "what if gravity went in reverse, and everything floated up instead of fell to the ground?" I have better things to do than entertain it.[/quote]
I brought up abortion was because I figured this would be a topic everyone would be familiar with. I had other examples of laws that had negative consequences but they weren't very relevant to Catholic culture. Maybe the legalization of marijuana would be a better example (though it's a little too late now. I think the "law x" and "q" example I had above is what I should have started the off with).

[quote]And what if most people did tolerate rape, or murder of people already born? Should the law be nothing more than a reflection of popular opinion, without regard for what is wrong or right?[/quote]
The reason why I said abortion, rape and murder can't be compared to each other is because it does not help win pro-choice people to the pro-life side. Most people don't agree with rape or murder. The problem we have (and pro-choicers do this as well) is that we get too emotionally caught up in the debate and end up criticizing those who oppose us. It's not Christian at all. Calling someone Hitler or a rapist is not going to win him or her over to our side. The only people we can reach by dropping "rape", "holocaust", and "murder" in our discussions of abortion are people who already agree with us.

Edited November 4, 2011 by musturde

[AccountDeleted]

[quote] Socrates, on 04 November 2011 - 08:24 AM, said:

Morally, it is more important that laws be just. Whether they are effective is largely a matter of enforcement. A law which gives legal sanction to the killing of innocents can never be just, as murder of the innocent is a sin which cries out to heaven for vengeance.
If people refuse to obey a just law, that is the fault of the law-breakers, not the law-makers.

I'd rather have an ineffective just law, than an unjust law that was effective. [/quote]

This.

[musturde]

[quote name='nunsense' timestamp='1320372596' post='2331101']

This.
[/quote]

Good. So full restrictions that are not effective are preferred over less restrictive laws that are more effective?

Edited November 4, 2011 by musturde

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='musturde' timestamp='1320382018' post='2331162']

Good. So full restrictions that are not effective are preferred over less restrictive laws that are more effective?
[/quote]

I don't see how we can prove that less restrictive laws are more effective.... can you give me examples of such?

[musturde]

[quote name='nunsense' timestamp='1320383046' post='2331164']

I don't see how we can prove that less restrictive laws are more effective.... can you give me examples of such?
[/quote]

I'm thinking of gradual change. Take for example the idea of the Old Testament. Perhaps I have a bad understanding of this but weren't some things, like slavery, not prohibited in the Old Testament because such a change would have been too much for the people at that time? In countries where hard religious rules are put into place, the rulers are often careful to make changes gradually if the population is not accustomed to the restrictions. Even in Iran, the government can't expect to enforce the dress laws fully all the time because much of the population is against it. Even when Ataturk secularized Turkey, he did it gradually, not overnight.

Edited November 4, 2011 by musturde

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='musturde' timestamp='1320387284' post='2331170']

I'm thinking of gradual change. Take for example the idea of the Old Testament. Perhaps I have a bad understanding of this but weren't some things, like slavery, not prohibited in the Old Testament because such a change would have been too much for the people at that time? In countries where hard religious rules are put into place, the rulers are often careful to make changes gradually if the population is not accustomed to the restrictions. Even in Iran, the government can't expect to enforce the dress laws fully all the time because much of the population is against it. Even when Ataturk secularized Turkey, he did it gradually, not overnight.
[/quote]


Well, perhaps you might have something there except that it would depend on a few other specifics, such as... was it already a law that was changed incorrectly? Going back to your abortion example, it used to be illegal (it was even wrong in Biblical days), and then the secular world decided that the preborn aren't entitled to any rights (because they don't believe in the soul at conception) and the law was changed to make this previously immoral AND illegal act now legal! There is no question ofgoing slow because people need to become adjusted to a new law - it is a matter of restoring what was correct in the first place back to what it should be!