Chris,
So now the voice of the SCOTUS is the voice of supreme reason? This same SCOTUS that came up with Scott v. Sanford?
I’ve been following this thread all weekend and your understanding of pragmatism is flawed. To be a thriving culture is to be a moral one and reject the slaughter of unborn children. That is the height of pragmatism and not this sophmoric attempt to apply situational ethics and declare oneself the arbiter of pragmatic reason. To be honest it’s better suited for a junior high debating club.
You need to have a little more hope and faith. This too will end and there will come a time in the future where our descendants will look down at us with disdain for our failure to halt this holocaust. In much the same way we look askance at the German public during the time of the Third Reich.
Those who latch onto situational ethics as a means to advance public policy are the ones that need to wake up. Looking for exceptions. The “What If’ers” and “What About’ers”. There’s is a reasoning that will not stand the test of time. Especially when it attempts to make exceptions for immoral acts under the guise of “laws never changed behavior” and “you can’t stop it all”.
If you have followed this thread, then you should know that all that I have done this entire time is simply point out the reality of the situation, the unlikeliness that it can be changed, and considering those factors and parameters, what the only viable course of action is.
As far as stating what my own opinion is, I have stated that I do not support a law that would force a mother to bear the child of the man who raped her, and I have also stated why that is my position.
I have not said the supreme court is the voice of supreme reason. What I have said is that the mother’s decision is the only deciding factor. That decision was elevated to that level by the scotus, and not by me. It is a simple explanation of reality.
And as far as having hope and faith goes, why do I need more? I don’t want such a law in the first place, because I believe it’s unjust to the victim of rape.
Secondly, hope and faith are simply a form of mental defense for those who lack the power to change their circumstances themselves, which I suppose is apt for those who want such a law, because they do in fact lack the power to change that circumstance.
But seeing as that is not my goal, I don’t need hope or faith on this matter.
The solution to this is not a law, because 1) it’s not going to happen, and 2) it shouldn’t happen, and 3) even if it does, it will not eliminate the behavior, it will only punish it after it occurs.
The solution to this is what I said, and that is convince as many of these mothers as can be convinced that bearing the child IS the right thing to do, and accept the fact that some are not going to agree with that, and they are going to do what you do not want them to do.
Again, the only thing I have done here is explain the reality of this. I am not engaging is situational ethics. I have never stated that aborting these babies is right. What I have stated is that it is my belief that the mothers must be given an opportunity to consent, and if they don’t consent, there really isn’t much else that can be done about it.