I IglueAsp...
IglueAsp wrote:This stood out to me:
If this were true, wouldn't it include unborn children as well as fully grown fetuses like you and I?
Well, the law (or law[u]s[/u] in this case) aren't limited to [i]intent[/i]. In this particular case, the law extends a right to defend (by protection) only as legally defined by the state. Since abortion is currently legal (since 1973) in various measure in every state of this nation, a person cannot be protected by the law for "defending" someone who cannot be legally defended under the law. In other words, a person is not guilty of an "assault" if he is defending a person (as defined by law) from an attacker, but he would be guilty of "assault" if he attacked a surgeon about to perform an abortion simply to "defend" the pre-born child.
[i]"every state allows a person to legally act in good conscience to defend unborn babies from harm. In other words, a man is not guilty of "assault" if he is defending the life or limb of an unborn baby who is being attacked."[/i]What do you think about that? Would that be a morally correct state of the civil law to authorize defense of the unborn just as it already does in the case of born children?
Actually, there are already federal laws and laws in many states that protect the life of the unborn in certain circumstances. Even in a liberal state like California, there are laws that make it a criminal offense to kill a child that hasn't been born yet. A few years ago, infamous California resident Scott Peterson was convicted under California's fetal homicide law. Not only was Peterson found guilty of killing his wife, but he was also found guilty of killing his own pre-born son -- a double homicide. This state law became a basis for what was known as "Conner's Law." This law, Public Law 108-212, was passed by Congress and signed by President Bush in 2004 and declares it a crime to injure or kill a "child in utero" while in federal land (within federal workers) while the perpetrator is committing another crime.
Now, it should be noted that abortion clinics are exempt from this particular law (PL 108-212) because it can only be used in cases in which another crime is taking place. Since abortion is currently legal in most states, abortion practitioners cannot be prosecuted for a crime (unless they are performing an "illegal abortion").
Personally, I would like to see the initial Supreme Court case that legalized abortion to be reassessed. This case was highly unique. The Justices of the High Court actually allowed Roe's attorneys to leave and return almost a year later because their case was so flimsy. Roe's attorneys returned and made it a case about the "right to privacy" (part of the 14th Amendment's "Due Process" clause). They argued, and seven justices agreed, that a woman has a "right to privacy" when it comes to the child living within her body.
Interesting. However, does a "right to privacy" apply to a [i]death[/i] simply because it takes place within the privacy of a person's own...person? Remember the "Castle law" that I spoke of earlier? A person is able to use physical force ONLY when there is a threat of life or limb. Using this as a primer, then the "right to privacy" in regard to abortion should occur only if a woman's life is in danger. Oddly enough, it is this same clause ("Due Process") of the 14th Amendment that has the greatest chance of actually overturning abortion. One could argue that unborn children are robbed of "due process under the law" simply because of their mothers (and abortion clinics) desire for "privacy." Most Constitutional attorneys feel that this would be the strongest argument AGAINST abortion.
Actually, it is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would make abortion [i]illegal[/i]. It is possible under a "due process" or "equal protection" argument. However, the slightly conservative Court would probably simply reverse the notion that a mother's "right to privacy" is extended to abortion and then hand the right to law back to the states. In other words, it would be a lot like it was BEFORE Roe v. Wade. Remember, certain states protected abortion even before the 1973 ruling. Even Texas allowed abortion before 1973, but only if the life of the mother was in danger. This is similar to the concept of homosexual "marriage." Some states currently allow homosexual couples to be married (only because of the actions of judges and/or legislators) while the vast majority do not.
[i]morally[/i] correct
Indeed, it has often been argued that this is the case. This is a very important question then, because, as you said,
You seem to have advocated that we should obey the civil law regardless of whether it contradicts the moral law. Is that your objection to the statement about legitimate force then?
I would disagree with that stance because the obligation to obey the moral law is what gives civil law a right to exist in the first place. The one is more fundamental than the other.
Please correct me if I've misunderstood you.
I think that you understood me...but not in the ultimate application of this concept. One is certainly more fundamental than the other. I certainly feel that abortion is morally, ethically, medically and spiritually wrong. However, the law protects this in many circumstances. As a Christian, I am called to abide by the laws of the land in which God has placed me. Now, since this is a "[i]government of the people, by the people and for the people[/i]," I have a voice in legislation. I feel that it would be much more effective to attempt to stop abortion through practical measures of legislation rather than by resorting to unlawful physical means.
In the long run this "perhaps" may be true. But perhaps not. And certainly not for any children who have been killed since you wrote that. These educational and legislative tactics do not determine the inherent morality of using force to defend the helpless, born or unborn. If they are effective, good. We still must answer whether a duty to defend others can be subject to civil law. Can it? If so, why? And how do we determine when civil law can override moral law and when it cannot?
Like I said, I think that the best method of protecting unborn children is through legal means. This includes legislative means (speaking with members of Congress) AND through word-of-mouth. Remember, abortions are only legal in this nation BECAUSE women choose to kill their pre-born children. Their reasons will often vary. However, if we remind the women of this nation (and the world) that this is a
[i]moral[/i] and
[i]spiritual[/i] crime, it has a chance to stop the root (which I think is
[i]selfishness[/i]).
When I was a teenager (shortly after becoming a Christian), I used to visit the government housing projects. There was a very poor, uneducated woman that I spoke with who was about to have an abortion. She had already gone through "Planned Parenthood" counseling, which encouraged her to kill the child in her womb. She said that she knew that abortion was considered a sin, but she didn't know anything else about it. She was even under the impression that an unborn child is "not alive."
I explained to this woman that I was a child who escaped an abortion. I told her that my biological father tried to force my mother to have an abortion, but she refused. He then physically beat my mother (by punching her and kicking her in the stomach) in an attempt to force my "abortion." By the grace of God, I survived...and with no birth defects. When I explained the truth about the biological development of unborn children (from a biology textbook), she was horrified. She decided to NOT go through with the abortion. A few years later, I saw that little boy. They still lived in the projects, but he and his family were attending the church that I attended.
Again, according to the New Testament, I feel that we have a spiritual obligation to obey the laws of the land. Further, you have a responsibility to your own family first. If you were to physically and illegally "defend" an unborn child, you will be arrested. Consequently, you will not be able to provide for your own family (which, according to I Timothy 5:8, would make you "worse than an infidel").
Ultimately, we will all stand before our Judge. I believe that every mother who chose to claim that she had a "right" to kill her unborn child will be held just as accountable as those abortion clinics that physically slaughtered their unborn babies. The best way to stop it is to handle it at the root. In this case, this is the selfishness of some of the women in this world. In addition, legislative means help to stop the practice at the source.
Just a thought, but there was a policy case that I read about a few years ago. American narcotic officers were having a problem with a particular drug. They had been arresting many people who were dealing these drugs, but the problem seemed to have been getting out of hand. Finally, they tried something entirely different. They attempted to lay the ax to the root (so to speak). Instead of tracking down and arresting the dealers, they decided to go after the chemical manufacturers of the active ingredients. It worked. Within months, drug arrests had dropped dramatically. As a result of the success with this campaign, the US worked with pharmacies to limit sales of medication that contained the active ingredients for another major illegal drug, methamphetamine. Now, these OTC drugs are only sold behind the counter and in limited supply. While some drug dealers are able to get around it (through theft or multiple buyers), these steps have already had a noticeable effect upon the drug scene.
I wholeheartedly believe that this would be the best and most correct method of preventing future deaths. In addition, it doesn't resort to any sort of lawbreaking on our part. I hope this helps...and makes a little more sense.
:-)
