In the Lincoln-Douglas senatorial debates, Lincoln argued against Stephen Douglas’ position that while he was personally opposed to slavery, he did not believe the federal government should outlaw it because the majority of each state should be able to choose their own position on the matter. Lincoln said, “When Judge Douglas says that whoever, or whatever community, wants salves, they have a right to have them, he is perfectly logical if there is nothing wrong in the institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do a wrong.” Frank Beckwith, in Defending Life, says Lincoln’s point was that to claim something is morally wrong is to claim it is morally impermissible. To argue that one has a right to participate in a morally impermissible act is to say the impermissible is permissible.
I find this line of reasoning pertinent to the abortion debate today. Many people—particularly politicians—proclaim their personal opposition to abortion all the while advocating for the continued right to abortion in this country. But they can’t have their cake and eat it too. If they truly believe abortion is a moral evil, then they cannot advocate it as a right in this country. No one would buy the statement, “While I personally oppose annihilating Jews, I think one ought to have the right to do so.” So why does anyone buy it when it comes to abortion?
Thinking to Believe 
October 2, 2007 at 7:58 am
Lincoln said, “When Judge Douglas says that whoever, or whatever community, wants salves, they have a right to have them, he is perfectly logical if there is nothing wrong in the institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do a wrong.”
Although I agree with the general point concerning slavery, it’s a little too strong. Surely we can think of things that we personally believe are morally wrong but should be legal. (Failing to attend church on Sunday, criticizing God, etc.) So I think one can logically argue that something is wrong but should be permitted.
And that’s the whole point of the statement. If it were never acceptable for something morally impermissible to be legal, then the statement would have no power. It’s applying a statement that only addresses one category of wrongs, and applying it to a different class of wrongs.
With abortion, the question is why does the person believe that abortion is wrong. If it’s because it’s bloody, unnatural, societally unacceptable, violates a silly arbitrary rule of his church, reduces the number of Americans contributing to pay for Social Security, etc., then he could be personally opposed but support its legality. But presumably, most – if not all – people who say they are “personally opposed” to abortion feel that way because it’s ending a human life.
Every politician who states that he or she is personally opposed to abortion should be asked about it. “You’ve said that you’re personally opposed to abortion. But I don’t understand why. I mean, what’s wrong with abortion?” It’s a fantastic question and has been used successfully against many of these politicians.
There’s no good answer to that question. The claim “I’m personally opposed to abortion but think it should be legal” is intended to mean “I think abortion is murdering children, but it should be legal to murder children.” But no politician can say that. The soundbite sounds wonderful, but when you get beyond the soundbite it’s callused and cruel.
If the politician says “I’m personally opposed because it’s killing children,” then both pro-lifers and pro-choicers are deeply offended. If the politician says “I’m personally opposed because my church says it’s wrong,” then he admits that he finds nothing inherently wrong with abortion, offending the soft pro-lifers the statement was intended to court.
LikeLike
October 10, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Arthur,
I thought of the same thing as I was penning this, and wondered if someone would bring that up. I agree with you that we need not—and practically speaking—should not make illegal everything that might be immoral. Indeed, there is no law against lying, breaking promises, or being mean.
But law is a moral enterprise on its face, and its purpose is to promote good and suppress evil. To make sense of why the government can and sometimes should not criminalize certain immoral behaviors we must make a distinction between individual good, and the common good. Generally speaking, the law is to promote the common good, suppressing things that would be detrimental to the common good (as opposed to one’s individual good). For example, drunkenness is not good for the individual, but we don’t make drunkenness illegal. If someone wants to get drunk in their home, so be it. But we do regulate it when that person gets in their car and threatens the lives of other citizens.
When it comes to abortion and slavery, we are talking about the common good, not the individual good. It affects society as a whole. Additionally, the rights that the immoral act of enslaving a man, and killing a man (abortion), are fundamental rights: liberty and life. If one truly believes that slavery robs a man of his right to freedom, and abortion robs a man of his right to life, there is no way the law can be silent on the issue. It’s not comparable to the right to be told the truth, or the right to be treated nicely.
Jason
LikeLike