The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

Anything Goes

December 18, 2008 | 7 Comments

It’s hard to catalogue all the ignorance, confusion and illogic in this op-ed by Jane Hunt about finding “common ground” on abortion. The author believes that the abortion debate was conclusively “settled” by Roe v Wade (how about Casey? Gonzales?), and that all presidents since 1973 have somehow ignored the issue and not one “has made a dent” in Roe (Scalia, Roberts, Alito?). She further contends that Obama has “honestly” stated his position on the issue by saying “he wants abortion to be ‘rare’.” Not surprisingly, Hunt’s “common ground” consists of “responsible stewardship of family, national and global resources” with no restrictions on abortion whatsoever. And why even try, she argues: “Laws don’t change behavior; laws against murder don’t prevent it; theft is commonplace despite laws against it.”

Comments

7 Responses to “Anything Goes”

  1. Melissa
    December 20th, 2008 @ 4:40 pm

    That’s the common remark I get most often: “you can’t legislate morality.” While it’s true that people disobey rules no matter what, it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have them. Boundaries are a necessity no matter what you’re talking about. Without any sort of structure or discipline you have chaos (I should know…. I am a mother of two! LOL). The question I propose to those that make that kind of statment is whether we should have laws at all. Would they prefer absolute anarchy? It’s impossible to have any kind of order without a governing standard. It’s such a shame that we have to remind people of the basic standard of respecting human life. 

  2. Maiki
    December 22nd, 2008 @ 1:29 pm

    so is she saying we should have no laws against murder at all? No law will change the behavior of every individual — thus, we have due process *after* crimes. But it is ridiculous to say it doesn’t change anyone’s or even the majority opinion. And that it is excusable to leave victims with no recourse for justice if crimes do get committed. That is the purpose of laws, not only to prevent crime — but to enact justice. 

    I hope this lady owns a gun. With no murder laws, nothing stops her from being murdered, the police won’t protect her if no crime is being committed, and her relatives have no recourse to ask for justice after her death. 

  3. Melissa
    December 22nd, 2008 @ 4:56 pm

    Was my comment not even read? Didn’t I say that “boundaries are a necessity” and that even though “people disobey rules no matter what, it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have them.”? Perhaps you need to read my comment again.

    My point was that I was asking those that claim that you can’t “legislate morality” to rethink that kind of statement. I blog a lot and I always get that stupid comment whenever I talk about abortion (among other things). As I mentioned before, people are going to misbehave regardless of rules, but that doesn’t mean that we should have anarchy and toss all rules and morality to the side! My children misbehave even though they KNOW that there are rules to follow. However, that doesn’t mean that I stop enforcing rules just because they don’t want to adhere to them. Discipline must be enforced and eventually they will learn!

    There HAS to be structure and a standard (why else would God have given us the 10 commandments?).  I’m all for boundaries and rules. Gosh if we didn’t have them, even something as simple as driving a car would endanger everyone if no one learned that you MUST stop at a stop sign or traffic light. Though it’s not to say that no one will break the law just because there is one. After all, we are told not to drink and drive and people do it anyways. It’s always a matter of our free-will whether we want to obey or not. Though, there are consequences for every choice (which is why the laws are there to guide us in making the best choices). So OF COURSE we need laws!!

  4. Ranee @ Arabian Knits
    December 23rd, 2008 @ 3:37 pm

    Melissa, I’m pretty sure the comment was about the actual article author, not you.

  5. Melissa
    December 23rd, 2008 @ 4:23 pm

    I hope that’s the case, because I thought I was rather clear. Though, she didn’t specify what “she” she was referring to.

  6. Ranee @ Arabian Knits
    December 24th, 2008 @ 2:39 pm

    Generally speaking, unless someone quotes a commenter, he is referring to the main post.

  7. Ilíon
    January 8th, 2009 @ 7:17 pm

    Maiki: … That is the purpose of laws, not only to prevent crime — but to enact justice. 

    Exactly.

    The prevailing therapeutic model of “criminal justice” must necessarily lead to injustice, and then more injustive.

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links