There’s a glaring problem with an approach like this, it would do exactly what Roe and abortion advocates hoped to do, silence debate on abortion for good and by fiat. In the case of Roe, that meant codifying abortion as an indiscutibile right. In this case, Craddock proposes the same approach, albeit with good intentions and by democratic means. Yes, such a law would affirm reality and justice, but it also pretends that people share his world view of both, and as the writers of this Substack love to remind us, most people within our liberal minded country share a very different, supposedly “neutral” and “empty” view of both, and, therefore, such laws, would most likely be counterproductive. I have always marveled at how so many on the right deride the use of power to stifle or completely marginalize other views and then, once in power, take exactly the same approach. Again, in this case it’s a matter of enacting laws that reflect reality and justice, properly understood, but in order for people to even consider our vision of such ideals, there must be space for their conversion. I always fear that when a proposal like this is made, that need for conversion is ignored or not considered and often because of the false assumption that “natural law” is so obvious that everyone should be able to go along with it. It’s not.
This is a great post, because it's a stiff and bracing reminder to me, as a religious Jew with a bent toward the values expressed in this Substack, that I follow my own faith and believe a total ban on abortions is immoral. It's good to disagree--sometimes profoundly! Keeps me on my toes!
Commenting on Freddie Deboer‘s substack, I am getting totally shellacked for saying abortion is viewed by many people as murder. They are frighteningly close minded.
There’s a glaring problem with an approach like this, it would do exactly what Roe and abortion advocates hoped to do, silence debate on abortion for good and by fiat. In the case of Roe, that meant codifying abortion as an indiscutibile right. In this case, Craddock proposes the same approach, albeit with good intentions and by democratic means. Yes, such a law would affirm reality and justice, but it also pretends that people share his world view of both, and as the writers of this Substack love to remind us, most people within our liberal minded country share a very different, supposedly “neutral” and “empty” view of both, and, therefore, such laws, would most likely be counterproductive. I have always marveled at how so many on the right deride the use of power to stifle or completely marginalize other views and then, once in power, take exactly the same approach. Again, in this case it’s a matter of enacting laws that reflect reality and justice, properly understood, but in order for people to even consider our vision of such ideals, there must be space for their conversion. I always fear that when a proposal like this is made, that need for conversion is ignored or not considered and often because of the false assumption that “natural law” is so obvious that everyone should be able to go along with it. It’s not.
This is a great post, because it's a stiff and bracing reminder to me, as a religious Jew with a bent toward the values expressed in this Substack, that I follow my own faith and believe a total ban on abortions is immoral. It's good to disagree--sometimes profoundly! Keeps me on my toes!
Commenting on Freddie Deboer‘s substack, I am getting totally shellacked for saying abortion is viewed by many people as murder. They are frighteningly close minded.
This is the way!