Who Cares About Morality?
Apart from some kind of moral code, there can be no law.
Every law on the books serves as a reminder that we can and do "legislate morality". Unrestricted, personal "choice" is just another name for anarchy. When the Supreme Court invalidated all state laws against abortion, it was nothing less than the application of their own morality – one that believes you're not a person until you're born.
Abortion has a destructive influence on the moral fabric of those societies which rely on it.
There are many who would look at such a statement and respond with, "Who cares?" Who cares about the "moral fabric" of America?
Those who reason as such are naive. Those who argue that you can't legislate morality have no grasp of law. This is exactly what the law does. It legislates according to a specific moral code, namely that it is wrong to harm or injure or defraud other human beings. There are even laws, like those requiring you to wear a seatbelt, which legislate against harming yourself. All these laws are built on an ethic which believes that human life is more valuable than personal choice. Without such legislated morality, no one would be safe. As such, the preservation of the human race has everything to do with cultural morality. Morality matters.
The right to life is the one foundational legal stone upon which the United States stands, the destruction of which will collapse the entire system. If the value of individual human life is destroyed (and abortion is destroying it), if we are left with nothing but the law of personal "choice", we are left with anarchy.
Abortion advocates know this is true. They expect (and often demand) the law to legislate against certain choices. Dr. Warren Hern, one of the nation's most notorious late-term abortionists says this in one of his diatribes against pro-lifers.
In a society awash in the glorification of violence, notorious for unlimited access to lethal military weapons and diffused with people suffering from untreated severe mental illness, the probabilities are excellent that one or more of us will be assassinated. It is a new form of electronic fascism. Assassination has been a tool of tyrants for thousands of years.
Though this is not the point he is arguing, he criticizes the government for giving its populace "unlimited access to lethal military weapons". Clearly, Dr. Hern isn't "pro-choice" when it comes to gun ownership. He would rather the government legislate according to a moral code which believes that it is wrong to allow private citizens to own military weapons. Whether or not this is a reasonable expectation is not the point. The point is, Dr. Hern and the whole abortion industry are content to propose legislating morality in other circumstances. Trying to isolate abortion law from the standards that govern everything else is simply dishonest. Furthermore, the context of Dr. Hern's accusation has everything to do with morality. He fears for his life because there are a handful of anti-abortionists who believe it is morally acceptable to kill abortion providers. This is their morality, but the law legislates against it. It is unlawful to kill an abortion provider. For this Dr. Hern is thankful.
No matter what the law declares, whether it makes something lawful or unlawful, in both instances it is enforcing a moral code. If you read Francis Beckwith's Politically Correct Death, you will find on the first page of chapter 2 a quote from Dr. Charles Rice which speaks very directly to this point.
In the 1973 cases [Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton], Justice Douglas agreed that the unborn has no right to live. Yet, in 1972, in the case of Sierra Club against Morton (405 U.S. 727 - 1972), Justice Douglas argued that the Sierra Club had a sufficient interest to contest in Federal court the building of the Mineral King Recreational Development in California, because the Sierra Club should be allowed to assert the right to sue of the inanimate objects and wildlife in the Mineral King area. Justice Douglas conferred legal rights on, and I quote his opinion, "valleys, alpine meadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches, ridges, groves of trees, swampland or even air that feels the destructive pressures of modern technology and modern life." (405 U.S. at 743) The inanimate objects were argued by Justice Douglas to have the right to speak on behalf of wildlife such as, and I quote him again, "the pileated woodpecker as well as the coyote and bear, the lemmings as well as the trout in the streams." (405 U.S. at 752) And I quote Justice Douglas, "The voice of the inanimate object, therefore," he said, "should not be stilled." (405 U.S. at 749). But the voice of the unborn child, according to Justice Douglas, may be stilled any time his mother so desires. So swamps and trees have rights, but the human child in the womb has no rights.
You would be hard pressed to argue that Justice Douglas' decisions were not based on his own moral convictions, convictions that "valleys" and "rivers" and "air" should be given more protection than unborn humans. So long as verdicts are made according to the "morality" of those who support abortion, they are right and good. But whenever those verdicts are questioned or threatened, it isn't long before you hear "you can't legislate morality". The Supreme Court's decision to make abortion on demand lawful, their decision to invalidate all state prohibitions against abortion, was nothing less than the application of their own morality. Despite massive scientific evidence to the contrary, they ruled in favor of a morality that believes you're not a person until you're born (unless your mother wants you). The ramifications of that decision are severe. Societies which endorse and support the destruction of innocent human beings must either reform or collapse. In the end, these are the only two options.
This page was last updated on August 25, 2009. To cite this page in a research paper, visit: "Citing Abort73 as a Source."