When is it "ok" for personal moral decisions to be forced on the public? I'd like to think that the answer is, Never. Looked at one way, you might say that murder is immoral and that's why it's illegal. If that's the case then whose morality is it that is being imposed on the rest of us? Apart from the immorality of murder being pretty wide spread, maybe the entire premise is wrong. Murder isn't illegal because it's immoral; it's illegal because it's injurious to society. Murder cannot be permitted because, like not obeying traffic signs, it leads to disorder and chaos. If nothing else, it's bad for business.
So if we can strip out any moral considerations from public policy, things get clearer. Marriage is in the public interest only in as much as it supports stability (and commerce). If churches don't approve of gay marriage, they should excommunicate those who practice it, much like some churches excommunicate people who divorce although the State allows divorce. It's not for the State to enforce everyone's individual idea of morality.
So, --- abortion.
It isn't a question of whether I am in favor of abortion. That's like asking if I'm in favor of amputation. I don't even like to think about it. But sometimes it may be the best choice in a bad situation. The proper question is, does allowing women to choose to terminate pregnancy promote or diminish public stability? As with all questions of personal liberty, the answer must default to choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment