Pan Culturalism and Pro Life Law

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael19682
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Michael19682

Guest
Dear Catholic Answers Readers,

I was looking at the headlines of both the news and this forum. I really would like to know who agrees and who disagrees with the idea that in our modern American culture, there is not so direct a relationship between civil directives and authorities called law - no matter how great the actual potential to enforce these - and peoples behavior. Take illegal drugs. Laws get stiffer, and here in NY the Church has long advocated the repeal of the Rockefeller Drug laws. Yet drugs, even very dangerous ones, continue to ‘proliferate’ at alarming rates. At least in that regard, the relationship bewteen policy, advocacy, and street law (an unsanctioned form of popular policy) is convoluted and complex. But noteworthy is the inverse relationship between Law and actual prevalence of drugs. Perhaps a different analogy is appropriate. Poaching of elephants (no reference to political symbols, I assure …). It has been shown and showcased in economics texts that the more severe the penalty for poaching, and even the confiscation of ivory tusks en masse, only serve to make the stakes for illegal poaching higher and further endanger the poor creatures lives.

If we the Church witness only greater and greater numbers of abortions: Why do we stick to a policy that seems to be only perpetuating the offense we seek to abolish?

My best guess is that we have no alternative. But I would love to know what others think. Especially interested am I in analogies to allopathic and homeopathic medicine types. (Hint Hint, I am pointing a finger at practicioners of mental health, who seem to listen in the wrong way to the song entitled: “You’ve got to be cruel to be kind.”
 
Ok. No one has replied. No offensive taken, really; perhaps not so especially given that I inserted a ill timed jab at mental health work. Though I was going to try and make a larger point after I got responses, and thus widen the scope of the debate within reasonable view of the responses; I would like to reinvite all without prejudice toward mental health practicioners to respond.

And just so it is clear: I do not advocate “reverse psychology” at the level of the law in regards abortion. But rather, am curious as to the philosophical (and closely allied psychological) approach of the church in regards to living in a land where the law is felt in the heart and felt along the mind as an unjust policy.
 
Dear Catholic Answers Readers,

I was looking at the headlines of both the news and this forum. I really would like to know who agrees and who disagrees with the idea that in our modern American culture, there is not so direct a relationship between civil directives and authorities called law - no matter how great the actual potential to enforce these - and peoples behavior. Take illegal drugs. Laws get stiffer, and here in NY the Church has long advocated the repeal of the Rockefeller Drug laws. Yet drugs, even very dangerous ones, continue to ‘proliferate’ at alarming rates. At least in that regard, the relationship bewteen policy, advocacy, and street law (an unsanctioned form of popular policy) is convoluted and complex. But noteworthy is the inverse relationship between Law and actual prevalence of drugs. Perhaps a different analogy is appropriate. Poaching of elephants (no reference to political symbols, I assure …). It has been shown and showcased in economics texts that the more severe the penalty for poaching, and even the confiscation of ivory tusks en masse, only serve to make the stakes for illegal poaching higher and further endanger the poor creatures lives.

If we the Church witness only greater and greater numbers of abortions: Why do we stick to a policy that seems to be only perpetuating the offense we seek to abolish?

My best guess is that we have no alternative. But I would love to know what others think. Especially interested am I in analogies to allopathic and homeopathic medicine types. (Hint Hint, I am pointing a finger at practicioners of mental health, who seem to listen in the wrong way to the song entitled: “You’ve got to be cruel to be kind.”
I think the problem is that people confuse the pragmatic necessities of legality with moral law. Legality serves only as means to create the most pragmatically fruitful environment possible. If an imposition of a law works only to tear society apart, then the most rational choice (the least of two evils) is to remove that law. I am one of those people who think, that education about the effects of drugs is more effective than making them illegal and criminalizing people. For one, it would greatly reduce the criminal elements of the drug trade; which destroys a lot of peoples lives because of drug wars. The illegal distribution of alcohol and all the crime and corruption that went with it, only arose because of the prohibition.

Just because something is wrong, does not mean that it should be illegal. In a pluralistic society with differing opinion of what is right and wrong, there is not much that a government can do to please every-bodies moral sensibilities, and it has no authority to dictate one moral institution over another without becoming a fascist dictatorship. All it can do is seek that which is self evidently and pragmatically beneficial to everyone.

That is the least of two evils in my opinion, despite my belief that the selling of cigarettes is immoral.
 
Dear Catholic Answers Readers,

I was looking at the headlines of both the news and this forum. I really would like to know who agrees and who disagrees with the idea that in our modern American culture, there is not so direct a relationship between civil directives and authorities called law - no matter how great the actual potential to enforce these - and peoples behavior. Take illegal drugs. Laws get stiffer, and here in NY the Church has long advocated the repeal of the Rockefeller Drug laws. Yet drugs, even very dangerous ones, continue to ‘proliferate’ at alarming rates. At least in that regard, the relationship bewteen policy, advocacy, and street law (an unsanctioned form of popular policy) is convoluted and complex. But noteworthy is the inverse relationship between Law and actual prevalence of drugs. Perhaps a different analogy is appropriate. Poaching of elephants (no reference to political symbols, I assure …). It has been shown and showcased in economics texts that the more severe the penalty for poaching, and even the confiscation of ivory tusks en masse, only serve to make the stakes for illegal poaching higher and further endanger the poor creatures lives.

If we the Church witness only greater and greater numbers of abortions: Why do we stick to a policy that seems to be only perpetuating the offense we seek to abolish?

My best guess is that we have no alternative. But I would love to know what others think. Especially interested am I in analogies to allopathic and homeopathic medicine types. (Hint Hint, I am pointing a finger at practicioners of mental health, who seem to listen in the wrong way to the song entitled: “You’ve got to be cruel to be kind.”
“Pan Culturalism”? Where did you get that one? Such a term is a relabeling of an idea. The devil is all for relabeling and repackaging sin. To make it seem brand new.

Your statements are not backed up with any data and are written primarily as emotional appeals.

Abortion from the start of legalized killing of babies in the womb, 1973.

mccl.org/us-abortion-stats.html

Illegal drug use:

google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/current_use_of-any_illicit_drug.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/news-releases-remarks/obama-administration-releases-21st-century-drug-policy-strategy&h=535&w=713&sz=136&tbnid=-p0OGYG3HPpoyM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=120&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dillegal%2Bdrug%2Buse%2Bchart%2Bunited%2Bstates%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=illegal+drug+use+chart+united+states&usg=__z6sNXmGQnJxYE46169XoRzV5VFA=&docid=Qo7dqU9roOpxpM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AimMUMH-PPCWyAHv0YCQDQ&ved=0CDYQ9QEwBg&dur=33

Ivory and the China connection

nytimes.com/2012/09/04/world/africa/africas-elephants-are-being-slaughtered-in-poaching-frenzy.html?pagewanted=all

Peace,
Ed
 
And with you also, Ed. However, your statements, if they are rebuttals, apparently form a seamless garmet put on backwards. When I go to sleep at night I wonder if we have enough time under our belts to make statements on trends that will be enduring. 30 years is nothing and those graphs showed “interruptions” in trends, anyway. Fact is, even if the world is safer, it is still unacceptably dangerous and offenses, largely because of social decriminalization, are likely unreported in numbers far exceeding than when the crime was a crime. Therefore, bar graphs bar reporting perfection are misleading and ought to be barred from any motion to suppress common sense and straightforward psychology.
 
I think the problem is that people confuse the pragmatic necessities of legality with moral law. Legality serves only as means to create the most pragmatically fruitful environment possible. If an imposition of a law works only to tear society apart, then the most rational choice (the least of two evils) is to remove that law. I am one of those people who think, that education about the effects of drugs is more effective than making them illegal and criminalizing people. For one, it would greatly reduce the criminal elements of the drug trade; which destroys a lot of peoples lives because of drug wars. The illegal distribution of alcohol and all the crime and corruption that went with it, only arose because of the prohibition.

Just because something is wrong, does not mean that it should be illegal. In a pluralistic society with differing opinion of what is right and wrong, there is not much that a government can do to please every-bodies moral sensibilities, and it has no authority to dictate one moral institution over another without becoming a fascist dictatorship. All it can do is seek that which is self evidently and pragmatically beneficial to everyone.

That is the least of two evils in my opinion, despite my belief that the selling of cigarettes is immoral.
I hadn’t really considered the reason for the gap between law and morality. Fascism is clearly and currently undesirable given it potentiality for abuse.
 
I don’t dispute nor do i care about the China connection. Point was simply: is straighforward psychology and reliance upon public policy making really the way to prevent the legalized killing of babies in the womb. It would seen that women seeking abortion need to be deterred in the first place. Does “our” or the Church’s method of promoting anti abortion law accomplish this?

I foolishly inserted a comment about mental illness in the first post. But now it seems relevant to say that anti stigma efforts, popular in the last decade, produced greater stigma as a result. I took part actively and still do in these efforts. However much it enriched my life to talk about and dissuade discrimination or other evil; I have since stopped to ask, perhaps at what might have been the urging of Thomas Merton’s spirit, “am I merely ‘exercising [virtue]’ in my soul” and thence deluding myself into thinking this virtue is of benefit to the world? Once this question is asked in open response to cold hard data, as you say – the stability of that virtue comes into question. Ironically, perhaps that is how it was intended to be. Our Lord said, did he not?:
“…apart from me, you can do nothing.” John 15:5.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top