You’ve changed the nature of the action I described. I started by saying “We are always morally obligated to intend the good…”. If you think it is wrong to support the exploitation of foreign workers then it becomes wrong for you to buy a shirt made by them. If, however, I believe buying that shirt is beneficial to them then my action is not immoral. Again, one of us is wrong as to a matter of fact, but neither of us is wrong in a moral sense.
The difference is that since abortion is as you say objectively wrong it is never moral to support it, or laws that allow it, and while it may also be objectively wrong to exploit workers, we may validly disagree over what constitutes exploitation. Is exploitation a “life” issue? Assume that it is, what does that say about the situation of the foreign workers? I don’t believe they are being exploited, you do: what determines whether it is a real “life” issue, your opinion or mine, and can it really be something as indeterminate as our opinions that determines what is or is not a life issue?
There is a lot of disagreement on how to do that.
The prohibition against murder has not eliminated it as a problem either. This argument is unreasonable.
The end of prohibition of abortion has caused abortion rates to skyrocket.
If you aren’t laser focussed, will you even fellowship or associate with people who say they are pro-life but disagree with you on global warming or immigration or gun control? And if aren’t collaborating with these folks, does it make it more or less likely that you’ll be able to accomplish anything on abortion.
How can we end abortion when the Supreme Courts in the USA already made it law? We’d have to overthrow the Government in a coup to accomplish this, which isn’t going to happen, nor do I think is the Christ like thing to do.
Not at all. The Supreme Court can reverse Roe. They reversed other wrong decisions in the past, like Dred Scott and Plessy.
Well in a Godly world, it could happen, but sadly we live in a time worse than sodom and gomorrah.
I don’t think these times are any worse than the 19th Century, when we got rid of slavery.
True, that was a great horrid evil, but Capitalism has created a new form of slavery, where the gap between the rich and poor gets worse every day.
Dred Scott was never overturned, it just became moot when the 13th and 14th Amendments were passed. Brown vs. Board set the precedent of activist judges doing as they pleased, but that only helps the left since conservative judges generally aren’t activists.EvangelistVictor:
Not at all. The Supreme Court can reverse Roe. They reversed other wrong decisions in the past, like Dred Scott and Plessy.
Pro-life groups already do this. In the UK, pro-life groups offer accomodation and even funding for desperate women who change their minds on their way in to abortion centres. Unfortunately such groups are now being legally prevented from offering this support outside some abortion centres.
Just came back to say that, in light of Kennedy’s resignation, I stand corrected. I never thought Roe v. Wade would be overturned, but it might, and now that it might be overturned, I have never been more conflicted on this issue than I am right now.
Now if was possible it be great. But what I’ve noticed is the Supreme Court Justices base their decision on our US Constitution. This is good and bad.
Justices do base their decisions on the Constitution in theory, but they also largely decide on party lines.