A perplexed citizen in Greenwich, Conn., writes to his local newspaper saying that the anti-abortion movement suffers from the absence of a comprehensive position on the practice. He believes that the Catholic bishops, working en banc, have a responsibility to declare publicly that the church is not asking for any law that would make abortion a criminal offense: "Would it not be advisable for Catholic bishops to make it clear that they are not urging criminal penalties for abortion? This would assist them in their efforts to persuade Catholics and others for their moral position. And allow Catholic politicians to take such a position so long as they do not advocate in favor of abortion from a moral standpoint."
The problem with this is that laws prohibiting behavior but failing to punish offenders lack the indispensable leg that gives solidity to a three-legged stool. Such laws are like playthings for surrealist painters, whose license to depict unreality is not questioned. The result is a kind of moral confusion that inhibits meticulous thought.
Loose yourself from the prison bars of syllogistic thought by citing the obvious difficulties:
1. Most abortion opponents persuasively argue the question on the understanding that abortion is a weighty matter. One begins, then, by insisting that it is not to be spoken of as a mere traffic offense.
2. Even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, no one (well, practically no one) is prepared to recommend a punishment approaching the gravity of the offense. If abortion were once again a crime, but practitioners did not face heavy penalties, then you have emasculated the sanctions you are willing to invoke in pursuit of the law. So -- the woman goes free and unharried, the doctor also goes free but, in some communities at least, there are sanctions out there that prompt him not to advertise himself as the corner abortionist.
3. Laws that seek enforcement have to appeal to moral consciences. If they don't, the enforcement becomes formalistic -- and, eventually, the law becomes a dead letter. The dilemma of Prohibition is illustrative. The law was there, indeed it was flagrantly there in the form of a constitutional amendment that forbade the sale of liquor. The community would endorse law enforcement that closed down bars and even imprisoned the occasional smuggler. But Prohibition never reached the authority of true taboo. Nobody objected if, at the wedding party, you came upon a little champagne.
Josh Earnest: Democrats Might Not Be Doing Very Well Because Obama Hasn't Fundraised Enough | Katie Pavlich
DHS Issues New Travel Restrictions For Ebola Stricken Countries, Ban Still Off the Table | Katie Pavlich