Sometimes we become so accustomed to bad news from a particular country that we sometimes fail to note the good news that can also come out. There is some very good news out of Mexico that actually puts that country ahead of the United States in one very important area. What surprises me is that this news is not all over the USA news, particularly on the more conservative news outlets and on organizations such as the National Right to Life. Here is an encouragement for those organizations to publish the news. So, what is the news? Well, if you go to the BBC news service, you will find this story:
Mexico’s Supreme Court has upheld an amendment to Baja California’s state constitution that stipulates life begins at conception, in a move hailed by anti-abortion campaigners. … More than half Mexico’s 31 states have enacted right-to-life amendments that severely restrict abortions. …
More than half Mexico’s 31 states have enacted right-to-life amendments that severely restrict abortions.
However, Mexico City allows abortions in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
Anti-abortion campaigners cheered after hearing the Supreme Court ruling.
“We have to continue working so that life may triumph,” Jorge Serrano, leader of an anti-abortion organisation Pro-Life, told Reuters.
So, rejoice and be glad! There is yet much to do in Mexico and here. But, this one day we can take some time to celebrate. And, next time you think of Mexico, please do not think only of drug kingpins, border violence, and undocumented immigrants. They make the news, because that is what sells. But look at how the majority of Mexicans (“more than half Mexico’s 31 states”) are actually strongly pro-life and–yes–law-abiding. Think of them, pray for them, support them, and maybe be just a little less ready to believe the news that tend to portray Mexico as this type of rogue state that is completely immoral. Do you realize that actually a higher proportion of Mexican states have approved pro-life measures than USA states? That is great for them and sad for us.
I’m an anti-abortion pro-choice kind of guy. I want you to have the choice, and I want you to choose life. Actually, I want you to choose to be responsible for your life as to not have to be in a position where you find yourself contemplating having an abortion, and responsible enough to live with the reality that you’re no responsible for a life.
My educational background is partly in criminology. I couldn’t help but notice your juxtaposition between the legal prohibition of abortion and the rampant gang activity in Mexico. As my tribe (Methodists) did in the early 20th century for pushing the abolition of alcohol, the result was a growing black market and unprecedented growth of organized crime. We see the same problem today with the so-called “war on drugs.” Banning abortion isn’t going to make it go away. All it did was drive it underground. There will be a highly lucrative market for back room abortions in that country. Baby will still die, but now, so will many more women. And organized crime will become more powerful, and the Mexican government les legitimate.
I thought we figured this out already; law is death (even when we think its life giving), love is life.
We have outsourced to Rome our call to teach and live out communal responsibility when we use the force of government to get what the Church desires. I’m afraid of the unintended fruit of this legal decision.
What surprises me is that this news is not all over the USA news, particularly on the more conservative news outlets and on organizations such as the National Right to Life.
Because conservative outlets/organizations are also bundled with the immigration problem & war on drugs, which has a side effect of resentment against Mexico in general. Especially in the border states.
I have a reply to Mr. Boemler.
We have had laws against theft, false witness and murder for millenia. These laws have failed to prevent those acts. By your logic, since laws against abortion will not stop abortion, laws against theft, false witness and murder should be lifted because thieves, liars and murderers will only find more clandestine ways of carrying out their crimes.
Which they do.
The point of making a law against something is a recognition that the thing being proscribed is “a bad thing” harmful to others and society. While I sympathize with those who protest the disproportionate retribution to those charged with token amounts of marijuana, as well as lament the erosion of civil rights under the banner of the War on Drugs, the idea that everything will be better once we end prohibition is simply a naive one. We must remember that prohibition became popular after the British attempted to keep the Chinese perpetually intoxicated through the Opium Wars.
As for the original point, this post
http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2011/09/absurdity-of-back-alley-abortion.html
sums up the problem with your cliche argument better than I could.
Ingemar, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, but your tone is condescending. I’ll chalk that up to the medium, not your heart.
Your source has an unapologetically politically right wing bias that employs both the straw man, slippery slope, and generalization fallacies. The writer has no clear theory of crime control, whereas I’m speaking from formal education in criminology and a touch of professional experience. It is that article that is full of cliches (and divisive rhetoric), not my own response in this thread.
You have made no effort to understand my argument, as evidenced by your reply. Instead, you have done nothing more than repeat the standard pro-life talking points.
I would take further comments seriously if you directly addressed my main assertions and provided clear supporting arguments against the following points:
1. The religious community’s responsibility to do no harm, especially in the attempt to prevent harm elsewhere.
2. The religious community’s responsibility to those faced with a–for lack of better phrase–an unwanted pregnancy.
3. The historical reality of the rampant rise in organized crime during the United States’ prohibition on alcohol.
4. The current reality of harm reduction crime control models that are in place in other Western nations that have culled undesirable behavior, and have provided assistance for those trapped in cycles of self-destruction to be rehabilitated and cared for.
5. And finally, the outsourcing of the church’s power and responsibility to the powers and principalities of the world.
And just to make clear, I did NOT address issues of “civil rights erosion” or “disproportionate retribution.” These are tertiary at best to the points I’m addressing and are completely distracting in this conversation. Additionally, decriminalizing is not the same as legalizing, in case you weren’t aware. legalizing connotes that there is no prohibition to a behavior at all, whereas decriminalizing means a reduction of current prohibitive laws.
Another thing to make clear is that a law’s purpose is not only to describe a prohibited behavior, but also to proscribe certain behaviors. But that is only the first half of a law. The second part of a law describes the range of penalties that can be carried out against the criminal by the state on behalf of the people. I did not address this point in my previous comment as Fr. Ernesto did not include information about penalties for seeking or providing an abortion in Mexico. However, the Christian community should be deeply concerned about penalties that will bring more harm to society than good. As this discussion has also not breeched the myriad of reasons women seek abortion, I will tell you this, no amount of laws will dissuade desperation. In a world where the church claims to be the presence of the Kingdom of God, if a pregnant woman feels the sense of desperation, the Church should be ashamed. More shame upon the Church if it then celebrates the punishment of those who act out of desperation.
I can direct you to academic resources that address harm-reduction crime control models, if you wish to learn more about them.
Hmm, sounds like I had better finish my writing on jurisprudence. I had stopped because there seemed to be no interest. In passing, Mexico is every bit as much a divided country as ours. Thus the law does not penalize any who go to another Mexican state that has legal abortion. It simply prohibits abortion within the bounds of a particular Mexican state. Moreover, note that Mexico has a long history with the left, as for decades they elected governments very open to some types governmental communal involvement. In other words, many Mexicans are morally conservative but socially liberal.
>Ingemar, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, but your tone is condescending.
That’s rich, considering you…
>[speak] from formal education in criminology and a touch of professional experience.
I should reiterate that the gentleman whose post I linked is an atheist and thus has no religious commitment to oppose abortion. I agree with the rightist bias, and yet even I consider the specific content of a person’s argument even if I don’t agree with his politics. You are committing the genetic fallacy from both sides–ignoring the content of a person’s argument due to who he is (in this case a rightist blogger) and placing too much trust in the content of your own because of your vaunted credentials.
>no amount of laws will dissuade desperation
No amount of desperation will make a wrong deed right.
Kurt and Ingemar, go to the post for today, 07 October. I am taking the discussion there.