Reducing abortion

i) This post is in reference to "abolitionists" who regard any prolife legislation that falls short of demanding total prohibition as a moral compromise. In context, I'm referring to a situation in which a Christian lawmaker proposes less sweeping legislation because that's all that will pass in Congress or a state legislature–with a veto proof margin, if necessary.

ii) Are laws that merely reduce abortion, or aim to reduce abortion, morally compromised? On the face of it, the answer is no. I daresay there's hardly any law that eliminates the crime it prohibits. What lawmaker expects his law to eradicate the crime in question? Although he might wish that to be the case, the law is not a failure if merely reduces rather than eliminates the crime it bans.

Take laws against murder. Outlawing murder don't eliminate murder. Rather, their function is twofold: (a) to deter murder, and (b) to punish murder when it occurs. A law against murder isn't morally compromised because it merely reduces the rate of murder. That's all the law can do. It can't prevent people from committing murder. 

To say that laws which merely reduce the incidence of abortion are morally compromised is to say that any law which merely reduces the incidence of some crime is morally compromised. But if that's where we set the bar, then we should abolish every law. 

iii) Moreover, there are situations in which it's permissible to allow wrongdoing which you could prevent. Take D.U.I. Drunk drivers are dangerous and culpable. It's wrong to endanger pedestrians, cyclists, and other drivers by driving under the influence. That's why it's against the law.

Consequently, some police think that justifies random checkpoints. By setting up random checkpoints, they nab some drunk drivers. That's a way of enforcing the law. A way of making the law more effective. 

Yet random checkpoints are very controversial because they treat every driver as a suspect, without probable cause. You can support D.U.I laws, but oppose random checkpoints. There are tradeoffs in a free society. Even if a police state is safer (which is disputable), freedom is a value, too. All things being equal, there's the right to be left alone.

iv) I'd also like to make a point about abortion exceptions. Are these a moral compromise? As I've already pointed out, it's not morally compromising if a lawmaker fails to do more than he was able to do.

But there's another distinction. There are Christians who think the rape/incest/life-of-the-mother exceptions are principled exception. Not just concessions to political reality, but something that laws against abortion ought to exempt. Likewise, there are Christians who reject the rape/incest exception, but think the life-of-the-mother is a morally permissible exception in its own right. That's not an exception to get the bill passed and signed into law. Rather, that exception should be in the bill even if there were the votes to ban abortion in toto.

Now, you can disagree with them. I myself disagree with them. But you can't attack it because it's pragmatic, for proponents who take this view don't justify it on pragmatic grounds. Rather, they regard this as a matter of principle. Therefore, you have to attack the principle. But that's a different argument.

v) Finally, there's a difference between what we think is wrong, and what we should outlaw. I think abortion to save the life of the mother is wrong. That doesn't mean I necessary think it should be outlawed. It's dubious to think we should legislate every hard case in ethics. Sometime we have to give individuals the freedom to be wrong. Are you going to punish someone for making a tough call? 

To take a comparison: suppose you have a family member on life support who's been declared brain dead. If you take him off life support, he may die. Indeed, that's the likely outcome. And, for all you know, it's possible that he will miraculously regain consciousness in 5 years. 

Pulling the plug (in that situation) is an agonizing decision. Suppose I think it's wrong for you to pull the plug (in that situation). Does that mean I should criminalize your decision? Even if you made the wrong call, should that be a felony? 

It isn't our responsibility to craft laws that achieve perfect justice in this life. We couldn't achieve that objective even if we tried. Ultimately, the day of judgment will right the scales of justice. The basic function of law is to establish a moral floor, not a moral ceiling.