When you remove the three “i”s, incest, illness and involuntary, it is impossible to morally justify abortion. At the same time, you don’t have to remove anything at all to see, it is impossible to morally justify forbidding abortion. Because life is important it’s hard to shrink the odds of it, but because we are aware beings freedom is more important than being alive.
People often justify an act by using the effect of the act, and in general this approach is wrong. When we make a law that forces another human being to not have free will, for example in regard to their own body, we must be able to explain how this is morally right, without using the effect of the law as support.
However, we don’t do this. “We the people” keep doing the same mistakes, over and over again.
It is the same with Trump’s wall: it is hard to morally justify the idea of blocking human beings from roaming Earth by itself, and it is harder even for to the idea of building a wall between you and your poor neighbor. Yet, we still believe the wall is a good idea because of the effect: stop the migrants. We then argue on migration instead on wall building.
In general, people quickly agree that forbidding something is the solution to stop the other thing that the something is causing. But it is only the natural perspective we get from our cause and effect bound thinking, not the best option we have. In reality, everything is connected. Every restriction will act as a bottleneck for all the somethings that came before it. Bottlenecks create pressure. So, by trying to prevent a leak, we cause any other pores upstream to burst.
Restriction is the solution of the dumb. Take smoking. I’m willing to bet that a prohibition on tobacco would have had far worse results for humans, than the active measures of informing people through all channels possible about the risks. But we don’t do the education approach with all the other banned substances, because we don’t have legal billions invested in anything other than tobacco.
I propose a worldwide ban on forbidding the prohibition of illegal interdiction. That is pure bullshit of course, but, in reality, it would work, as everyone would have to triple check before banning anything, whether they forbid it or make it illegal.
Our over dependence on laws is old history on this planet. There are 613 commandments on the old testament. This impressive number of rules grew in time because humans, for about six to ten thousand years, were incapable of using their mind in such a way as to discern on their own what is it that’s actually happening, or what they’re supposed to do based on the original smaller crop of 10 commandments.
Put yourselves in the shoes of the ancient prophets. These folks with sharp minds, were so ahead of their time, that they probably chose the crazy prophet path as a way of surviving the epoch and the society they were born into. Sure, maybe some were, I don’t know, chosen, but they must have had intrinsic qualities, like wisdom to fulfill a mission. So, imagine for a moment what they had to put up with, considering they gave us the interdiction to have sex with:
your mother or father depending on gender, sister or brother depending on gender, the wife of the father, the daughter of the wife of the father, the daughter of your own son, your own daughter, your daughter’s daughter, a woman and her daughter (dayum!), a woman and her son’s daughter!, a woman and her daughter’s daughter!, the sister of your father, the sister of your mother, the wife of your father’s brother, the wife of your son, the wife of your brother, the sister of your wife (now, that’s just rude), an animal, a same gendered human and in general another man’s wife.
For God’s sake, must God actually spell all combinations out for you?
Apparently yes, because people don’t really consider many of their actions, they generally turn their brain off, first thing in the morning.
Sure, leaving aside the same gendered, gay, sex, which is an admissible error margin considering the number of combinations they had to think of, about all other situations are pretty shitty in anyone’s life, gay, straight, trans or asexual. We, generally, don’t want any of the above, because if fucks up our trust circles.
Considering the 613 commandments you must realize the the sap of our moral system is so peculiar and bitter because the roots are stuck in hordes of stupid people who are simply waiting to be told what to do. A moral system which has complexity weaved in is wrong by default. A moral system must be lean so that enforcing it is done at group level by people in general, not by laws and armies of others interpreting laws.
Could we at some point try to ease off on “crap control”, “war on whatever”, “strictly forbidden shit” and spend all those enforcing resources into educating people?