Making Dismemberment/ Decapitating a Human Being Unlawful

Salt and Light Gobal, Posted April 23, 2019 by Prof. William Wagner

he Ethical Dimensions and Serious Societal Implications of Not Enacting Michigan’s Proposed Dismemberment Abortion Ban

           The Michigan House of Representatives and Senate consider this week whether to ban dismemberment abortions.  The proposed law makes it unlawful for a physician to deliberately dismember limbs or decapitate the head of an unborn living child.

           The way one chooses to view the ethical dimensions of allowing dismemberment of live human children has serious societal implications.  Because of these serious societal implications, Christian people ought to support Michigan’s proposed Dismemberment Abortion Ban. (House Bill 4320; Senate Bill 0229) #SLGwitness #GreatLakesJusticeCenter

Two Jurisprudential World Views

Fundamentally, two jurisprudential views of the world exist.[1]  One can embrace either that law is something we discover or that it is something we create.[2]  Within those two broad vistas, of course, diverse shades and textures may be discerned.  Still, the paradigms are useful.  The first view sees God (or some surrogate) as the source of law and rights, while the latter makes man the measure of all things.[3] 

A. The Objective Worldview Lens: An Inviolable Standard

Present in Divine / Natural Law, Reflected in Current Statutory Law

            Under the first view, human laws reflect revealed divine or natural law, and they may be just or unjust, depending on the clarity with which they reflect those objective standards.  The Declaration of Independence, of course, reflects such a view: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, . . . that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights . . . .”[4]  The Creator makes truth and other moral absolutes evident to us; we do not create them.  Moreover, the Creator makes us creatures; we are not the creator, and, as such, we are subordinate to—though certainly a part of—that realm of absolutes.  This is inherent in our traditional natural law view, which “asserts a person’s fundamental obligation (according to one’s ability) to recognize reality as it actually exists on its own terms, and to acknowledge and respect the God-given (and, hence, inviolable) dignity of every human being.”[5] 

            The traditional wisdom of our forebears is generally reliable, which is why it has endured.[6] If they correctly perceived and expressed the truth of an issue, we will only be able to agree with them, and any changes we make to their findings would not be progress, but a perversion of the truth.  Clarifications, refinements to fit new developments, and other marginal improvements are frequently possible; but by its very nature, the truth of first principles endures, it does not evo… READ MORE HERE!

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*