So I'm trying to understand this through an example...
Someone in one US state where abortion is legal, can believe that pro-abortion law is an unjust law and therefore prevents a woman in a high-risk pregnancy from getting an abortion (Thesis #3?). That pregnant woman then dies from complications of that pregnancy, but the person who blo…
So I'm trying to understand this through an example...
Someone in one US state where abortion is legal, can believe that pro-abortion law is an unjust law and therefore prevents a woman in a high-risk pregnancy from getting an abortion (Thesis #3?). That pregnant woman then dies from complications of that pregnancy, but the person who blocked it would evade punishment (thesis 4?) assuming due to them believing it was an unjust law? And if it went to court, then a judge or jury would not enforce any punishment if they believed it was unjust? (thesis 5?)
At the same time, someone in a different US state where abortion is illegal could believe it is unjust to prevent a woman whose life is in jeopardy from getting an abortion. I can picture thesis 3, 4, and 5 applying with the reverse results
I am not trying to debate abortion, rather I am trying to pick a hot topic where people have deep moral beliefs that are in conflict. Who is deciding what is moral or unjust? If it is up to the person acting, then does everyone who truly believes in their position get a pass?
Or am I not understanding how to apply these theses?
So I'm trying to understand this through an example...
Someone in one US state where abortion is legal, can believe that pro-abortion law is an unjust law and therefore prevents a woman in a high-risk pregnancy from getting an abortion (Thesis #3?). That pregnant woman then dies from complications of that pregnancy, but the person who blocked it would evade punishment (thesis 4?) assuming due to them believing it was an unjust law? And if it went to court, then a judge or jury would not enforce any punishment if they believed it was unjust? (thesis 5?)
At the same time, someone in a different US state where abortion is illegal could believe it is unjust to prevent a woman whose life is in jeopardy from getting an abortion. I can picture thesis 3, 4, and 5 applying with the reverse results
I am not trying to debate abortion, rather I am trying to pick a hot topic where people have deep moral beliefs that are in conflict. Who is deciding what is moral or unjust? If it is up to the person acting, then does everyone who truly believes in their position get a pass?
Or am I not understanding how to apply these theses?