In response to my piece on Romney, a commenter at the STR Blog named Alan berates me for not thinking through the implications of my pro-life view. In short, he's convinced that if the unborn are recognized as having a natural right to life, a massive disruption of our social and legal order will follow. In his view, I've failed to consider that. To make sure I get the point, he concludes, "Is the failure to consider the implications of what you propose responsible behavior?"
To which I replied:
I don't think you've considered the implications of your claim above. Imagine saying to a minority suffering discrimination: "We will protect you, but only after we fully consider the implications of doing so."
No, human beings deserve protection under law because justice demands it, not because (or only if) every conceivable implication is exhausted.
Thus, if SCOTUS has sufficient warrant for upholding a law recognizing the natural rights of the unborn, I see no reason to dismiss that law simply because we haven't figured out all the implications.
As abortion-advocate and philosopher Mary Ann Warren points out, “The fact that restricting access to abortion has tragic side effects does not, in itself, show that the restrictions are unjustified, since murder is wrong regardless of the consequences of prohibiting it.”
That brings us back to the one question that really matters here, doesn't it? Answer that question and concerns over implications, while important, aren't as spooky as one might think.