…on the most popular moral heresy in the US: consequentialism.
We can abort a baby who is going to be born in difficult circumstances: better that the life be ended just as it begins rather than ‘condemn’ the child to lifelong deprivation.
Is the moral absolutist always correct, merely because he never compromises, say in regard to his views of abortion? That itself seems like a debatable ethical position. Abortion used as birth control does seem morally flawed in ways–yet, for a poor/unmarried woman of child bearing age, using contraception (or is that of the devil as well) who mistakenly becomes pregnant, it may be a reasonable and ethical choice, at least in first few weeks–she can’t afford the child, has no support, and she’s unlikely to provide a good home. Similarly, when there are health issues. That’s not something many catholics enjoy considering but then consider the slums of latin America where no family planning has been in effect. And…it’s a bit presumptuous to insist God doesn’t at times desire the best outcome . Similarly for many political decisions–consequentialism may be the best that humans can do at times.
I don’t think consequentialism is any less popular in other parts of the world.
Horatio – the best outcome is for the woman in this difficult circumstance to not kill her own child. A worldview in which a woman being forced to kill her own child is ‘the best outcome’ is a worldview that is, indeed, of the devil. My point was, in that part of my post, that we think we know how everyone’s life is going to turn out; we are wrong. And pre-emptively executing the child because we think their life may not be ‘good’ is evil.
Dave G – you are no doubt correct! But in North America, it’s virtually universal, and I try to avoid commenting on other parts of the world, simply because I haven’t been there and don’t know them as I do my own backyard.