Dallas Blanchard tells us in a May 19 letter to the editor that our view of abortion depends on our life circumstances. Therefore, Blanchard tells us to be non-judgmental and give those struggling with abortion decisions the benefit of the doubt.
This, of course, denies objective truth associated with abortion; for example, that it takes the life of a child in the womb. Intentionally or otherwise, Blanchard has failed to differentiate between objection to an act versus the morality of that act as it applies to specific individuals when they commit the act. Those of us who oppose abortion do not judge or condemn individuals who have abortions. At the same time we certainly have the right to condemn abortion as a great moral and social evil because of what it is regardless of what some may think of it.
According to Blanchard's view no one should have spoken out against slavery in the 1800s because the life circumstances of slaveholders determined for them the acceptability of the practice.
Following this type of reasoning our society could not make any judgment about the objective moral or ethical condition relating to anything we presently call crimes, like robbery, rape or assault. In reality, our laws represent society's judgments as to the acceptability of specific behavior. Especially in areas of fundamental rights, society must worry about the objective reality of an act not how some individuals may feel about it based on personal experience. On occasion, our society has made serious errors in violation of fundamental human and civil rights. In the 1800s it was slavery. Today it is abortion.
Blanchard presents us with classical moral relativism that pervades our society today. To the extent we allow this to take over our judgment regarding human behavior the more trouble we will have in our society.