Replies

If your kid reaches out to the stove, do you refuse to impose a "no touching the hot stove" rule, on the grounds that a change in behavior should not be engendered by external authority?

I don't think your analogy is a good one here: when I was a child, the "don't touch the hot stove" rule didn't really stick until I touched the hot stove. That was, in and of itself, punishment and 'education' enough.

In general, though probably not with abortion (for obvious reasons), I think it's better for society to try to moderate people's self-destructive impulses rather than block them completely. It's a tough balancing act, but the goal should be to minimize the harm people do to themselves while ensuring that the bulk of the harm that does occur is caused by people's self-destructive behavior, and not by society's efforts to prevent it.

So would you be willing to allow your child to endure a severe burn rather than imposing a before-the-fact rule?

As relates to abortion, "consequences" to the perpetrator get buried---or more exactly, redirected---in many cases. Those who abort don't learn not to abort, they simply redirect what would be post-abortive guilt into equally intense motions---like male-bashing.

Often, harm is too great to fail to stop it by every available route.