Sadly, the utilitarian approach doesn’t actually “save ‘em” though. All it does is reinforce and perpetuate abortion on demand, because it gives up the only real moral, constitutional and legal argument against abortion, which is equal protection under the law for the supreme unalienable individual right.
I fear that I won't live long enough to see that happen, and if a goodly number of late-term babies can be saved from dismemberment in the meantime, I'll take that as a good thing.
if i thought you were absolutely right in this case, that lives wouldn’t be saved by this means, i’d go along with you. but i believe that third trimester abortion is a demonstrable *fact.* thus your position is incorrect as a reality. lives would be saved by this law. you are also incorrect, i believe, when you say that we give up the moral and legal argument against abortion by doing this. i say this because we live in the world where man’s law (all of it immoral to some degree) holds sway.
perfect godly, principle can never be realized completely in this fallen world. but God’s law is clear. man’s law can *never* trump God’s law. and God’s law is eternal and can never be “given up” as you say. thus i believe we are justified by compromise when that compromise brings us closer to the perfect law of God and our heart is pure in this belief.
thus, if a life that would have been lost is saved by this form of the “lessor of evil” (and no further lives are lost that *would not have been lost anyway under the old regime*) then i’ll take this lessor of this evil over the greater evil. because i believe this law will bring us into closer conformance with God’s ultimate law, i’ll take this lessor evil because innocent life saved at the moment approaches (in my opinion) the commandment of God.
it’s tough. i might add that each lessor of evil choice must be analysed separately, and i’d always rather take the greater of the good. sadly, that is rarely, if ever, achieveable in this world. God bless and thank you again for all that you do!