In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

7 . I D E N T I F Y I N G J U S T A N D U N J U S T P R O P O S A L S I have argued that laws tolerating, permitting, or obligating abortion are intrinsically unjust, and that it is an intrinsically unjust (evil) act to vote to enact an intrinsically unjust law: a good intention of saving the lives of some unborn children does not affect the intrinsic unjustness of the legislative act of voting to enact an intrinsically unjust Act. In a situation where all abortions are legally prohibited it is normally not difficult to identify proposed legislation as either obligating or permitting or tolerating abortion and hence as being intrinsically unjust and unworthy of support. Where, however, there is already an abortion law, it may sometimes be unclear whether legislative proposals regarded as improving the situation are in fact just or (intrinsically) unjust. Part of the problem when discussing the question of changing abortion legislation is that simplified illustrations of laws are frequently used. For example, in previous chapters I have discussed attempts to lower the abortion time limit from 24 to 16 weeks, using proposals suggested by John Finnis that are of the form: “Abortion is lawful up to 16 weeks” and “Abortion is permissible up to 16 weeks.”1 Although such illustrations serve a purpose (and, like Finnis, I have used them myself to discuss some general points), they do not always represent adequately the complexities of the legislation being considered. Instead of saying that abortion “is lawful up to” or “permitted up to” 16 weeks, would it make a difference if the legislation said abortion is “not lawful after” or “prohibited after” 16 weeks? Could this be, as some have contended, consistent with the moral law that does indeed prohibit abortion after 215 1. John Finnis, “Unjust Laws in a Democratic Society,” 600–601; “Catholic Church and Public Policy Debates,” 268–69. 16 weeks? Some writers who are generally sympathetic to the argument of this book have suggested that the wording is crucial to whether a proposal can be accepted, and that the justness of a law to reduce the abortion limit to 16 weeks would depend on its wording.2 Though I ac216 legislative matters 2. See, for example, Bernard Sadler, Legislating for Life: A Commentary on Evangelium Vitae 73 (Sydney: Newman Graduate Education, 2003), 5; Damian P. Fedoryka , “Thoughts towards a Clarification of Evangelium vitae #73,” in Joseph W. Koterski , S.J., ed., Life and Learning 12 (Proceedings of the Twelfth University Faculty for Life Conference at Ave Maria Law School 2002) (Washington, D.C.: University Faculty for Life, 2003), 311–32; Michael Baker, “Evangelium Vitae 73 and the Supreme Principle of Morals” (2003), viewed at http://www.superflumina.org/ev73suprempr_final. html (12 Dec. 2003). These writers are to be generally commended for rejecting as unethical votes for intrinsically unjust restrictive legislation, but I disagree with their view that it is legitimate to vote for proposals that appear solely to prohibit some abortions. Their view is most clearly expressed by Michael Baker: Assume that existing legislation allows a woman to abort her unborn child up to twenty weeks of pregnancy. The state of the society is such that it is not possible to obtain a majority of votes in the parliament for any proposal to outlaw abortion completely. A bill is proposed to amend the law so as to reduce the period to sixteen weeks. It is likely to gain a majority of votes. Our lawmaker’s absolute personal opposition to procured abortion is well known. Can he vote for it? The answer depends on the words in which the amending bill is expressed. If the amending bill was to say—No woman who undergoes an abortion is guilty of an offence unless her pregnancy is proved to have exceeded sixteen weeks and no doctor who performs an abortion is guilty of an offence unless the pregnancy of the woman on whom he performs the abortion is proved to have exceeded sixteen weeks—he could not licitly vote for it. Why not? Because the words in this formulation state explicitly that some abortion is lawful. What abortion? Abortion which takes place prior to sixteen weeks of pregnancy. However, if the amending bill was to say—Notwithstanding the other provisions of this Act, a woman whose pregnancy is proved to have exceeded sixteen weeks and who undergoes...

Share