Aristotle, in his Politics, reminds us that a small error in the beginning leads to a large error in the end. Those of us involved in political disputes about pro-life matters need to remember this, especially at times of more than usual stress, tension and danger.
There are, of course, so many different ways of getting it wrong. We can make basic factual errors; we can fail to apply correctly good moral principles (including about intending the wrongful choices of others); we can lack prudential judgment; we can fail to inform ourselves of authoritative moral teaching where relevant. When as pro-lifers we get it wrong in one or more of these ways, we detract from the good work that we do.
Pro-lifers are sometimes accused of “purism” or “absolutism,” which are undefined but nonetheless pejorative terms. If these terms mean a refusal to compromise over genuine moral absolutes, then this is something all of us would surely wish to be charged with at the end of our lives. But perhaps the critics mean something different.
Click “like” if you want to end abortion!
However, rather than argue with the critics, let me take issue with myself – speaking in London in 2002, when I had spent some 28 years in pro-life leadership. I said:
To argue that it is wrong, even a betrayal, to support amendments to legislation which do not forbid all abortion is to miss the point entirely. We are not supporting pro-abortion legislation when we seek to tighten such laws to a limited extent, we are simply trying to save as many lives as possible in the circumstances … To refuse to save some lives because we cannot save all lives is neither humane in the short term, nor sensible in the long term as we struggle to change public and political opinion….
What I said in 2002 was simplistic. Everyone can agree that good ends should be sought, but they should be sought by good means only – unless we are consequentialists who believe that the end justifies the means and that there are no moral absolutes.
If we are not consequentialists, then we don’t just need to count lives saved; we need to look at how they are saved. For example:
-
Is the proposed legislation which seeks to restrict abortion for non-disabled babies simultaneously making abortion more available for disabled babies than was previously the case?
-
Is the proposed legislation making abortion legally available in certain circumstances for the first time, as was the case in the Irish abortion referendum in 2002? (I shall return to the Irish abortion referendum below.)
-
Does the proposed legislation “regulate” abortion that is, involve legislators actually intending that abortions be performed or prepared for in a certain way?
These are serious questions which require careful thought.
Aside from voting for legislation which, in effect, radically removes protections from the unborn, one can err by claiming that certain kinds of abortion are not abortion at all. This may be done in good faith, through, perhaps, a misapplication of the principle of double effect. For example, it is important for pro-lifers to understand that the deliberate induction of a pre-viable baby is, necessarily, an abortion and cannot be justified under the principle of double-effect. This stands, not only according to reason itself, but also according to the clear and authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church for well over a hundred years. (See video lecture by leading Catholic bioethicist Dr. John Fleming).
Once pre-viability inductions are allowed for one case (e.g. as a supposed way to try to save the mother’s life), then a slippery slope is established to allow such abortions for suicidal women, mothers of babies with lethal anomalies. As Aristotle said: A small error in the beginning leads to a large error in the end.
This is particularly relevant regarding abortion in Ireland.
In February 2002, an international group of leading pro-lifers wrote with regard to a “Yes” vote for the proposed amendments to the Irish constitution as follows:
If the amendments are approved, it will no longer be a crime to kill an unborn child before his or her implantation in the womb. The motivation behind this amendment is the legitimisation of the morning-after-pill…and other means of destruction of the pre-implanted embryo…the proposals will also permit the direct intentional killing of even a child in the womb. Clause 1(2) of the Bill would not only allow the ending of life of the unborn post-implanted baby ‘as a result’ of the carrying out of a medical procedure, but also ‘in the course of’ such a procedure. As no time-limit has been specified, abortion would therefore be allowed up to birth…The current position of the Irish bishops is based on a misunderstanding of the legal effect of these amendments. It is absolutely clear to us that the Bill weakens the protection for the unborn child currently provided by the Constitution….
The danger in Ireland in 2002 was a proposed radical weakening of protection for the unborn, both pre- and post-implantation. This would have been achieved through the repeal of sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which forms the basis of criminal bans on abortion in the Republic of Ireland and many other jurisdictions ruled in the 19th century by the British Empire. This repeal is being threatened again in Ireland today. It’s vital to ensure that errors of the 2002 Irish abortion referendum are not repeated in 2013 as the battle in Ireland over abortion intensifies.