Choices

The debate about abortion in Ireland has  often been angry but not as bitter as some people feared. We seem to recognise the strengths and weaknesses of each other’s  position.

A strong argument comes from our  tradition of recognising the dignity of human life and the age old belief that human life should not be destroyed. Indeed that argument should be enough because it is a dignified statement of dignified belief which need not be proved, because a person has a right to  belief without being required to prove it is valid .  It is not easy though to go on from that and say we have a right or  obligation to stop others doing what we think is wrong. A moral principle accepted by many Christians, Catholics included, is that in moral matters we are bound to use ordinary persuasive means to get something good done or something bad avoided,we are not bound to take extraordinary means , simply ordinary prudent measures are enough. That leaves the  question  though, can we agree to   abortion in hospitals which are our responsibility as members of the public or the community ? That  question  faces people now and there is a strong body of opinion that  we should not, because we would be cooperating, however remotely,  in something we believe is wrong .There should  be provision for a conscientious decision not to take part in or  encourage it, but how do you register a conscientious decision not to pay for it when other people do it ?

 It is not a new dilemma - we pay for the divorce courts even if we disagree with divorce. But  again, normal means are what conscience requires and if decisions go against us we have done what is morally required by helping in whatever way we can to lessen the incidence of abortion in the future. Some  years ago there was controversy about whether people could in conscience take part in courts in which divorce was managed. Nowadays that moral problem is scarcely heard of. Also, the use of contraceptives was a cause of moral worry but nowadays that moral dilemma seems not to cause much worry any more . Times change and for churches the practice and decision of the Faithful come into play; in  church,  decision makers    decide whether these are  a valid expression of the wisdom of the Faithful or not and they act accordingly. In this way laws are made and changed in  church. However  dealing with life and death of a human being is a much more serious and troubling matter than preventing conception.

In this it would help if a church were to go to the defence of all life more vigorously, for example by being more outspoken against war and more forceful in demanding that everything be done to prevent or stop it; making mother and child life and care  a priority in social policy. The  rules governing the morality of  taking part in war are already there so this is largely a matter of being more vigorous in using them.

Also, since  church attitudes to the use of conrtraceptives have altered in practice,  partly because of circumstances, it would help if it were to look closely at the  arguments it used against them. If use of contraceptives would lessen the possibility of abortions, the moral rule about using the lesser of two wrong things applies. Often in life our choice is not between  something good and something bad, it is between two things both of which are good or  both bad ! And  moralists have wisely made provision for all those possibilities.

It would be wise also for pro-life campaigners to look closely at the arguments they use. For instance  they cannot say the  Catholic Church   has always accepted that a human person begins with conception. This was not always agreed in the history of that church, there was even dispute about how many months would probably elapse before a human person is present. This was in  the days when belief in the infusion by God of  a human soul was generally accepted , so the question, When does it happen ? was discussed but never definitely answered.

Nowadays most people will have to be convinced by arguments other than those of divine law or revelation , and if  arguments based on these are used  one has to be very careful not to use them beyond their strict meaning,. Thou shalt not kill for instance is weakened if human life is not protected in all its phases, and  while  the Bible contains instructions to people not to kill it  not only allows killing in wars of occupation but even commands it ,  sometimes in very strong terms. The Catholic Church would benefit then from  a thorough examination of what it is saying about  life taking and life saving  and state   precisely  the meaning  of what  it believes and teaches,  in present circumstances   about abortion and war especially.  

No matter what the laws of a state say about what is allowable , people have their own principles, privately and perhaps as members of a church and these principles will guide their lives. Obeying the law but not being guided by  what state laws say about morality.  That remains a  church’s strongest argument   or plea in discussion of war and abortion.

The  Irish constitutional  idea of a mother’s right to life being equal to that of the foetus is strange – one would have thought  it would  be more appropriate to express things the other way round if one dares  to express human rights in either of these ways.   

In  future, people will possibly find themselves emphasising the need and  the possibility of reducing the incidence of performed abortions rather than eliminating them since eliminating them could seem  a   probably impossible task. A church’s best plea then could be  respect for human dignity and life  and for a disciplined way of life to protect   what we believe is our God given mandate to manage and cherish all life on the planet.

Human Rights

Human rights organisations are sometimes challenged: You say plenty about  abuses in other countries, why don’t you condemn human rights abuses in your own country too?

Usually two answers are given : one is that human rights organisations can only deal with other countries’ abuses , otherwise they lose the support,material or other, of their own governments.  Governments can  control criticism of what they themselves do. But human rights organisations say all is not lost because if you struggle for human rights anywhere it has an effect everywhere ,and furthermore, if an organisation is prepared to say in all cases  that “ any government guilty of this abuse, no matter who or where , is to be condemned” this  helps. So, if there are abuses at home then they make sure to condemn these abuses when they happen in other places. Often, they say, this is the only way.

But as well as this,some organisations have said that reporting and condemning abuses in countries other than their own means  people will join in condemnation of them  and  perhaps this may be the only way  to create a public revulsion against  the abuses at  home.

It is all very true. Still, the most dignified aim must surely be to make it possible  for every  person and  organisation to speak freely and publicly about human rights use and abuse at home or abroad.  Otherwise we are conniving at abuse. And furthermore, it is inconsistent of government to insist on bringing to light abuses by it own citizens if it is unwilling to shed the light of day on what it does itself, especially if it is abuse of people it is paid to protect.  

All the time the meaning of human rights is being re-defined . The meaning of homelessness was  re-defined . Homelessness used to mean really not having a place to shelter. The meaning became wider and people could  be reckoned homeless for less than that. Such re-defining  broadens the scope of what we understand by human right and dignity, and present day governments seem intent on making sure the re-defining if benevolent should go no further and should even be reversed.

Sometimes re-defining  is not so benevolent. Definition of what torture means and how governments  sanction it has been re-defined, to the great loss of human dignity and loss of centuries of patient work to abolish it.   

In the past the use of children for work,  amusement or sexual gratification was treated with remarkable indifference, remarkable because nowadays people have swung over to a different concept which seems not to have existed during long periods of our history , that of the rights of children. It took a long  time to  get acceptance of the rights of all men, then the rights of all women, then the rights of all children. It  has all been a long and tortuous struggle which is by no means over and indeed judging by  actions and propaganda by present governments , the struggle is being, if not lost, certainly and deliberately weakened   Re-defining  problems and  solutions can be helpful or hurtful depending upon who is doing it. Governments are extremely bad at it. Citizens will have to define their own dignity by the way they insist on re-defining being benevolent , not vicious. And that is a monumental and increasing problem.

The rights of people imply the duties of people. Balancing   these two is so difficult that it deters a lot of us  from even trying to solve problems of human suffering, or human happiness , we may settle for doing our  own private best in our  own circumstances.But we are all in a severe crisis if death and forceful domination and lessening of dignity are  more honourably treated by governments and public opinion than  life and freedom.