Improving Unjust Laws Without Inviting Unjust Plans: The Case of Abortion for Fetal Anomaly

Authors

  • Helen Watt Anscombe Bioethics Centre

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15633/lie.3695

Keywords:

imperfect laws, unjust laws, complicity, harm reduction, abortion

Abstract

Some laws cannot yet be entirely abrogated in a current political situation, though permitting grave injustices against some individuals; for example, unborn and/or disabled individuals. In supporting the passing of new ‘imperfect’ laws that protect only some of those who now lack protection, do we ourselves discriminate unjustly against those remaining unprotected? Or does that depend on factors such as our intentions – including what we intend that others intend? How may we collaborate with colleagues who intend, and perhaps explicitly defend, the continuation of remaining, closely-related injustices, although they are willing to join us in trying to improve some aspects of the status quo? This paper explores the moral constraints on our attempts to extend the law’s protection to some, but not to all, of those individuals currently deprived of such ­protection and at risk of serious harm.

Author Biography

  • Helen Watt, Anscombe Bioethics Centre
    Dr Helen Watt – is Senior Research Fellow of the Anscombe Bioethics Centre and a Research Fellow of Blackfriars Hall, Oxford.  Her publications include Life and Death in Healthcare Ethics (London 2000) and The Ethics of Pregnancy, Abortion and Childbirth (New York 2016) together with several edited volumes including Incapacity and Care (London 2009) and Fertility and Gender (Oxford 2011). Her research interests include reproductive ethics, gender, action theory, and issues of cooperation and conscientious objection.

References

Our Heartbreaking Choices: Forty-Six Women Share Their Stories of Interrupting a Much-Wanted Pregnancy, ed. C. Brooks, Bloomington 2008.

Cope H., Garrett M. E., Gregory S., Ashley-Koch A., Pregnancy continuation and organizational religious activity following prenatal diagnosis of a lethal fetal defect are associated with improved psychological outcome, “Prenatal Diagnosis” 35 (2015), p. 761–768.

Finnis J., Helping enact unjust laws without complicity in injustice, “American Journal of Jurisprudence” 49 (2004), p. 11–42, reprinted with additional notes as Just votes for unjust laws, in: J. Finnis, Philosophy of Law. Collected Essays: Volume IV, New York 2011.

Finnis J., Restricting legalised abortion is not intrinsically unjust, and “A vote decisive for… a more restrictive law”, in: Cooperation, Complicity and Conscience: Problems in healthcare, science, law and public policy, ed. H. Watt, London 2005, p. 209–245; 269–295.

Harte C., Changing Unjust Laws Justly, Washington 2005.

Harte C., Problems of principle in voting for unjust legislation, and The opening up of a discussion: a response to John Finnis, in: Cooperation, Complicity and Conscience: Problems in healthcare, science, law and public policy, ed. H. Watt, London 2005, p. 179–208; 246–268.

Kersting A., Kroker K., Steinhard J. et al., Complicated Grief after Traumatic Loss, “Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosc” 257 (2007), p. 437–443.

McGovern K., Continuing the pregnancy when the unborn child has a life-limiting condition, “Chisholm Health Ethics Bulletin” 17 (2012), p. 1–12.

Redlinger-Grosse K., Bernhardt B. A., Berg K., Muenke M., Biesecker B. B., The decision to continue: The experiences and needs of parents who receive a prenatal diagnosis of holoprosencephaly, “Am. J. Med. Genet” 112 (2002), p. 369–378.

Riordan M., Maternal serum testing: Is invasive testing a passing era?, “Bioethics Research Notes” 24 (2012), p. 7–11.

Watt H., Abortion for Life-Limiting Foetal Anomaly: Beneficial When and for Whom, “Clinical Ethics” 12 (2017), p. 1–10.

Watt H., Addressing Unjust Laws Without Complicity: Selective Bans versus Regulation, in: Contemporary Controversies in Catholic Bioethics, ed. J. Eberl, Dordrecht 2017, p. 567–582.

Watt H., McCarthy A., Targeting the fetal body and/or mother-child connection: vital conflicts and abortion, “Linacre Quarterly” 87 (2020), p. 147–160.

Downloads

Published

2020-09-30

Issue

Vol. 26 No. 1 (2020)

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain the copyright and full publishing rights without restrictions, and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).