Improving Unjust Laws Without Inviting Unjust Plans: The Case of Abortion for Fetal Anomaly
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15633/lie.3695Keywords:
imperfect laws, unjust laws, complicity, harm reduction, abortionAbstract
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.
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
Issue
Section
License
The following rules apply to copyright:
1. The author declares that he or she has full copyright to the work, and such copyright it is not limited to the extent applicable to this declaration, that the article is an original work and that it does not infringe any third-party rights.
2. The author agrees to a free-of-charge, non-exclusive and non-restricted use of the work by Pontifical University of John Paul II in Krakow i.e.:
- to record and duplicate: make copies of the work by means of printing, reprography, magnetic or digital storage;
- to circulate the original or the copies of the work (disseminate, lend or lease the original or copies thereof, publicly display, screen or make the work publicly available so that everyone is able to access it at the time and in place they wish to do so);
- to include the work in a compilation;
- the Pontifical University of John Paul II in Krakow may grant sublicenses Creative Commons Acknowledgement of authorship-Non-commercial use-Without derivative work 3.0 Poland
- the author and the title of the work will be listed,
- the place of publication (name of the periodical and an Internet link to the originally published work),
- the work will be distributed in a non-commercial way,
- no derivative works will be created.
The UPJPII Press does not waive any of its copyrights to any target group.
If you want to publish the text in Logos and Ethos, you must sign the license. However, the signing takes place at a later stage of publishing. Check the license: [license_en.pdf]