(Sebastian's Point) Over the years, pro-abortion advocates have pushed the theory that banning abortion won’t stop abortion but only lead to illegal abortions. The idea is to convince the public that abortions will still take place and will still take place in great numbers. However, this public relations sound bite only reveals a profound misunderstanding of the philosophy of law and what law is. It lacks a critical insight into just how law helps build culture and shape human behavior. Not to mention it lacks an understanding of human nature and the very essence of law.
The argument that banning abortion will not stop all abortions is an absurdity of sorts, and true as well. On the one hand, it is true that no law completely stops a particular activity. For example, laws against theft have not completely stopped everyone from stealing. Nonetheless, people do understand that if it were not prohibited, more people would be stealing. This is one area where abortion advocates get their message wrong. They try to give the impression that the law is supposed to stop all activity that is deemed illegal. That is why, on the other hand, it is an absurdity. No law, human or Divine, has completely stopped the prohibited activity. Just because God commanded “Thou shall not commit adultery” did not mean all adultery ceased. Scripture is full of examples of Biblical figures who broke the various commandments.
People certainly understand the notion of the law to be prohibitive. But fundamentally, what is law? Many people grapple with this very question. Yet many in the pro-life movement inherently understand that law is something more than rules promulgated by government. The right to life is something beyond civil law. And that the right to life is something the civil law has no ability to truly take away. No one speaks about the ability to kill as a right because people understand that to be an absurdity. As a result, many see the logical connection between the moral law and the civil law. St. Thomas Aquinas also understood this connection and, as such, devised an apt definition for the law, “an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community, and promulgated.”[i] This definition would include the various types of law, such as the Eternal, the Divine, the Natural (moral), and the Human. From this point on, Aquinas does an excellent job of explaining how these types of laws interrelate with one another. That the Natural Law is man’s participation in the Eternal Law and that the Human law is to derive from the Natural Law, “Consequently every human law has just so much of the character of law as it is derived from the law of nature.”[ii] Of course, Aquinas is quick to point out that if the human law is contrary to the Natural Law, then it is a perversion of law and is contrary to justice.
[Click here to subscribe to Pregnancy Help News!]
Back to the point of this article, how exactly are abortion advocates getting the idea of law wrong? They seem to assume that such a law is unworthy because people will still do the prohibited activity. As mentioned above, even the Divine Laws are broken. Does this make the Divine Laws bad? Society outlaws murder, yet people still murder. Does this make the laws that prohibit murder ineffective? Of course not. Aquinas answers this objection quite nicely, “Consequently it is evident that the proper effect of law is to lead its subjects to their proper virtue; and since virtue is ‘that which makes its subjects good,’ it follows that the proper effect of law is to make those to whom it is given, good, either absolutely or in some particular respect.”[iii]
How does a human law, or any law for that matter, help direct us toward virtue? Again, Aquinas answers, “It is not always through perfect goodness of virtue that one obeys the law, but sometimes it is through fear of punishment, and sometimes through the mere dictate of reason, which is a kind of virtue…”[iv] Many understand why the government prohibits murder because they recognize the immeasurable value of a human being. This is why they do not murder. In reality, they do not necessarily need the human law to understand this. Yet some people do exist who simply do not recognize that metaphysical truth. These people may not understand the metaphysical truth that rights are based on moral duties, and as such, they do not have the right to take whatever they want. The human law must help guide these individuals to a greater understanding of the truth. In order to do this, the law needs an enforcement mechanism. In essence, these people need to be told that if they do action A then consequence B will result.
This level of understanding is not inconsistent with the human condition. Teenagers must be regularly told that if they speak out of turn in class, they may end up in detention. This is done in order to teach them virtues such as prudence and temperance. The prudence to realize that it is wrong to disrupt class and temperance in order to control themselves when they have the desire to express themselves. This is the beginning of knowledge of the virtues themselves. It is its most fundamental form of understanding virtue. Aquinas continues:
But since some are found to be depraved, and prone to vice, and not easily
amenable to words, it was necessary for such to be restrained from evil by
force and fear, in order that at least they might cease from evil-doing and
leave others in peace, and that they themselves, by being accustomed in this
way, might be brought to do willingly what hitherto they did from fear, and
thus become virtuous.[v]
He goes on to quote Aristotle “for as the Philosopher says, ‘as man is the most noble of animals if he be perfect in virtue, so is he the lowest of all if he be severed from law and justice,’ because man is armed with reason, as the other animals are not, to sate his lust and ferocity.”[vi]
When man acts as the “lowest of creatures,” he then can suffer the consequences. Again, this punishment can serve as a kind of beginning of virtue insofar as now the criminal has suffered the consequence, this consequence can now serve as the beginning of the realization to not commit the act again because of the consequence.
Fundamentally, it comes down to this: abortion advocates have a vast misunderstanding of human nature and the law. Their argument tacitly suggests that any law that is broken is somehow ineffective as a law. As such, every law is ineffective. Rather than see law as a way to help man towards virtue, they push for vice. But the truth of the matter is, they cannot put forth a philosophy of virtue since abortion is inherently unjust to begin with. So, they are stuck with a broken philosophy.
Tweet This: Abortion advocates have a vast misunderstanding of human nature and the law.
Editor's note: This article was published by Sebastian's Point and is reprinted with permission.
______________________
[i] Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologica, I-II, Q. 90, A. 4.
[ii] Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologica, I-II, Q. 95, A. 2.
[iii] Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologica, I-II, Q. 92, A. 1.
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologica, I-II, Q. 95, A. 1.
[vi] Ibid.
