“No exceptions. No compromise.”
That is the goal of every true pro-life citizen when it comes to abortion legislation. Rape, incest, and the life/health of the mother have been wedge issues that have been used to establish the principle for acceptable/legal abortion that have led to the more liberalized laws accounting for 55+ Million abortions over the past 40 years.
While “No exceptions. No compromise,” are the goal, the question arises as to an appropriate response to legislative proposals that have the standard exceptions language written into them. Can Christians in general, and Catholics in particular support legislation that seeks to limit the extent of this grave moral evil, without abolishing it altogether? Can it ever be acceptable to use the same language of rape, incest, and life of the mother to severely and immediately restrict abortion, just as they were once used to establish abortion?
To hear some in the pro-life movement, the answer is an emphatic, “NO!”
The powerful witness by many who were conceived in rape is a vital ministry and has won many hearts and minds by giving a face, identity, and human story to those who are singled out for destruction because of the circumstances surrounding their conception. But some use an emotional arm-twisting tactic, wherein they say that support of exceptions clauses means that the supporter would have had them aborted.
It’s flawed logic, and counter-productive. It’s meant to shut down opposition, but in reality it frequently shuts down productive and vital dialogue.
Nobody would support the rape that led to the activists’ conceptions, but that doesn’t mean that such a moral position means we are implicitly wishing they had never been conceived. In the same way, if it can be shown that it is morally acceptable to embrace pragmatic, incremental legislation as the best available means of limiting abortion en route to abolishing it altogether, it does NOT suggest an implicit endorsement of the abortions allowed in the exceptions clauses.
Here is where Pope John Paul II added much-needed clarity in his 1995 Encyclical, Evangelium Vitae.:
A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.
{Emphasis added, G.N.}
Thus, in the ordinary teaching of the Catholic Church, it is permissible to limit the grave evil of abortion if incremental legislation is the only currently available option.
For those who say, “It’s not up to me to say who lives and who dies,” my own opinion is that the polar opposite is true. What we must first realize is that the current liberal application of abortion is the default condition.
What we are offered, frequently, is a compromise law that would restrict, but not eliminate abortion. In other words, we are being offered the lives of the babies not conceived through rape and incest (which are the vast majority of abortions). For many who can’t see this reality, they turn down the opportunity to save tens of millions until the day comes when they can save the remaining thousands. In the interim, the millions who could have been saved perish with the thousands who could not.
This because some pro-lifers wanted an all-or-none reality. Such an approach would be intolerable in a police hostage negotiator, but in certain pro-life quarters it is the epitome of virtue.
Pope John Paul II helped us see that the moral Magisterium of the Catholic Church sees it differently.
We abhor EVERY abortion, but are loathe to ignore the lives being offered to us through less than perfect legislation. Along with the missed opportunity to save millions, there is another missed opportunity.
A derivative benefit of incremental legislation is the conditioning, or forming, of the public conscience about the sanctity of pre-born human life. Outlawing the majority of abortions becomes a societal statement that elevates the public conscience. It is precisely through that elevated conscience that society will come to an appreciation for the humanity of those conceived in rape or incest.
If, unlike Superman who is able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, we cannot achieve our aim in a single stroke, it remains for us to take the stairs.
Thank you, Pope John Paul II, for your enduring witness to the moral Magisterium of the Church.
Gerry … Well done brother!
Do you really want the U.S. government to mandate that women be forced to die because of a pregnancy gone wrong ? If so, you arenot “pro-life”, but a BARBARIAN .
________________________________
We can liken the “all or nothing approach” to stopping abortion to our last presidential election. Romney was not my fist, second, third, or fourth choice for the Republican nominee,, in fact, I only preferred Romney over Ron Paul, but I gladly voted for him over Obama. I abhorred those who “sat out the election” or voted for a third party candidate “as a matter of principle”, because they, along with swing state vote FRAUD, put Obama back in the White House, and the country will suffer permanently for that. I do not like any exception, but the one greatly abused is “the health of the mother, physical or mental”, because that is open to wide interpretation, and the fact that doctors are not all-knowing, as is God. Both my sister and a sister-in-law were told to abort to save their own life, by their doctors. Both chose life instead, and I have a healthy 36 year old niece (and she has three kids), and a healthy 35 year old nephew, and their mothers are healthy, and just chose tubal ligations rather than face risking their lives and future children’s lives as well. My sister has 2 healthy daughters and 5 healthy grandchildren, and sister in law has 4 healthy lids and 8 healthy grandchildren, and no abortion guilt to bear. We must pass all the laws we can to limit abortion each year, and eventually the SCOTUS will correct its Roe v. wade gross error, as they did with Dread-Scott, etc..
Thanks, Walter!!
Robert, Good to hear from you again. Because we can take babies through C-section at a very early age, there is no condition left as regards life of the mother that isn’t covered by the principle of double-effect. If you have some in mind, please share them so we can discuss them.
Actually, I know of a case. A woman who had a severely faulty heart valve was not expected to survive more than 2 or 3 weeks without the valve being replaced. She was about 6 weeks pregnant at the time this was found.
She did abort, and as much as I am anti-abortion, this is a case of the mother’s life being in jeopardy.
I think this is justifiable even though I don’t particularly like it. There are very few things that can put a mother’s life in jeopardy, but if something catastrophic is diagnosed in the mother, early in pregnancy, and she can’t continue to the point where the baby can be delivered (23-24 weeks?) because treatment cannot be delayed, abortion should be an option.
Dear Mr. Nadal,
Your perception and reasoning on this argument is pretty wide-spread, and, indeed I shared it myself at one time.
However, after studying it further, including writing a masters thesis on it, I came to a different conclusion.
Incremental legislation is perfectly permissible and encouraged when it is not possible to completely prohibit such a crime as abortion. However, there are two types of incremental legislation: 1.) Incremental legislation that *does not* explicitly permit abortion, and 2.) Incremental legislation that *does* explicitly permit abortion.
The former category is licit, the latter, illicit, because no human authority can legitimately permit the killing of the innocent, for this would violate the natural moral law.
And Blessed John Paul II’s treatment of this question in Evangelium Vitae, which you cite above, is perfectly compatible with this consistent teaching of the Church.
Please look-up the quote you cited above in the actual document and observe the one-sentence paragraph which immediately precedes your citation. It states:
“In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it.’”
A bill with an exception for children conceived in rape is “intrinsically unjust” because it explicitly “permits abortion.” When can a legislator vote for it? “Never.” This is a moral absolute, meaning there are no circumstances in which this can be done. Such a vote would be evil by its object.
This paragraph is clearly the fundamental legislative principal which provides for the correct interpretation of the paragraph that follows and is broadly cited (alone) as supporting the view expressed in your column here.
I would thus assert (with complete confidence) that the perspective you offer, though held by many, remains erroneous. And hence, if a bill grants explicit permission to kill the innocent, as bills with exceptions certainly do, it remains illicit to obey it, “take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it.” And this is the ordinary teaching of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
Incremental legislation is fine so long as it doesn’t give permission to violate the fundamental precepts of the natural moral law which the Church also refers to as “non-negotiable ethical principles.”
God Bless,
Patrick Delaney
The ‘life of the mother’ need for abortion is a rare event these days in America. It is also highly unlikely that that particular provision for abortion will ever be removed as we are entitled to self-defense, though in New York that is waning. After speaking at length to my state assemblyman regarding a bill to try to limit abortions that had all the clauses in it dealing with rape, incest, health of mother; I was convince he was doing the best thing. Had the clauses not been present the bill would have died in committee because the clauses would never stand up to higher court scrutiny. Unfortunately the cluases are now engrained in the culture of our law-makers and laws. My only problem with this approach is – How far have we come using this approach? Not very far from where I am sitting. To me it seems as though we are not getting anywhere fast.
“Jesus left the ninety-nine sheep to save the 1 sheep that went astray. He did not put the ninety-nine other sheep’s lives in danger by leaving them to save the 1. He knew that they would be all right and he went to save that one that went astray and was left unprotected because he knew that it needed him more than the ninety-nine did at that time. The one was much more vulnerable. And Jesus died for every single person on earth. And Jesus is the one that we are suppose to follow and look to as our guide as Christians.
When people say that they don’t accept the exceptions they are not saying that we shouldn’t be trying every way we can to save all children what they are saying is that indeed they ARE trying to save all children and not just the regular ones. People shouldn’t be so willing to just throw these other 1% children under the bus so to speak which I think if you will be totally honest many ESPECIALLY in legislation have been all to ready to do, and still are. You can not EVER hope to change this if you don’t start speaking out against it and trying to change people’s hearts and minds. And if you don’t put up a strong case and reason for them not to they will NEVER change this fact. It’s not fair to try to say that those that believe that we shouldn’t sacrifice these children’s lives as if they mean nothing are wrong and not trying to save as many as they can. Indeed they are trying to save all.
I ask you to look at this situation logically from another stand point as well. If when they were trying to end slavery people had said well we will free 99% of the slaves. Except these certain ones who were born on the third day of the month on every month. We will keep these legally in slavery and that is the only way we will let the other 99% go. Would it have been right to have compromised and let this illogical and unjust judgement stand without even putting up a fight as to why it was wrong? Would it have been acceptable to you? Even though those children who were born on the third day of the month were just as much people and should not have been held in slavery because they were human beings just as much as the other 99 that would be freed. Would it have been acceptable to keep this 1% slaves because of the circumstance of when they were born? They had no say over when they were born or how, so why should they have to remain slaves to let the others go? What justice would there have been in that. That is the kind of thinking that shows divisiveness if you asked me and not the ones who would have said NO to such a thing, and who would have stood up and said why this was wrong and tried their best to make people understand that if you allowed slavery for some you were still allowing slavery to continue and there were really no firm grounds to stand on on the issue. Because slavery wouldn’t have been done away with it would have continued for these. And with a little more argument well maybe these others should be included because they really aren’t so different than the ones born then they need to be added too. Because that is the way that laws with loopholes are. Where one is not protected none truly are. Would that have been an effective way to fight to end slavery? Or wouldn’t it have been more right to have said how wrong that was and to educate others the facts and to try to change people’s hearts and minds to see the truth so that all people would be free and be able to remain so?
Should that small group of people’s lives have been deemed worthy to sacrifice or could slavery have truly been put to an end by doing it that way? No of course not. Because if you don’t free one you can’t free another. You cannot say that one person should be allowed to be enslaved but another cannot. Just like you can’t say truthfully that one persons life is worth more than anothers just because they were born under different circumstances than the rest.
When one person’s life isn’t protected for whatever reason you want to give be it rape, incest, poor in utero diagnosis or whatever excuse and exception you want to use – NO life is truly protected. Because there will ALWAYS be some who will reach and grab for any reason that they can to try and keep abortion legal anyway that they can. And that is exactly what they are doing and have been able to do because of people continually accepting exceptions. When all lives aren’t protected none are and Jesus would not have said let them kill these few children to save the rest it’s all right. NO He would have said try your best to save them all. And there is a way to do that without jeopardizing any lives. But when you start willing allowing exceptions someone will always find a way around them to include more and more. That is the way it works with men some is never enough where there is room given more and more will be taken until there is none left.
We should absolutely try to save as many children as possible but where does it say that you shouldn’t try to at least save all? Why is it the be all and end all to everything if you try to save the exceptions? If you are so willing to totally close that door without even thinking about it and trying to save them too then you are not totally pro-life. Because you ARE saying that their lives are expendable and not worth as much as the others. Whether you mean to or not that is the clear message that you are sending to others by doing so.”
My greatest fear in pro-life legislation is that in passing, or enacting a pro-life law we come away with a sense of victory that a child has been saved by the law. We try to regulate an industry that is then left, for the most part, to regulate itself. Even with firm evidence, law enforcement seems quicker to respond when a pro-lifer has crossed a boundary, then when a woman dies under the abortionist’s “care”. They have the advantage of cameras outside the clinic, while enjoying autonomous self-auditing within. I also come away with the fear that laws enacted are an outright lie in regards to the persons they are meant to protect – fetal pain legislation. To be honest, and please be honest here, do you believe that the pre-born child does not feel pain prior to five months gestation in the womb? Can such legislation, in and of itself, be used by the abortionist to assure the mother whose child is under the five month gestational mark, that her child will not feel pain, and urge abortion prior to that date? In the event, that this would be so, if I, myself, were to be under anesthesia and unable to feel pain, could one imagine a law enacted that would give another a “go-ahead” to take my life from me? Sometimes, I feel like we are hamsters on a wheel, running for a goal and running from the truth and getting no where via legislation. God help us!
My thought is if there is an exception for the life of the mother, it must be physical health, not mental health.
Besides the gal with the heart valve, there are sometimes cases of cancer being discovered early in a pregnancy where it may not be wise to delay treatment until 23-34 gestational weeks for delivery. And there may be events such as an ascending aortic aneurysm that can require immediate surgical intervention.
Fortunately, most of these things don’t usually occur during to reasonably healthy women in their childbearing years, but, of course, they can.
I would guess if abortions were only permitted to save the life of the mother, there would maybe be about 1,000 per year? Certainly it would be a small fraction of what takes place now.
My response, as someone conceived in violence, but grateful to be alive, and also as someone who was raped, but killed by baby from it…. has not been posted. Censorship?
[…] Coming Home writes that despite the pro-life movement’s internal conflicts, the incremental approach to pro-life legislation was supported by Pope John Paul II in his 1995 Encyclical, Evangelium Vitae. […]
Patrick Delany is correct.
Dr. Nadal is incorrect…still. You tried making this point a couple years ago.
You talk about incrementalism like people talk about stem cells. Are you talking about adult stem cells, or embryonic stem cells? You’re too general in your use of incrementalism as Delany makes clear.
If you read the entire context of this part PjPII’s encyclical you ought to conclude that an elected official cannot support an unjust (or illicit per Delany) law. There is principled incrementalism that limits and evil and unjust incrementalism that gives legitimacy to some evil.
A law banning abortions with exceptions for rape/incest is unjust and does not fit with what JPII is teaching. If this were true then there would be no justification for opposing a law that bans abortion with exceptions for black babies. As silly as that sounds, you could support such a law since it fits within the principle of your argument.
A law that bans second and third trimester abortions, though it is limiting an evil because it doesn’t ban first trimester abortions, is justifiable and could be supported by the elected official. If that same ban was written with exceptions carved out for rape/incest, that law now specifies who CAN be aborted and cannot be supported by the elected official.
I don’t know why this is so hard for people to understand. I’m delighted Patrick knows this.
Cranky,
The statement by John Paul II is so perfectly clear that it needs no translation. It stands on its own as I have presented it.
Dear Dr. Nadal,
Thank you for posting my previous response.
If I may follow-up, I simply offer that the interpreting of any teaching of the Church must stand in continuity with the rest of the Church’s teaching. Nowhere does Bl. John Paul II, or the Catholic Church teach that one can vote for a bill which explicitly permits the direct killing of the innocent, under any circumstances. Here are a few more points to consider:
First, in addition to the quote on legislation which immediately precedes your quote, section 57 of EV quotes an earlier document which states, “Nothing and no one can *in any way permit* the killing of an innocent human being … Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or *permit* such an action.” Exceptions in legislation clearly “permit the killing of an innocent human being.” Would not your interpretation seem to contradict this teaching as well?
Secondly, a rhetorical question to help better illustrate the point: In a situation where abortion is fully legal, can a Catholic in right conscience support any of the following bills?
(a.) “All abortions are banned except in the cases of rape, incest, and when the mother’s life is in danger.”
(b.) “All abortions are banned except in cases where the fetus is of African American and Jewish decent.”
(c.) “All abortions are banned except for the case of Jesus Christ in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary.”
Which of these laws can a Catholic legislator support with a clear conscience, and please identify any essential moral distinctions between them.
Thirdly, exceptions in legislation have been a destructive force in the pro-life movement because they surrender the entire objective moral order in favor of relativism (i.e. “choice”). Exceptions reinforce and perpetuate the falsehood that the preborn child is *not* a human being—a person with inalienable human rights—and that human life in general is indeed a negotiable political issue which can be decided by those in power. With such a premise, abortion on demand becomes a logical conclusion. As stated by Dr. Brian Clowes of Human Life International, “In *every one* of the 56 countries that now (1997) have abortion on demand, the first step the pro-abortion forces took was intense lobbying for abortion in the so-called ‘hard cases’—the mother’s life and health, fetal deformity (eugenics) and / or rape and incest … Once the pro-abortionists secure abortion for any of the ‘hard cases,’ they point out the ‘inconsistency’ in the laws in order to justify abortion on demand” (emphasis in original text).
Exceptions ensure the perpetuation of the “Dictatorship of Relativism” which is the essential philosophy for the culture of death and, indeed, totalitarianism.
To be clear, again, incremental legislation is good and fine, so long as it does not explicitly violate the fundamental precepts of the natural moral by, say, explicitly permitting the direct killing of a subset of innocent human beings.
There is much more to say, but not in this limited forum.
Thanks again for allowing me to comment.
Sincerely in Christ,
Patrick Delaney
Patrick says: “…incremental legislation is good and fine, so long as it does not explicitly violate the fundamental precepts of the natural moral by, say, explicitly permitting the direct killing of a subset of innocent human beings.”
You used the word “explicit” twice, so it must be important. Yet, an incremental legislation either explicitly or implicitly permits “the direct killing of a subset of innocent human beings.” The same incremental law can achieve the same end whether the lives it fails to spare are explicitly or implicitly targeted. Does the “objective moral order” demand semantic parsing in this way before one can act to save human lives?
I liked your rhetorical question, Patrick. Here’s one for you: Say you know for certain that abortion will never be banned entirely — only incremental laws would forever be passed. Whereas a legislation that reads “abortion in the second and third trimester is outlawed” may be preferable to one that reads “abortions in the first trimester are legal, but all others are outlawed” based on the implicit vs. explicity permissions they give to kill (although their effects on human lives would likely be the same), would not BOTH laws be preferable to one that said “all abortions are legal?”
Hi pt.
Thanks for the response and I’m sorry I missed your post earlier.
The premise to your hypothetical question is a logical impossibility: “Say you know for certain that abortion will never be banned entirely.” How is it possible to know this for certain? Any civilized society must recognize that it is always evil to intentionally kill the innocent. This is not a high standard of morals for society but a low standard … a fundamental requirement for civil society, for indeed this law (part of the natural moral law, the “objective moral order”) is written on the heart of every person in that society. To propose a situation where we “know for certain that abortion will never be banned entirely” is a situation where the society is not made up of human beings.
Secondly, it is the requirement of Catholics, and all people of good will, to restore these non-negotiable ethical principles to the civil law (“banning abortion entirely”) when they are not acknowledged.(1) When we do this the law can protect fundamental human rights with stability. And since the law is also a teacher of morality, each civil law the pro-life movement proposes and supports for passage should stand in conformity with these fundamental principals and not reject them. Such incremental laws are indeed *authentic incremental* building blocks toward establishing societal recognition of fundamental inalienable rights of all, born and preborn.
If incremental bills routinely *reject* these fundamental principles, as Dr. Nadal concedes they presently do with “standard exceptions language,” they can *never,* and I repeat *never* contribute to building a societal recognition that each innocent human life is inviolable, for they are intrinsically unjust and explicitly violate this “non-negotiable” principle.(2) They rather establish the legal premise that the preborn are *not* human beings with inalienable rights which logically justifies abortion on demand (as shown in my previous comment above). Such laws also contribute to the culture of death notion that there is no body of laws transcendent to the state which all of us must adhere to, and thus there is no such Lawgiver either (i.e. God). Hence, such exceptions profess that “God is dead” and reinforce the fatal notion that it is the state that bestows or revokes human rights, etc. With such a premise, it is not surprising that we have a relativistic slippery slope which leads to euthanasia, IVF, stem cell research, human cloning, gay “marriage” etc.(3)
This is why the wording of laws is not mere “semantics,” for as Heidegger stated, “language is the house of being.” Either the language of the bill is going to reflect the truth of the objective moral order, or it won’t. It will thus help build-up and support the authentic good and recognition of that order, or it will undermine it and contribute to it’s further deterioration.
When a legislator votes for a bill, he is *willing the enactment* of what the bill *says,* no more and no less (for a bill only does what it says, nothing more or less). Thus, in a situation where abortion is presently legal for all 9 months of pregnancy, if the incremental bill only restricts abortion as your first example does (“abortion in the second and third trimester is outlawed”) the legislator is supporting a licit incremental bill that does not violate the natural moral law and thus authentically contributes to building a societal consensus of recognition for non-negotiable ethical principals. As Bl. John Paul II taught, “This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law (the present underlying law permitting abortion throughout pregnancy), but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” Thus, the legislator is not cooperating with the abortions which remain *implicitly* legal.
I would thus say, authentic incremental legislation limits the evil of a current present law, without explicitly permitting such evil, and thus helps build consensus toward the required establishment of “non-negotiable ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society”(1, 2). Your second example (“abortions in the first trimester are legal, but all others are outlawed”) does not do this for it explicitly renders non-negotiable ethical principles as, indeed, negotiable (an illicit contradiction) and thus lays the invincible foundation for abortion on demand and every other culture of death totalitarian relativistic obamanation.
Thus, since contrary to your initial premise, establishing non-negotiable ethical principles is indeed very possible and remains a part of our moral and Christian duty as U.S. citizens, I would say Catholic legislators would be morally obligated to fight for your first example of wording, rejecting your second, under penalty of grave sin. For as legislators of civil law, they simply do not have the authority to *will the enactment* of a law that states “abortions in the first trimester are legal” under any circumstances, for “Nothing and no one can *in any way permit* the killing of an innocent human being … Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or *permit* such an action.”
In this way they would contribute to the building up of a society that recognizes non-negotiable ethical principals as the only means of guaranteeing the “ethical foundation of social coexistence”(1, 2), protect against the eventual deteriorating of civil law due to the slippery slope of relativistic legislation, and thus save the lives that would fall victim to this prolongation of the abortion regime.
Finally, death is not the worst evil in our midst. Grave sin is the worst evil. And while the “end result” in immediate terms might seem the same for either example of wording, we must have good means to good ends, and a bill which permits abortion remains “intrinsically unjust” and it is therefore “never licit to … vote for it”(4).
God Bless,
Patrick Delaney
(1) “Democracy must be based on the true and solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society” (Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life, CDF).
(2) “In the end, only a morality which acknowledges certain norms as valid always and for everyone, with no exception, can guarantee the ethical foundation of social coexistence, both on the national and international levels.” (JPII, VS, 97)
(3) “When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law…” (Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life, CDF).
(4) “In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it’”(Bl. John Paul II, EV, 73.2).
Hi Patrick. When I suggested the condition of one “knowing” that abortions would ever be banned entirely, it was a hypothetical question that arose when I imagined that God must know. As ridiculous as it may sound in hindsight, I was trying to look at it from that perspective. In any case, I still wonder whether that knowledge would alter one’s view of what is the correct course of action.
Language is the house of being, as per Heidegger; twaddle is the House of Representatives, as per Pelosi. In any case, it’s true that I tend to put less emphasis on the value of THE LAW for universally representing, converting and shaping mankind’s values, being a bit of a lawbreaker at heart. My first impulse is to quickly fashion the law into a crude tool (whatever its shape) just long enough to reach the depth of humanity and quickly hoist whatever lives cling to it. I don’t know for sure whether more refined thinkers, such as Dr. Nadal, would take it that far… but where is the line? Clearly you and Dr. Nadal do not entirely agree.
Patrick, your reply set has me thinking again, which is more than I can ask anyone – so I thank you for that, and hope that other readers will weigh your words as carefully as you did when wrote them.