A MORAL CONUNDRUM ANSWERED and "BOTH-AND" or "EITHER-OR" ??? - ABORTION IN GUAM

During his talk show on The Point on Dec. 13, the show's host, Bob Klitzkie, brought up an important moral conundrum, which, paraphrased, goes like this:

1. Abortion is currently legal up until birth.
2. A bill is introduced to ban abortion with no exceptions.
3. There are 15 senators who will vote on the bill.
4. 7 senators are in favor and 7 senators are opposed.
5. One senator, the deciding vote, is in favor of the ban so long as there are exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother.
6. The senators who support the full abortion ban believe life begins at conception and abortion at any stage of pregnancy and for any reason is always wrong. (1)
7. Can the 7 senators who believe life begins at conception and abortion under any circumstance is always the killing of an innocent, defenseless, human being accept the holdout senator's exceptions in order to at least limit abortion, or is their acceptance of those exceptions morally evil in that they would materially cooperate in the killing of an innocent, defenseless human being?

Fortunately, at least for Catholics, this conundrum has already been answered. Pope John Paul II addressed this very issue in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life - 1995):

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. (73)

While there is no footnote to the above entry, JP2's thinking is rooted in St. Thomas Aquinas's Doctrine of Double Effect, as summarized here by EWTN:

Principle of Double Effect

The Principle of Double Effect is used to determine when an action which has two effects, one good and one evil, may still be chosen without sin. This principle is attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas, who used it to show that killing in self-defense is justified (Summa Theologiae I-II q64 art. 7).

With respect to voting, it would allow under certain conditions the toleration of the unintended evil of another for a proportionate reason. All four conditions must be satisfied:

1. The action must be morally good, or indifferent, as to object, motive and circumstances.
2. The bad effect(s) may only be tolerated, not directly willed.
3. The good effect must be caused at least as directly as the bad.
4. The good effect(s) must be proportionate to compensate for the bad effect(s).

ANOTHER MATTER

Another matter, i.e. "Both-And," was brought up on the same show: Shall we support both the Heartbeat Bill AND Belle's Law - assuming incoming Atty. General Doug Moylan carries through on his stated commitment to remove the injunction on Belle's Law?

The answer should be an easy "yes." However, there are two considerations: 

1) The author of the Heartbeat Bill has consistently and publicly vilified Belle's Law as a draconian measure that will put women in prison, and thus positioned the debate as an "either-or." This isn't true, but it is surely a weapon already handed to the pro-aborts in their war to STOP DOUG. 

2) Belle's Law is 3 pages long (even less in the code). The Heartbeat Bill is 21 pages long...and as such, full of opportunities for lawyers on both sides - which could mean years of expensive litigation and happy lawyers.  

As already demonstrated in a previous post, well-meaning legislation can sometimes go the way of "good intentions," ("the road to hell is paved with good intentions") if lawmakers and their backers fail to contemplate and prepare for the potential fall out. (2)

By contrast, the eight Esperansa Project-backed laws that were enacted between 2008 and 2018 were extremely tight and left little to no room for legal challenges. 

In fact, the only challenge to any of The Esperansa Project-backed laws has been to the "informed consent for abortion" law which only became an issue when Guam's only two abortionists packed up and left and Guam's current governor, Lou Leon Guerrero, via her abortion lieutenant, Jayne Flores, recruited two Hawaii doctors and the ACLU to sue our own government (3)...at the expense of us - the taxpayers.

Note: Apparently Guam taxpayers have no issue with being abused by their governor as they recently re-elected her. 

LAST THOUGHT

It really is neither a "both and" nor an "either or" argument. Dobbs handed every state and territory the freedom to do what the United States was constitutionally founded to do: let the people decide. 

In fact, speaking of Catholicism, this is exactly Catholicism, i.e. the Doctrine of Subsidiarity:

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, neither the state nor any larger society should substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediary bodies. - Catechism of the Catholic Church, Par. 1894

But the people cannot decide as long as the courts are deciding, and this is what incoming Atty. General has decided to sever by removing the injunction on Belle's Law.

The fear of course is that, left to the legislature, and in fact, the demonstrable pro-abortion will of the people, abortion will continue unabated, unregulated, and un-interesting to the majority of Guamanians who, despite our much publicized Catholicity and the promotion of Guam's "CHamoru" heritage (we even invented our own word - "CHamoru"),  prefer to murder unborn CHamoru children and hand over our future to others - while local CHamoru Merchants of the Culture of Death continue to receive Holy Communion at Catholic altars. (3)

LINK

(1) Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:...Catechism of the Catholic Church, Par. 2271. Go here for more references. 

(2) The fallout of Belle's Law, as co-opted by other interests, inadvertently led to the deaths of thousands of Guam children over the next three decades, as demonstrated here. 

(3) Pursuant to documents obtained by the Vigilance Committee.

(4) Most of those Catholic Altars, i.e, our Catholic Church buildings, are "owned" - via loans and mortgages - by the bank which is owned by the current governor, Lou Leon Guerrero.