How Much Should One Sacrifice For Another’s Moral Scruples?

Robert A. Heinlein poses an interesting question in his 1966 novel “The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.”  Heinlein has one of his characters ask “Under what circumstances is it moral for a group to do that which is not moral for a member of the group to do?”

This question is especially relevant to the pending decision of the Supreme Court on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.  Dobbs v. Jackson rises from a Mississippi law that would ban most abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy.  It arguably presents the most serious challenge to Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey since the original court decisions. The court could, essentially, roll back both Roe and Casey.

As we await the court’s decision, some reflection on the coercive power of government is in order.  Examining whether the court can enforce a moral viewpoint on the governed that members of the governed object to is a worthwhile exercise.

Dissenting Consciences

Henry David Thoreau once spent a day in jail for refusing to pay a tax. He refused to pay the tax on the grounds that the money would, even if indirectly, support the Mexican American war of the 1840s.  It would also support the extension of slavery into new territories.

Thoreau was released after a relative paid the tax for him.  This generous act infuriated him, however.  He wanted to stay in jail to publicize his point. The experience led him to write “Resistance to Civil Government,” later reprinted under the title “Civil Disobedience.”

Over the years since then, the United States has often (if not always) made provisions for those with a dissenting individual conscience to refuse to participate in certain practices.

Conscientious objector status during the years of the active draft is one such example. A person might apply for 1AO or 1O status.  The 1AO status means the individual is eligible to be drafted into the services in a non-combat role.  A 1O status allows a person to serve in some form of civilian replacement duty.

The Hyde Amendment is another example.  Beginning in 1976, every federal spending bill has contained the Hyde Amendment.  Hyde prohibits the use of federal health care funds for abortion.  This appears to be changing, however. The 2022 budget introduced by the Biden administration in 2021 did not include the Hyde Amendment.  A 2021 Labor, Health and Human Services spending bill also did not include the Hyde Amendment.

Moral Compromise

But even when an individual is exempt from some activity, such as serving in the military in combat, the individual is still part of society.  Similarly when paying taxes to support something one finds morally repugnant, the individual is also still part of society.  Society does at times wage war and enforce the payment of taxes.

As John Donne wrote, “No man is an island.”  So, accordingly, no person is completely free from the stain of moral compromise.  This is inherent in the process of governing sizable groups with differing views.

We Can And Do Legislate Morality

In my younger days it was popularly said in some quarters that “you can’t legislate morality.” While it may be true that we cannot create a completely moral citizenry through legislation, it is simply not true that one cannot legislate morality.

Virtually every law is embedded in a moral context or concept. For example, there are criminal laws against such things as murder and theft, laws creating taxes to pay for public education, or (pace Mr. Thoreau) laws supporting the armed forces.

Enter the voice of countless mothers over unknown generations: “So if your friends jumped off a cliff would you jump off too?”

From our perspective as Catholics, the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalized jumping off a moral cliff.  And we have been resisting the consequences of that decision ever since.  The grounds for doing so are that it is not moral for a group (the country being an institutional group) to do what it is immoral for an individual to do.  And sanctioning the death of another human being through abortion is immoral.

The Abortion Fight Will Likely Not End

Negating Roe and Casey will not end the conflict over abortion. The fight will continue politically on the state level and legally through the courts.  It will continue until society reaches a consensus view that makes continued conflict irrational.  But this does not seem likely to happen any time soon.

If, however, Roe and Casey are overturned, the grounds of the conflict will probably change as well.  And it would serve us well to consider again the moral roots of our opposition to abortion. This means we must have answers to the question posed in the title of this article: how much should one be required to sacrifice for another’s moral scruples?

Since 1973 the pro-life population of our country has been forced to accommodate the pro-abortion population’s view.  From the pro-life perspective, the pro-abortion  view lacks any scruples.

But if Roe and Casey are overturned, abortion will still be legally available in a number of states in which the majority supports it as a right. To fight against abortion in those states we will have to answer the question of why our moral viewpoint is enough to justify what pro-abortion forces will characterize as suffering.

We Will Have More To Do

We will have to be able to explain why abortion restrictions are not bringing to life the dystopian world of Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale.”

Additionally, we will have to show how abortion is not equal to ex post facto birth control to those who have no objection to birth control itself.  And we will have to explain how the seriousness of our moral scruples opposing abortion is sufficient to impose what pro-abortion people consider to be a form of suffering on those who want an abortion but can no longer easily get one.

Whatever the outcome of Dobbs v. Jackson, the abortion wars are not finished. People on the losing side will feel that they will have to suffer for the moral scruples of the winning side.  Resentment will linger or even fire up, renewed.

Courts decide based on the law, and the Supreme Court is our country’s final word on the meaning of laws. But in the end, law is not the problem or solution to the abortion wars.

The hearts of those who have attached themselves to the culture of death is the real battleground.  And those hearts cannot be softened and converted through legal actions and rulings.  That will require irenic love.  We had best begin to prepare to put this kind of love into action before the legal decision is announced.