|
Jack,
This is certainly a difficult issue, admittedly. But the Texas law does have an exception for the life of the mother:
| The law does create an exception for a doctor to perform an abortion when they believe it is necessary to save the life of the pregnant patient. .... The Texas Medical Board has offered guidance on how to interpret the law's medical exception, and the Texas Supreme Court has ruled that doctors don't need to wait until there's an imminent risk to the patient to intervene. |
We know that the media is heavily biased in favor of abortion. Here is an interview with Nevaeh Crain's family where they say her death is being used for political gain:
It seems that there are plenty of people to blame for this incident other than the Texas abortion law. It is not clear that an abortion was necessary.
It's important to realize that pro-abortion media bias aside, the media often gets facts wrong (I have observed this first-hand) and a case like this is ripe for oversimplification.
"Texas abortion ban kills woman."
sells a heck of a lot more than
"An obscure woman dies due to medical malpractice."
You really have to do your own investigation to find out the truth of what happened. It is never good to judge any event by the popular media reports of it.
In any case, the teaching of the Catholic Church is that direct abortion is always wrong, because the end does not justify the means. In other words, you cannot do good (saving the mother's life) by doing evil (intentionally killing an innocent child). Again, this is admittedly a hard principle if in fact an abortion is truly medically necessary to save a woman's life, although I have heard pro-life doctors argue that abortions are never medically necessary. The problem is that the world is so conditioned to see abortion as a "solution" that it doesn't bother to find other ways of solving the problem that might be just as good.
The Church does permit indirect abortion, for example, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, where the death of the child is in unintended side-effect of the procedure but is not directly willed.
It's also important to remember that this life is not the end. God will richly reward a woman in the afterlife who has sacrificed her life to avoid committing the sin of direct abortion. There is something higher and more important than preserving our earthly lives. That's the way I look at it.
There is a saying in the legal world, "Hard cases make for bad law." It's easy to pick a really obscure and exceedingly rare situation that tugs at the heart strings and magnify its significance but modeling a law out of them is fraught with hazards. ChatGPT comments:
The adage "hard cases make bad law" suggests that laws or legal principles, developed in response to particularly difficult or extraordinary cases, can lead to poor or problematic legal precedents.
Here are key reasons why this is the case:
- Overemphasis on Exceptional Circumstances
- Hard cases often involve unique or extreme situations that deviate significantly from the norm. Creating laws or legal principles based on these cases risks crafting rules that are ill-suited to more common and straightforward cases.
- Laws shaped by outliers may lack the flexibility or general applicability needed to function effectively in ordinary circumstances.
- Emotional and Public Pressure
- Hard cases often attract significant public attention and emotional responses. Courts or legislators may feel pressure to craft decisions that appease public sentiment rather than adhering to neutral legal principles.
- Emotional decision-making can lead to outcomes that are inconsistent with established legal frameworks or that prioritize short-term resolution over long-term justice.
- Erosion of Legal Stability and Predictability
- A consistent and predictable legal system relies on principles that are broadly applicable and stable over time. Responding to hard cases with new exceptions or rules can introduce complexity and unpredictability, making the law harder to follow and apply.
- Frequent changes to address exceptional circumstances can undermine confidence in the legal system's reliability.
- Risk of Unintended Consequences
- Laws crafted to address hard cases may have unforeseen implications when applied in more typical scenarios. These laws can create loopholes, ambiguities, or injustices that weren't anticipated during their creation.
- Narrowly tailored decisions might conflict with broader legal doctrines, leading to confusion or inconsistency in the law.
- Judicial Overreach
- Hard cases sometimes tempt courts to act beyond their role, making policy decisions better suited for legislatures. This can blur the separation of powers, as courts impose solutions that may not reflect the broader will of society.
Balancing Principles
While "hard cases make bad law" serves as a caution, it does not mean that the law should ignore difficult cases altogether. Instead, courts and legislatures must carefully balance the need to resolve unique challenges with the imperative to maintain coherent, fair, and broadly applicable legal principles. Good law prioritizes fairness and consistency, even when it feels counter intuitive or difficult in a specific instance.
|
I hope this helps,
Eric |
