Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, the leader of the Catholic Church in England, recently sparked a renewed discussion about legal abortion in that country.

Abortion is currently illegal in Britain after six months' gestation, except where there is substantial risk of fetal abnormality or to save the mother from death or permanent injury. In a June meeting with Britain’s health minister, Murphy-O’Connor proposed that the legal limit be drawn back even earlier.

I’m not familiar with political discourse in England, but I know the kinds of objections to such thinking that pop up immediately in the United States: “There is a separation between Church and state, which means that the Church has no business trying to impose its religious beliefs on people through civil laws.”

As someone memorably said to me once, while explaining this: “This is America, not Jesusland.”

In a nation where the line between Church and state is sharply drawn, it might sound compelling. Who, after all, wants to be accused of forcing their faith on someone else? But it’s not a legitimate argument, and we should understand (and be able to explain) why.

Opposition to legal abortion is no more a “religious” position than opposition to slavery or rape or murder. It is, rather, promoting human dignity and human rights. We are all obligated to respect these, not because they are part of any church’s doctrine, but because they are part of what we call natural law. That is, there are certain truths that every person can and should understand, simply by being human and living among other humans.

Civil law exists in order to make sure (to the extent that it’s possible) that people respect these rights, to impose upon them the obligation to respect them, if you want to put it that way.

Immediate objection #1: “Yes, but not everyone agrees that abortion is wrong. You can't even think about laws against abortion in the country where we don't all agree it's a human rights issue.”

Common sense answer: Balderdash!

Fergus Bordewich’s recent masterful history of the Underground Railroad, Bound for Canaan, reports that some nineteenth century slave-owners objected to abolishing slavery because doing so would deprive Americans of one of their fundamental rights, that is, to own a slave. (It sounds a lot like pro-choice arguments about “reproductive freedom.”)

Should we have waited to outlaw slavery until everyone agreed it was wrong? If we had done that, it probably never would have happened, or at least would have happened decades or centuries after it did.

A thing is wrong if it offends human dignity and tramples human rights, regardless of who thinks it does or does not. And if you're the one whose rights are being trampled, it really does not matter how many people “agree” that it's happening.

Common objection #2: “Even if we outlaw abortion, some women will still want them. So instead of abortions being performed legally and safely, you’ll have unsafe abortions. We must at least protect women who will seek abortions.”

Common sense answer: Murders of all kinds happen frequently. Sadly, we can say the same for rape, child abuse, and domestic violence. We don’t seriously want to eliminate laws against these actions because “people are going to do them anyway,” do we?

The fact that something will happen despite our laws is no justification for eliminating the laws against it. Laws are intended to deter people who might otherwise fail to respect our rights and dignity, and to punish those who insist upon it anyway.

There will continue to be plenty of women (and men) in desperate situations if we limit legal access to abortion. These are people who need and deserve the help of society, government, and churches. It is certainly within our means to continue to develop positive solutions, ones that do not involve the killing of innocent and helpless “bystanders.”

This is America, not Jesusland. But America’s greatness lies in its tradition of profound respect for the rights and dignity of all its people. We have, when we’re at our best, stood as a beacon and a challenge to other nations in this regard. Our most tragic moments have come when we have forgotten that high calling.

© Copyright 2006 Catholic Exchange

Barry Michaels is the author of Eucharist: The Church's Treasure (Pauline, 2004) and At the School of Mary (Pauline, 2004), both prayer and study companions to documents of Pope John Paul II. His third book, New Novenas for New Saints, will be published by Pauline Books in spring 2007. Barry's blog, Cloud of Witnesses, can be found at www.barrymichaels.blogspot.com.