The Steckle Bill and the Commitment to Life
By Dr. Donald DeMarco

The proposed Steckle Bill, which calls for the prohibition of abortion after 20-weeks gestation, has\ occasioned a familiar division within the ranks of prolifers. How does one categorize this division? Is it between the unbending philosophical purists and the flexible political compromisers? Is it between the “hardliners” who brook no compromise in their commitment to life (the Steckle Bill would not prohibit abortion up to 20-weeks gestation), on the one hand, and the “softliners” who are willing to approve the Bill and thereby consign all unborn children in the first 20 weeks of their life to the possibility of abortion?

Such categorizations, however, amount to caricatures. They are unfair and simplistic ways of characterizing both sides, and do nothing to help bring these opposing groups together. In a spirit of reconciliation, I hope that the following few words, that reflect the nature of the issue and not the temperament of its disputants, will allow the differences between proponents and opponents of the Bill to dissolve so that they can work together with a unified and effective strategy.

Let us suppose the following scenario: a) abortion is legally prohibited in Canada; b) a Bill is introduced (identical with the present Steckle Bill) that permits abortion before 20-weeks gestation. In such a scenario, there is a movement from protecting all unborn human life to removing such protection from all up to 20-weeks gestation. One could not, in any way, countenance this movement from protecting all unborn life to removing protection from all under 20-weeks. This is a movement from good to bad.

But the present situation is morally different in a most significant way. The current situation in Canada pertaining to abortion is one that is, from the legal point of view, completely unregulated. The Steckle Bill proposes a movement from not protecting unborn life in its first 20 weeks to providing protection for it. This is a movement from bad to better.

Let us imagine a parallel scenario,one that has been depicted in movies many times. A group of robbers enter a bank and hold hostage all patrons who happen to be there. The police arrive and begin negotiating with the robbers, first asking them to release the women and children. The robbers, after some thought, comply. But no policeman ever exclaims, “No, no, release everyone at once or release no one. For if we agree to the release of the women and children, we therefore approve of holding the remaining men as hostages.” The police want to bring as many people to safety as possible, even if they must do it incrementally. They are not, by any stretch of the imagination, condoning taking the men hostage. This type of scenario, with its incremental gains, never creates any controversy. Perhaps the men who are senior citizens would be released next, followed by fathers of young children, and so on. Nor does the police strategy divide the audience of spectators who are watching the scene unfold into the “purists” and the “compromisers.” The solution, imperfect as it may be, seems to be the best one that anyone can conceive.

In the motion picture, Sophie’s Choice, a Nazi officer requires a motherto choose but one of her two children.Naturally, the mother wants to safeguardboth, but that choice is not opento her. She does not say, “If I cannotsave both, I will save neither” (it wouldnot be believable even if she did). Shechooses one, though it is, granted,  a most heart-wrenching choice.

No less a pro-life stalwart than Pope John Paul II has devoted his considerable intellect to this issue. In his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (“Gospel of Life”), he turns his attention, in section 73, to “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” (identical with the historical circumstances surrounding the introduction of the Steckle Bill in Canada). The Holy Father’s moral position on the matter is clear: “. . . 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.”

A comment by Joanne Byfield is very much in line with the thinking of John Paul: “We are supporting a political effort to reduce the harm that is being done and we will continue our work to eliminate abortion entirely.

It is reasonable to believe, at this moment in Canada, that more restrictive abortion legislation than what Steckle proposes would have no chance whatsoever of passing. What make approving a Bill that calls for more restrictive abortion is that it comes to the rescue of unborn human beings (and a significant number, at that) who are over the gestational age of 20 weeks in safeguarding them from harm. In doing this, one is not condoning early abortion. One must take what one can get and use it as a platform on which he can get more. It is an initial step in a strategy that aims to protect all unborn human life. But if the initial step is not taken, it makes the final success considerably more difficult, if at all possible, to attain.

There is nothing wrong with doing the best one can do under limiting circumstances. The “Fetal Pain Awareness Act,” now law in several states in the United States, has also divided prolifers. Inadequate as the Act is in terms of abolishing abortion, it adds no harm and can do much good, not the least being to inspire compassionate mothers to abandon their plans for abortion.

Between the inaction of the pessimist and the idealism of the optimist is the realism of the ameliorist. The best results of our best efforts usually result, not in that which is best, but in that which is better. But if that which is best is ever to come about, it is because of the concerted work of people who are dedicated to making things better.

Dr. DeMarco is a professor of philosophy at St. Jerome's University and has authored 19 books and innumerable articles.