Abortion and immigration (can we have any doubt about the importance of each one?)

The issues of abortion and immigration are often raised in parallel, suggesting that it is necessary to resolve both simultaneously to avoid moral hypocrisy. both need to be resolved simultaneously to avoid moral hypocrisy.

However, this equating is simplistic and erroneous. Although both issues arouse strong emotions and touch emotions and touch on fundamental aspects of life, from an ethical point of view they are profoundly different.

A shared ethical principle: doing good and avoiding evil.

The commonly accepted ethical maxim is clear: “Do good and avoid evil.” But what does this imply in each case? Abortion, as an act that ends the life of an innocent person, constitutes an intrinsic evil.

There are no circumstances that justify the direct elimination of an innocent life; it is an absolute principle.

Therefore, abortion is always morally wrong and should be avoided.

On the other hand, doing good has a broader and more diverse horizon. The way we do good in a specific context depends on our circumstances, responsibilities, and possibilities.

In the case of immigrants, for example, we all agree that they should be helped, because they are human beings with rights.

But how to help them can generate multiple responses: open the borders completely? close them and create immigration offices? promote safe transportation? Block dangerous human trafficking routes?

There is no single solution, and the answers vary according to the circumstances and the means available.

Key differences: negative versus positive precepts.

Negative precepts, such as “do not kill,” are universal and unconditional. In this sense, no one should promote or participate in abortion, since it is an intrinsically evil action.

On the other hand, positive precepts, such as “do good,” are obligatory for all, but not everyone is required to perform the same concrete good in all situations. The good to be done is diverse and depends on the responsibility and capacity of each person.

In the case of immigration, the primary responsibility lies with leaders and governments, who must seek prudent and just solutions.

As citizens, we must support those proposals that seem to us to best serve human dignity and the common good, but we do not have a direct obligation to solve the problem.

Final thought.

It is crucial to understand this distinction to avoid moral simplifications. No one should be forced to responsibilities beyond their means, but all should be called upon to seek the good responsibly and honestly. In the case of abortion, the morals are clear: it is an intrinsic evil that must be avoided.

In the case of immigration, the issue is much more complex. and depends on prudence, discernment, political commitment, and the culture of each society.

The difference between these two realities is fundamental: the negative precepts (do no evil) oblige us at all times and at all times to (do no evil) are binding at all times and on everyone in the same way, while the positive precepts (do good) are binding at all times and on everyone in the same way.

Doing good also obliges everyone, but not uniformly and not in every concrete case.

(Francisco José Ramiro García has a doctorate in Moral Theology and is a professor of Bioethics).

Note by Manuel Ortuno (Br Knight, Lawer, MBA and PhD in Theology):

If anyone has any additional doubts, let him or her look up what St. Thomas

Aquinas says about immigration (for example: https://infovaticana.com/2018/09/23/que-dice-santo-tomas-de-aquino-sobre-la-inmigracion/ ).