therefore, in the interest of civil coexistence and social harmony, should respect this choice, even to the point of permitting abortion and euthanasia. "12 The second tendency the pope identifies is the claim that the civil law cannot demand that citizens conform to moral standards higher than those acknowledged and shared by all citizens. Hence the law should al ways express the opinion and will of the majority of citizens"and recognize in some cases the right to abortion and euthanasia. 3 unsafe illegal practices, would be unenforceable in practice and, as a result, would oe a third tendency is rooted in prudential and pragmatic concerns. It is claimed that given popular support for abortion and euthanasia in certain circumstances-the legal prohibition and punishment of these practices would inevitably lead to an increase undermine the authority of all law Finally, the Pope describes a viewpoint that might be characterized as a"complete autonomy" claim. This view maintains that, in a modern and pluralistic society, people should be allowed complete freedom to dispose of their own lives as well as the lives of the unborn. "[t is not the task of the law to choose between different moral opinions and still less can the law claim to impose one particular opinion to the detriment of others The Pope believes that these views contribute to the contemporary assertion that the legal system of any society should be based only on what the majority considers moral and actually practices. Because many believe that an understanding of objective truth shared by all is unattainable, the norms governing social coexistence should be based simply on the will of the majority, whatever this may be. " Hence, every politician, in his or her activity, should clearly separate the realm of private conscience from that of public conduct This bifurcation in turn supports"what appear to be two diametrically opposed tendencies. l7 On the one hand, the state is not to adopt or impose any ethical position instead, in the name of freedom of choice, the state's only role is to guarantee[ maximum space for the freedom of each individual, with the sole limitation of not infringing on the freedom and rights of any other citizen On the other hand, public officials, when exercising their duties, are to set aside their own moral convictions "in order to satisfy every demand of the citizens which is ecognized and guaranteed by law' the only moral criterion for the exercise of ones official duties is what is laid down by the law itself. "Individual responsibility is thus ld at 1 4 See id ld EVANGELIUM VITAE, supra note 4,1693 therefore, in the interest of civil coexistence and social harmony, should respect this choice, even to the point of permitting abortion and euthanasia.”12 The second tendency the Pope identifies is the claim that the civil law cannot demand that citizens conform to moral standards higher than those acknowledged and shared by all citizens. “Hence the law should always express the opinion and will of the majority of citizens” and recognize in some cases the right to abortion and euthanasia.13 A third tendency is rooted in prudential and pragmatic concerns. It is claimed that – given popular support for abortion and euthanasia in certain circumstances – the legal prohibition and punishment of these practices would inevitably lead to an increase in unsafe illegal practices, would be unenforceable in practice and, as a result, would undermine the authority of all law.14 Finally, the Pope describes a viewpoint that might be characterized as a “complete autonomy” claim. This view maintains that, in a modern and pluralistic society, people should be allowed complete freedom to dispose of their own lives as well as the lives of the unborn. “[I]t is not the task of the law to choose between different moral opinions, and still less can the law claim to impose one particular opinion to the detriment of others.”15 The Pope believes that these views contribute to the contemporary assertion that the legal system of any society should be based only on what the majority considers moral and actually practices. Because many believe that an understanding of objective truth shared by all is unattainable, the norms governing social coexistence should be based simply on the will of the majority, whatever this may be. “Hence, every politician, in his or her activity, should clearly separate the realm of private conscience from that of public conduct.”16 This bifurcation in turn supports “what appear to be two diametrically opposed tendencies.”17 On the one hand, the state is not to adopt or impose any ethical position; instead, in the name of freedom of choice, the state’s only role is to “guarantee[ ] maximum space for the freedom of each individual, with the sole limitation of not infringing on the freedom and rights of any other citizen.”18 On the other hand, public officials, when exercising their duties, are to set aside their own moral convictions “in order to satisfy every demand of the citizens which is recognized and guaranteed by law”; the only moral criterion for the exercise of one’s official duties is what is laid down by the law itself.19 “Individual responsibility is thus 12 Id. at ¶ 68. 13 See id. 14 See id. 15 Id. 16 EVANGELIUM VITAE, supra note 4, ¶ 69. 17 Id. 18 Id. 19 Id