You can vote without commenting.

Also, see http://shalomplace.com/inetmin/abortion/index.html to listen to a debate I had with a pro-choice minister some years ago.

No vote from me, here, but I will share my own views about this matter. What follows are points I shared in a talk I gave on this topic sometime back.

--------

Abortion: A Few Considerations

1. Human life begins with conception and is a developmental continuum until death, and probably beyond. The distinction between a gamete and a zygote is quantum, not developmental. There are really no other such quantum breaks on the ontological level after conception: it's a gradual ongoing process. Even birth from the womb is not a quantum break at the level of the nature of the being who is born--although there surely is in its environment and experience of environment.

From infancy to toddlerhood to teenage and beyond, our being develops based on infrastructures which have been laid before. There are no quantum leaps in this developmental continuum which justify labeling one stage "not-human-life" and the next "human life." Every stage is part of the journey of a genetically distinct human genome whose fundamental orientation is the realization of its future as a more fully developed human being, and whose innate intelligence is guiding the genome unto that realization. This is as true of a zygote as it is of a teenager! What we all need to realize that future is time, nurturing, and opportunities to develop our potentialities. Again, this is true of a zyogote as well as a toddler.

2. Given the nature of a human fetus as a human life, we need to be honest about what's actually happening in an abortion. A human life is being destroyed. If we are not honest about this, then our thinking on this matter will be greatly distorted. We will be operating out of a delusion, and making moral and legal decisions without properly considering what's going on.

3. The pro-choice position seldom acknowledges the reality of the human life of the fetus. If they did, they couldn't really stay pro-choice with much conviction.

I recall a debate with a "pro-choice pastor" once when I asked if those in the audience who considered themselves pro-choice would stand up. About 200 people gladly complied. I then asked those who thought the aborted fetus wasn't necessarily human life to be seated; they all sat down. My debate partner thought it proved his point that a fetus wasn't necessarily a human life; I stated that it proved mine that they're pro-choice BECAUSE they believe that.

4. Once we acknowledge the reality we're dealing with, there are still many issues to address. What about all these unplanned pregnancies, which seem to keep right on coming even though contraceptives are as available as M&Ms? Should these women be forced to bear the pregnancy to term? If there are no legal abortions available, will they pursue back-alley butchers as in days of old? Is that what we want? No, of course it's not. These scare tactics by pro-choicers only tell me how weak their position really is. There are all sorts of adjustments that can be made with laws to deal compassionately with these situations. But if we're going to work with laws, we need to have some basis for the legal decisions being made. That's where my next point comes in.

5. What most pro-lifers would like first is a national discussion of this issue around a proposed human life amendment that will define when a human life deserving of recognition by law exists. Given the reality of stem cell research and cloning, this would be a very important discussion at this time. I've never understood why so many pro-choicers resist this idea, especially since they bemoan the lack of common ground.

6. Dependening on the outcome of that discussion, we could adjust our laws accordingly around the common ground which such a Constitutional amendment would signify, and work out a plan for doing so. This would be far healthier than trying to adjust ourselves to legal opinions that were dropped into our culture with no reference to the consitutional rights of the unborn, no discussion in the culture, and no common ground for people of good-will on both sides of the issue to work out of. There would be a messy transition period, but the ongoing situation is pretty messy as well.

First I'll respond to one of Phil's remarks, as to why Pro-choice advocates back away from using stem cell research to define the point of a viable life. My guess would be that from a purely scientific point-of-view, the findings could easily support the notion of independent bodily functions beginning quite early. Probably the more closely science looks, the further back that point in time would placed, especially since the complexity of the embryo appears compelling early on. With emotional responses exhibited early, and even some indications of memory, it would be hard to continue arguing that the embryo is a mere extension of the mother's body.

I deplore the use of abortion when it is used as a convenient fail-safe for poor or no planning. And under any conditions I do consider it murder, or state-sponsored termination of life, a weak notion which has no equivalent except the death penality applied to innocent souls. But I'm equally clear, until shown otherwise, that overturning Rowe-Wade would create massive, chronic social and moral distress and fragmentation at almost every level of our lives.

It wouldn't just be the grissly scene of women seeking illegal and unsafe abortions, but almost make the ones doing so second class citizens, as in murderers. Are we actually prepared to treat them is this way? It's one thing to deplore the murder of a child, and another to have to look into the face of these women and treat them as criminals. How Christian or spiritual or morally upright will we feel as this sort of thing floods the media, and we come across people in our communities that have undergone this social insanity. We already have inundated our prisons with drug-addicted people, many of them youth. How convincing will the rationalization be, the one that goes like . . . "Well, that's different. This 17 year old murdered her baby!"

What will be left with? How long will the clean conscience last? Or will we ever really be able to separate our conscience from the social devastation we've reaked on many people who likely would have gone on to live respectable, law-abiding lives? This is simply absurd!

The other concern that haunts me is the travesty which will follow once we see how miserably we manage the thousands of children born of mothers every month who don't want them, and end up in our already over-burdened foster care system. Yes, the Church and other organizations might fill in some of the gaps, but not usually in ways that address the real risks of the foster care system. My strong bias, backed with huge amounts of research, is that infants left in the hands of caretakers with too much to do create attachment risks that rather consistently translate into seriously at-risk youth, developmental trends that extend well into adult life.

Outlawing abortion may slightly reduce the incidents, but that is certainly no moral victory given the dispicable fall-out. And so the scene I'm imagining is just as grissly, but with more widespread effects than abortion. Taking refuge in moral arguments, however personally and spiritually defensible, doesn't for me justify this co-opting of society into religious-driven agendas. Show me an anti-abortionist, and I'll bet, 95 out of 100 times, he or she is making their appeal to legislation through religion, regardless of how favorably argued the science is on the subject.

One last thing: Once abortion is treated as murder, it will be very difficult, perhaps impossible, to take that one off the books. Everyone ready to live on this moral high ground?!!!!

Not addressing abortion, in particular, yet.

There is a whole separate, but clearly related, issue embedded in your approach, w.c. that, alone, is also worthy of consideration, that being criminal justice system reform.

Another issue is the jurisdictional matter of when does one inderdict - whether at the level of domestic abuse or international conflict, vis a vis the sovereignity of a person or that of a state?

Another issue regarding legislation is the recognition that a good law is an enforceable law and that, in the end, perhaps only a truly enforceable law is a sanctionable, punishable law?

Or does sanctionability and punishability preclude reformability and interfere with rehabilitatability?

Apart from what should be be criminalized or decriminalized, what matters can be efficaciously criminalized or decriminalized?

What can realistically be done to prevent this or that crime, however heinous, whether genocide in another country or homicide in a mother's womb?

How do we go about integrating a Catholic or Christian social justice agenda with political reality? Which parts of Catholic moral teaching should get legislated and which parts not, and why?

To the extent one teaches that masturbation, sodomy, homosexual activity and adultery are grave offenses and imperil the immortal soul (which is much more important than one's mortal physical existence) should they be criminalized and enforced? [Note: some of this is hyperbole and some is not, for evocative purposes.]

So, if you don't mind, I need to take this in baby steps, before the participants start lobbing accusations of logical fallacies, inconsistency and incoherency, one against the other.

Also, we should be clear when we are arguing from teleological ethical perspectives, such as in utilitarian and pragmatic approaches of consequentialistic ethics versus when we are arguing from deontological ethical perspectives, such as in making appeals to authoritative teachings that have been universally taught and constantly held.

So, too, we should acknowledge which arguments are essentialistic and deductive versus existentialistic and inductive, those which are physicalistic and biologistic versus those that are moreso psychological and sociological?

The reason for the careful parsing and extra circumspection, for me, is a practical one: If we don't keep our unspoken presuppositions in sight and acknowledge fundamental agreements and disagreements at the level of very basic premises, then we risk arguing past one another about the disagreeents which will flow logically and algorithmically from those first premises and presuppositons. If, for instance, someone disregards, at the outset, the possibility for teleological ethics, then the arguments you have advanced, w.c., will hold no sway whatsoever. How much sway they hold even within a teleological system, well, Phil is going to address that, I'm certain, as soon as he is finished responding to the 3 pages of posts on the Arrajian physical & philosophical cosmologies.

My best,
jb
whose sneaking suspicion is that he is not equipped with the sociological knowledge required to properly engage the depthful analysis that will issue forth from w.c.'s social-psychological critiques --- i am relying on 3hrs of sociology, 3hrs of criminology and 3hrs of sex & marriage and family, taken 25 years ago and only have experience in the mariage and family part (though still somewhat interested in sex but not criminology, unless they start policing my bedroom)

J.B. said:

"If, for instance, someone disregards, at the outset, the possibility for teleological ethics, then the arguments you have advanced, w.c., will hold no sway whatsoever."

I don't mean to disrespect the religous importance this holds for many people, but after exchange is made without running over each other, the choices and consequences will be much the same. Perhaps some will be able to live more comfortably with their position, or find it shaken, as may have occured either way for some of us on the war thread. I suspect on this issue, people's minds are largely made-up, one way or the other, which is frightening when one considers how the Supreme Court is seated by whomever is in office - kind of a crap shoot on such a delicate issue. Yet there seems to be no better options for making Federal laws, except perhaps an obligation to seat them with as much balance as possible.

I guess my anxiety has mainly to do with seeing how much this issue is guided, even at the Supreme Court level, by personal religious convictions, given the shift in paradigms and judiciary it takes to overturn such laws.

And so my view, to date, is mainly about guarding what I believe to be the lesser evil, at least in terms of living in a society that has tolerated this crime like the rest of the world for millennia. It is somewhat disturbing for me that the legality of abortion only seems to be at stake here in the U.S., where capital punishment thrives uniquely as well. It would be helpful to know what the thinking of other parliaments and judiciaries around the world is, such as in Europe, where capital punishment is comparitively rare and abortion so common.

Don't feel obligated to respond to my ravings, J.B. I'll step back and give you your space to put your thinking forward.

w.c., I think I addressed some of your concerns in the #5 and #6 points in my opening post. Imo, we are desperately in need of some kind of social consensus about when life begins, not only to inform decisions regarding abortion, but for a lot of other reasons as well, including stem-cell research and, of course, cloning.

My leaning is to view conception as the beginning of a human life deserving of protection by law, but greater minds than mine (e.g. St. Thomas Aquinas) have argued for ensoulment at a later time in development.

I'm sure you're aware of the danger of introducing slippery slope fallacies into a discussion of this kind (not like that ever stopped conservatives or liberals from arguing their points using this approach! ). I think that needs to be avoided, at all costs. The steps which should be taken are, imo:
1. Come to consensus on when a human life deserving of protection by law begins. Nuance this as much as is necessary.
2. Allow this understanding to inform legistlation about cloning, stem-cell research, abortion, and other issues.
3. The pragmatic part: what specific laws are to be enacted, what conditions for exceptions, what punishments, what kind of transition period, what alternative for those seeking help, etc.

This seems to me a much more responsible way to proceed than what we've been doing.

Phil:

If I'm understanding you correctly, my slip into fallacy has to do with assuming the overturning of Rowe-Wade would result in numerous and severe destructive effects, and that there is room to legislate around the crime of abortion so that those convicted wouldn't be treated with one sweeping severe hand. And the other re: the increasing number of unattached children and the fallout being curtailed by careful measures to increase a safety net of some sort, along with other considerations like supporting expectant mothers and their distraught families to minimize the backstreet phenomenon.

If this is what your pointing to, let me know, or otherwise.

But I'm equally clear, until shown otherwise, that overturning Rowe-Wade would create massive, chronic social and moral distress and fragmentation at almost every level of our lives.

Not necessarily. Wouldn't overturning Rowe vs. Wade simply return to the states the rights to make laws regarding abortion - as it was before? No doubt some would outlaw it and some wouldn't. A person could always go to a different state if needed to have the abortion.

And (I don't mean to be flippant), but doesn't our current policy towards abortion "create massive, chronic social and moral distress and fragmentation"? Just a thought.

Brad:

If what your saying is the case, then that would provide for some diverse representation and tolerance of what's important for both sides of the issue, and put voters more in a position to affect the outcome in their home states. Then there would be a chance to look at various outcomes and develop strategies over time to compensate.

As for the destructive effects of abortion, I wouldn't argue to the contrary. Besides the murder of the child, the mother is left with a spiritual and psychological crisis, affecting perhaps even the way she bonds with future children (more severe, IOW, than miscarriage or a still born child). My strongest bias comes from what I see as the importance of early attachment in relation to adult psychopathology and crime, and how far a reach it would be even to imagine creating a revamped foster care system capable of addressing these risks.

Should abortions be legal?

That�s a tough call. I think I�ve stated before that I don�t like the idea of throwing women into jail because of this. And you also know that I�m in complete agreement that life starts at conception. Therefore my question would be �Should legislatures (state or national) be allowed to legalize or criminalize abortion or should this issue be decided extra-constitutionally by the courts?�

The courts are more and more creating law rather than interpreting it. This has the effect of undermining the rule of law itself and undermining the constitution and its separation of powers. Abortion and other issues are best decided �cleanly� by a vote of the people through their elected representatives. To do otherwise is to invite anarchy, as we�ve seen in Florida, New Jersey and elsewhere, as courts more and more vote their ideology, not their legal conscience. As far as I can see the Constitution says nothing about the right to abortion. If it says anything at all it would depend on the meaning of the words �ourselves� and �posterity� as in �promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity� as appears in the preamble of the Constitution. That is, is a fetus a person who falls under the protection of the law?

To circumvent the people so blatantly as the Supreme Court has done in Rowe vs. Wade is to circumvent democracy. In their mind, I�m sure, the ends justify the means. But this is still not something for the courts to decide no matter their own personal feelings on the subject.

quote:

Originally posted by w.c.:
[qb]Phil:

If I'm understanding you correctly, my slip into fallacy has to do with assuming the overturning of Rowe-Wade would result in numerous and severe destructive effects, and that there is room to legislate around the crime of abortion so that those convicted wouldn't be treated with one sweeping severe hand. And the other re: the increasing number of unattached children and the fallout being curtailed by careful measures to increase a safety net of some sort, along with other considerations like supporting expectant mothers and their distraught families to minimize the backstreet phenomenon.
If this is what your pointing to, let me know, or otherwise.[/qb]

w.c., you had listed several kinds of consequences, some of which might not be inevitable consequences of changing a law. E.g., it's quite possible that a woman "busted" for abortion wouldn't necessarily have to go to jail, or be considered a murderer, at least not in the usual sense of the term. There is lots of room for creative legislation, here, including compassionate options. We must beware of the left thwarting the discussion through the use of scare tactics of all kinds.

Nevertheless, there is no doubting the probability of a mess of some kind, certainly during a transition period. As Brad has noted, we already have a big one concerning this issue, with casualties including the unborn and also the women who abort them. There are no karma-free abortions--not for the individual women who have them, nor for the society in which they are permitted and even financed by government.

Again, my suggestion is that we first strive to come to clarity about when a human life worthy of protection by law exists. This essential step was by-passed by the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade. We were never allowed a national discussion of this issue nor an option to consider what legislation might be most appropriate to address it.

While I agree with much of what you have written about this, Brad, I disagree with your suggestion that it ought to be a states-rights issue. If that were the case, then it's possible that one state could allow abortion and cloning, but another not. I don't think that would be a good thing, which is why I favor a national policy regarding some of the most basic policy aspects of this issue. States could be given latitude concerning punitive and rehabilitative options, but not with regard to whether or not abortion is permissible--assuming the national legislation would outlaw this possibility, that is.

Note: this crossed with the prior posts.

Do we have some preliminary common ground at a fundamental level? I think so. From the context of the discussions, thus far, and from my long acquaintence with Phil, it seems that we all look to inform our ethical perspectives from a combination of teleological and deontological aproaches, that is to say from both consequentialistic and authoritative approaches, honoring both essentialistic and existentialistic, deductive and inductive reasoning? [not trying to be redundant, just trying to be clear]

Also, I think that because we honor the introduction of some consequentialistic analysis, we need to be clear that slippery slope approaches are not inherently fallacious, such that, in this case, the more rigorous one's social critique and empirical conclusions pertaining thereto, the less the chance of having a totally fallacious conclusion, even if one's argument might suffer some weakness from either the proliferation of steps in the progressive consequences or from evidentiary support.

In this case, we should be clear that w.c., for instance, has apparently taken a deontological approach (no doubt bolstered by modern scientific & medical evidence) in his determination that abortion is wrong. With me, so far.

Then, he employs a teleological and consequentialistic approach in his determinations regarding the criminalization of abortion.

Let us be clear, that this is far different from using teleological arguments to defeat the merits of the deontological conclusions [re: when life begins] that are drawn in favor of the pro-life stance as taken by him or anyone else. I say this because one taking a pro-choice stance could indeed use a number of fallacious approaches in attacking the merits of the pro-life position, in and of itself, and feel it should be clear that w.c. is about a distinctly different polemical exercise. But maybe my attempts confuse more than clarify?

I just want to be sure we distinguish between those pro-choice positions that involve a) criminalization versus b) outright denial of life beginning at conception. Those who truly believe that life does not begin at conception can't be argued against past the level of this fundamental premise, only argued past. Those who agree that life begins at conception must otherwise defense their position and seek to establish a coherent and consistent ethic. For instance, if they buy into the seamless garment of life approach, then we look for some coherency and consistency in their positions on just war, cloning, euthanasia, the death penalty, abortion, etc To the extent they demonstrate consistency re: the seamless garment and to the extent they agree also that moral probabilism must not be applied to justify abortion, for reasons I stated elsewhere, then we still have common ground in our stance that abortion is wrong and we arrive there pretty much using the same moral methodologies and ethical machinations. This is the common ground I think I see in the voices who have participated thus far.

A separate issue emerges when we ask whether or not abortion should be criminalized.

I think this is the issue we are about to debate but I wanted to be clear on this and narrow it down. I'm not trying to be onerous in any attempt to moderate but am trying to be deliberate in an attempt to facilitate one of the most controversial issues of modern times.

pax, amor et bonum,
jb

I guess my anxiety has mainly to do with seeing how much this issue is guided, even at the Supreme Court level, by personal religious convictions, given the shift in paradigms and judiciary it takes to overturn such laws.

I want to research how the Catholic Church approaches the creative tension between the values of religious liberty (consonant but not identical to the separation of church and state) and of advancing one's social teachings in the political arena (that is to say that, despite charges to the contrary, we do legislate morality --- what the heck are laws if not codified moral stances?). I'll return on this.

And so my view, to date, is mainly about guarding what I believe to be the lesser evil, at least in terms of living in a society that has tolerated this crime like the rest of the world for millennia.

Okay, you have introduced some 1)proportionalism and double-effect thinking here vis a vis lesser evil and , also, I think I see some of the 2) existentialistic approach that takes into account our fallen-redeemed state. IOW, you are saying that, in a perfect world scenario, you might very well wish that we could criminalize abortion and properly administer a reasonable justice, but ... ... unfortunately ...
[See what I'm suggesting here, Phil?]

It is somewhat disturbing for me that the legality of abortion only seems to be at stake here in the U.S., where capital punishment thrives uniquely as well. It would be helpful to know what the thinking of other parliaments and judiciaries around the world is, such as in Europe, where capital punishment is comparitively rare and abortion so common.

Here you raise the seamless garment approach to life and I think we are all in agreement.

OK - let me get back to you on the first issue.

pax,
jb

J.B.:

You've captured and clarified my concerns well, I think. I'm with Pro-Lifers about the nature of the unborn, although not sure where to assent as far as ensoulment is concerned. I don't know how that would ever be discerned in a convincing, objective way mostly free of scientific or theological dissent. But perhaps there are correlations between embryology and the church's thinking about this.

If the issue of criminalizing women seeking abortion without complications of rape or medical necessity (i.e., just to avoid motherhood) were moderated around say, the number of offenses, then we'd probably advance the criminal justice system in general e.g., not treating all those guilty of drug possession with the same severity as those selling, or putting them in the same violent environments.

And then the remaining bit on attachment disruption to motherless children left to the devices of foster care. I'd need to see some major efforts toward changes here to feel like jurisprudence was taking the change in law seriously for its own peculiar social fall-outs, i.e., not making new laws before putting better services in place. The foster care system is already unable to keep pace with current needs.

Phil said: Brad, I disagree with your suggestion that it ought to be a states-rights issue.

Well, I did say �Should legislatures (state or national) be allowed to legalize or criminalize abortion�, but I agree that this could be legitimately considered a federal issue because it involves the issue of equal protection under the law. But I have reasons why this might not be a good idea.

What most pro-lifers would like first is a national discussion of this issue around a proposed human life amendment that will define when a human life deserving of recognition by law exists.

Thinking out loud and trying to clarify the sequence of events: A constitutional amendment of the sort that stated that a fertilized egg would be considered a human being would not automatically assign any penalties to abortion no more than the constitution does so for murder. But what this would do is allow (state or national) legislatures to pass laws that did assign penalties and I think some states would do so. So I think it�s realistic to say that an amendment of this type is equivalent to outlawing abortion, at least partially. But what would be the penalties?

I�ve never been comfortable with saying that abortion is murder. I think it�s better called manslaughter, or fetus-slaughter. Clearly 99.99% of women would not murder their own children even though many of them will have an abortion. They see a difference, there is a difference, and the law should reflect this difference accordingly. But if we don�t throw women in jail (and we should not), are we once again in danger of trivializing the killing of a fetus, fertilized egg or life itself by handing out the equivalent of a parking ticket?

I think this shows why Congress is reluctant to pass any law outlawing abortion (and thus forcing the Supreme Court to deal with it and possible overturn Roe vs. Wade), and why the Supreme Court itself is reluctant to look at it again. Politically it�s a no-win situation (much better politically to just say that one is either for or against it), and constitutionally it is also a bit of a mess.

I think it would do well if more people would stand up and recognize that a fetus is a human life so we could avoid this quagmire (and avoid this human tragedy). And there�s a part of me that is very worried about the intrusiveness of government no matter how this issue goes (although I notice that, at least for pro-choicers, the intrusiveness issue doesn�t seem to apply much to most other public policy issues). My solution would be to allow the states to decide this issue. But this would have nothing to do with state�s rights. It would have to do with allowing this issue to gain the legitimacy it deserves by having some places actually outlaw abortion while a messy accommodation with it is made in other states. As our social awareness and even our technology changes so hopefully will the laws in more and more states. But if we decide this now in an all-or-nothing fashion at the Federal level (court or legislature) then ultimately I don't think we as effectively change attitudes or behaviors on this issue. We'll likely just get pro-choicers digging in and we'll likely have even more court challenges and even more intrusions of the courts into law making.

I want to research how the Catholic Church approaches the creative tension between the values of religious liberty (consonant but not identical to the separation of church and state) and of advancing one's social teachings in the political arena (that is to say that, despite charges to the contrary, we do legislate morality --- what the heck are laws if not codified moral stances?). I'll return on this.


OK. I'm back with what I think are some good articulations of a fairly orthodox approach to politics and Catholic social teachings.

Richard McBrien:

1) �pro-life� and �pro-choice� shorthand seems increasingly inadequate and even morally counter-productive. One wonders how long it will take for this to sink in--on both sides of the debate.

2) While it seems to be the case that many in the pro-choice movement have no moral problem with abortion (viewing it simply as a medical procedure), many others who describe themselves as pro-choice do oppose abortion on moral grounds. Their difference with the hierarchy, they insist, is political rather than doctrinal.

3) The fact is that we legislate morality all the time --on civil rights, care of the elderly, assistance for the disabled, spending for armaments, and so forth. Morality distinguishes between right and wrong, fair and unfair, just and unjust, independently of any religious creed. Morality is rooted in the natural law, which binds everyone.

4) What the Constitution prohibits is legislation that imposes religious doctrines whose truth or validity cannot be grasped except within a particular faith-tradition. The correct formula, therefore, is "we can't legislate religious doctrine," not "we can't legislate morality."

Bishops, Politicians & Abortion by Robert McManus

Excerpts:

1) Without the well-formed conscience of the Catholic public official as the point of coincidence of political and moral exigencies, the Catholic Church will have lost its primary basis for influencing the public policies and laws of the United States.

2) The Gospel of Jesus Christ has definite social and political ramifications.

3) The bishops should clarify once again the reasons why they have chosen to enter the public arena by means of their participation in policy debates: a) to safeguard the dignity of the human person, b) to focus the attention of U.S. citizens on the moral factors of particular social, economic and political issues and c) to engage the greatest number of participants in the moral discussion on these topics.

4) Through Catholic public officials who should make their prudential, political decisions according to a well-formed conscience, the church has an indirect yet effective influence on both the common good and the public order of society.

5) When the U.S. bishops do intervene in the public policy debate, they should clearly differentiate the levels of magisterial authority that are operative in different sections of their teaching documents. Some matters of public policy and political strategies are highly complex. Many faithful U.S. Catholics simply will not accept, for any number of non-theological reasons, the adequacy of the bishops' public policy recommendations. To create the impression that the magisterial authority of the bishops' public policy proposals is the same as that which accompanies their presentation of universally binding moral principles is to threaten episcopal teaching authority itself. Repeated and widespread rejection of what is mistakenly perceived to be authoritative church teaching could lead to disrespect for and disregard of the properly exercised magisterial authority of the bishops on other issues that are fundamental to Catholic faith and morals.

6) Moreover, it should be made clear that a "tactical disagreement" between the bishops and Catholic public officials on matters of political strategies does not necessarily indicate any ecclesial disloyalty to, or disrespect for, the magisterium of the bishops on the part of the Catholic politician. However, the bishops do have the right and duty as moral teachers to judge the moral adequacy of a particular political option of a Catholic public official.

7) A civil statute does not need to reflect all the precepts of the divine and moral laws. However, Catholic public officials should recognize that from epistemological, psychological, theological and political points of view, the argument that one's personal, religious and moral convictions should not influence one's political decisions is untenable. Hence, the "personally opposed but..." political posture, that has become popular among some Catholic public officials concerning the issue of legalized abortion, is simplistic and demands further reflection and clarification.

8) Specifically, if Catholic public officials do not agree with their bishops on a particular legal strategy for restricting the legal availability of abortion, they must provide some alternative political options geared toward achieving the same goal. When capable of limiting the legal availability of abortion to some degree, the Catholic public official is not morally free to do nothing.

9) A Catholic public official should not be precipitously accused of being disloyal to the moral teaching of the church if he/she fails to support a law that, while protecting a particular moral value or principle, will be unenforceable. The Catholic public official may judge the law unenforceable because it lacks public consensus in society.

Perhaps in summarizing our thread, later, we can articulate a common ground position post that more succinctly sets forth at least some of these principles with which I am certain we are in agreement on?

pax,
jb

I�ve never been comfortable with saying that abortion is murder. I think it�s better called manslaughter, or fetus-slaughter. Clearly 99.99% of women would not murder their own children even though many of them will have an abortion. They see a difference, there is a difference, and the law should reflect this difference accordingly.

I have often expounded on the truth, beauty and goodness correspondence to doctrine, liturgy and law. The Church, through its liturgy and sacraments, in particular, marks the major passages of our lives. It has doctrines and liturgies and laws for marriage. It has a rite of initiation for infant baptism and a funeral rite for the dead in its liturgical tradition and sacramental economy. It has always puzzled me that a miscarriage has no liturgical status. With all the emphasis placed on life at conception and ensoulment at conception, those of us who have suffered miscarriages have felt pretty empty, pretty alone and a tad confused. Do others see the ambiguity? the inconsistency? If the Church doesn't recognize the differences Brad alluded to, just for instance, in the same manner that mothers see a difference between murdering a child and an early abortion, then it sure hasn't done much to amplify its seamless garment position by giving such short shrift [no shrift] to a miscarriage. There is, therefore, an existentialistic element, which exists in very sharp relief to the Church's essentialistic teaching, here (and elsewhere, of course).

Later,
pax,
jb

For thread continuity, I reposted this from the Verge of War thread:

w.c. - you have introduced an interesting point. I look forward to seeing, here, the fleshing out of the nuances which surround it and will be pondering my own perspective regarding same more deeply.

Further, Phil had introduced a thread topic on abortion a month ago that never really took off. It is not because it didn't stir some musing in me. It is just that a large part of that debate is fueled by disagreement at the level of a very fundamental premise --- when human life is ensouled or otherwise definitely begins --- and results in most people arguing past one another.

There is more that can be teased out, in the way of nuancing, by dealing with different aspects of the issue within the pro-life or anti-abortion stance, by looking at such issues as you have raised. I hope we go for it.

There is much logical consistency and internal coherence to be sought after in defending the various positions, even if we won't determine anytime soon which position is externally congruent with reality (the reality of ensoulment and the beginning of life).

This is one issue for which I have mostly relied on the slippery slope fallacy, the old reductio ad absurdum approach as we have discussed elsewhere. Although such logic is essentially fallacious, as I have pointed out recently, we must also recognize that such arguments can be very useful exercises in critical thinking and can open the way to the further pursuit of knowledge, both physical and metaphysical, when we are otherwise thwarted by a lack of axiomatic coercion or empirical demonstrability.

Thus, my position has been, when in doubt, probabilistically, about something that involves the rights of another and/or something as weighty as eternal salvation and/or the possibility of murder, one must take the safest and most conservative moral path and stay off of slippery slopes. I will usually appeal to principles of moral theology, such as probabilism, religious liberty, and the centrality of informed conscience, in justifying my moral opinions, but I positively eschew the application of the theory of probabilism in cases a) where the risk of taking life is present or b) which contradict such Church teachings as would be identified as essential (say per the Greeley and McBrien analyses considered in another thread, recently, but not otherwise facilely defined as the content of the CCC).

That's just my opening statement. I haven't addressed the issues you have raised but will be pondering same and looking for others to spur this discussion on.

Merci,
jb

The traditional Western ethic has always placed great emphasis on the intrinsic worth and equal value of every human life regardless of its stage or condition. This ethic has had the blessing of the Judeo-Christian heritage and has been the basis for most of our laws and much of our social policy. The reverence for each and every human life has also been a keystone of Western medicine and is the ethic which has caused physicians to try to preserve, protect, repair, prolong, and enhance every human life which comes under their surveillance.

The issue of miscarriage or spontaneous abortion raised here is an interesting question. Although there are many causes for miscarriage, such as uterine anomalies, hormonal imbalances, immunization problems, various maternal illnesses, and environmental factors, the most common cause of miscarriage is chromosomal, comprising over half. It may be a case of problems with the number of chromosomes, the structure of the chromosome, or even the genetic material that they carry.

An interesting question thus arises involving a consistent ethic of life perspective. In the same way that we would not condone either euthanasia or assisted suicide, whether with the elderly or the disabled, no matter what the deformity and without regard for quality of life issues (and assuming we are not talking about the withdrawal of extraordinary means of support), we are very cautious in our approach regarding abortion of deformed children. For if the unborn are fully human, then to promote the aborting of the handicapped unborn is no different morally than promoting the execution of handicapped people who are already born. But such a practice is morally reprehensible. Are not adults with deformities human? Then so too are smaller people who have the same deformities.

Also, it is amazingly presumptuous for mere human beings to say that certain other human beings are better off not existing. Those who make such judgments concerning the handicapped seem to assume that handicapped persons cannot live meaningful and even happy lives. This is not to deny that there are tragedies in life and that having a handicapped child is often a difficult burden to undertake. But I think it is important to realize that if the unborn entity is fully human, homicide cannot be justified simply because it relieves one of a terrible burden.

What if we changed our foundational premise, however, about when human life actually begins, as someone else pointed out, following the thoughts of Thomas Aquinas. Would such a spontaneous abortion as occurs due to chromosomal problems in a zygote (a human being), as caused by nature, not suggest that such early and/or late miscarriages are not nature's way of killing a baby but instead nature's way of discarding deformed tissue (not a human being)?

After all, in following the natural law, using a consistent life ethic, would not nature, itself, be buying into the moral reprehensibility of the murder of a handicapped human? Clearly, nature would not do this? If not, then is a zygote necessarily a human life with a soul, even with an extra chromosome, for instance? Or does that Mongoloid child perhaps become a soul later in the pregnancy instead? If this is a natural law issue, then many people are having no small amount of difficulty discovering this law. I understand some of the confusion.

Thank you for this opportunity.
Mario F.

If the Church doesn't recognize the differences Brad alluded to, just for instance, in the same manner that mothers see a difference between murdering a child and an early abortion, then it sure hasn't done much to amplify its seamless garment position by giving such short shrift [no shrift] to a miscarriage.

I don't know much about that, JB. But you might be making a very good point. But I should make clear that I wouldn�t WANT my church (even if my church was THE Church if indeed I had a church) to recognize the difference. I totally agree with Phil that life can only be said to begin at conception and that it is simply a matter of development from there. It becomes extremely absurd to argue �Yep � that fetus just passed the 28-1/2 day mark so let�s all sing �Happy Birthday to You��. Thus, as a moral question, the Church has it right (although I would also want my church - I dare not use a capital �c� - to allow birth control.) As a LEGAL question I might want my government to look at this differently.

I don�t think I�m helping to clarify anything. Of course, if I were able to do so it would accomplish something that billions of words on this subject the last few years seemingly hasn�t been able to do � convince the vast majority of the people one way or the other.

Please note that the above post was my 666th and that this in NO way should be seen as a sign of anything but gregariousness.

re: I don't know much about that, JB. But you might be making a very good point. But I should make clear that I wouldn�t WANT my church (even if my church was THE Church if indeed I had a church) to recognize the difference. I totally agree with Phil that life can only be said to begin at conception and that it is simply a matter of development from there.

Excellent clarification and I agree wholeheartedly.

My point was, therefore, the registration of a complaint. And, further, a suggestion that this inconsistency nurtures an ambiguity that compromises its own voice of prophetic protest and dilutes its own teaching authority, perhaps.

pax,
jb

re: After all, in following the natural law, using a consistent life ethic, would not nature, itself, be buying into the moral reprehensibility of the murder of a handicapped human?

Welcome, Mario. This is involved enough that I am again going to want to take babysteps, myself. Or perhaps others will have something to say sooner than I can.

pax,
jb

Okay, you have introduced some 1)proportionalism and double-effect thinking here vis a vis lesser evil and , also, I think I see some of the 2) existentialistic approach that takes into account our fallen-redeemed state. IOW, you are saying that, in a perfect world scenario, you might very well wish that we could criminalize abortion and properly administer a reasonable justice, but ... ... unfortunately ...
[See what I'm suggesting here, Phil?]

Well . . . yes, of course! And w.c.'s follow-ups make perfect sense and need to be given serious consideration. There really *are* all sorts of issues which come up when this topic is discussed, and even all kinds of ways to approach them. I just do resist the "back-alley butchering abortionist" scare tactic often used by the left as it tends to overly polarize the issue and does seem very slippery-slopish in a fallacious sense.

FWIW, I do not view women who have abortions as criminals. They are no danger to society in the same sense as a drunken murderer is, so they should not be sent to jail. Any punitive consequences they might incur should not be shaming or demeaning, but, hopefully, rehabilitative.

Consider this absurdity, now: if a man beats a pregnant woman and her 4 month old fetus is killed, he may be charged with murder. If a woman voluntarily goes to an abortionist and terminates the life of her 6 month old fetus, she has done nothing wrong.

I compare this issue at times to slavery. If one thought slavery was morally repugnant and untenable in any circumstance, then it was one's duty to oppose it regardless of how it would inconvenience the politico-econonomic order. In a similar manner, if one believes that a fetus is a human being deserving the same rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that are affirmed in the constitution, then one has a duty to protest the institution of abortion, regardless of what consequences may ensue. Those will need to be addressed, for sure, but ought not be considered a priori insurmountable obstacles to doing the right thing.

Brad, I think we're probably on the same wavelength about states rights concerning this issue. Your clarification was helpful.

All that said, I don't think pro-lifers ought to call women who have abortion murderers, and I do believe we ought to be consistent in our application of pro-life ethics. Hence, I am very much against the death penalty, euthanasia, mercy killing, assisted suicide, and any other taking of human life outside a context of necessary self-defense. It doesn't bother me that all pro-lifers don't feel this way, nor that most pro-choicers who oppose the death penalty are inconsistent in their ethics. People have a right to draw lines in the sand regarding the issues they believe worth fighting for, or against, even if they're somewhat hypocritical in their application of principles.

So I guess it's pretty clear where I'm coming from on this one. I don't mind being challenged on my positions, however, and would actually welcome that from anyone who has objections to raise.

Consider this absurdity, now: if a man beats a pregnant woman and her 4 month old fetus is killed, he may be charged with murder. If a woman voluntarily goes to an abortionist and terminates the life of her 6 month old fetus, she has done nothing wrong.

Phil, I was going to comment on the feminist aspect of this and this is as good a lead-in as any. Somewhere in this thread (I can�t find it at the moment) it was mentioned that some women may support the right to abortion on the principle of being against government intrusion in their lives. I chafe at this notion because I simply don�t believe it. It doesn�t jive with the generally leftist notions of the abortion advocates. But if we will acknowledge the (correct me if I�m wrong) correlation between feminism and the pro-choicers then it�s not the �government� intruding that they�re worried about. It�s about men intruding. And, up to a point, I think they have a point.

Men are half of the equation when it comes to the �need� for an abortion. And it has, at least historically, predominately been men in government who are empowered to make abortion illegal. In one sense, that�s easy for them to do. It would seem to allow men to do what they wanted with whom they wanted, sharing no moral responsibility, and then telling the women that they had no power to clean up the mess. This, I think, is what this is all about when we hear �It�s my body and I have the right to do with it what I want.�

The power struggle between men and women is absolutely infused into this whole issue, and the moral aspects of this are often secondary (and thus, yes, we find it easy to argue past one another). I could use similar logic in this issue, sort of mirroring Phil�s above statement, that, okay, if it is a woman�s right to choose and a man has no say in the choice then the man should also not be forced to pay one dime for child support should the woman decide to have the baby. I think this type of logical outcome puts a dagger through the heart of the supposed �it�s my body and I can do what I want with it.� Clearly, it�s not that simple.

I compare this issue at times to slavery. If one thought slavery was morally repugnant and untenable in any circumstance, then it was one's duty to oppose it regardless of how it would inconvenience the politico-econonomic order.

I can�t really disagree with this and it is always hovering in the back of my mind making many of my own words seem absurd and morally bankrupt or overly accommodating at times.