Proposed Statement of Consensus on Principles: liberally borrowing from McBrien, McManus and the participants here (no double-entendre intended, for instance, that one could liberally borrow from Brad )

Both natural law and the Gospel of Jesus Christ have definite social and political ramifications.

Both deontological and teleological, essentialistic and existentialistic, ethical approaches should be brought to bear on moral issues and in the elaboration of just laws and the elimination of unjust laws toward the end of advancing the common good.

A civil statute does not need to reflect all the precepts of the divine and moral laws.

The Constitution prohibits legislation that imposes religious doctrines whose truth or validity cannot be grasped except within a particular faith-tradition.

That human life begins at conception can be grasped by natural law and this fact is accessible, therefore, outside of any particular faith tradition.

The dignity of human life must be safeguarded to the fullest extent practicable from conception until natural death in the social, economic and political order.

A law must be crafted and adjudged a good law according to manifold but strict criteria of jurisprudence, informed by the social sciences, that can speak authoritatively to the proper and efficacious administration of criminal justice. In such administration, any issues of criminalization and stigmatization will require much nuancing and rigorous sociological analysis toward the end of ensuring that the legislation avoids both counterproductivity as well as severe unintended consequences, such consequences proportional, of course, to the gravity of the offense, at hand, and any future threats to the common good.

The church has an indirect yet effective influence on both the common good and the public order of society, by participating in policy debates and through its members who become elected public officials and lobbyists. The church should clearly differentiate the levels of magisterial authority that are operative in different sections of its teaching documents.

A Catholic public official may judge the law unenforceable because it lacks public consensus in society or for other compelling reasons.

+++ +++ +++

From what I have read thus far, I think there is a consensus by the participants in this forum, thus far, regarding the above-stated principles.

The primary lack of consensus seems to therefore involve a question of whether or not, for various reasons, anti-abortion laws, as they have been traditionally framed, are truly enforceable (though that's not the precise wording of the consequentialistic and pragmatic analyses articulated thus far, that might nonetheless be the sum and substance of those critiques? especially if we broadly conceive enforceability to mean a good law , in the classical sense).

Also, the participants seem to be in sympathy with the fact that many people can be in doubt regarding the basic premise that human life begins at conception because the natural law interpretation is problematical and because many apparent inconsistencies abound when a consistent life ethic appears compromised or a voice of prophetic protest is otherwise diluted for various reasons, all contributing to a pervasive and invincible ignorance.

What say?

pax,
jb

Brad, your comments about the men-women power dynamics surrounding this issue make a lot of sense. I think you've put your finger on one of the dimensions of this issue which seldom gets much attention.

And JB, your post above outlining where you see agreements and disagreements makes a lot of sense.

Of course, unlike our "war" discussions, where things are "on the move," there's absolutely nothing happening with regard to a national discussion about when human life begins, so our context is a little less relevant than the war thread. I've wondered whether the cloning issue would respark interest in this topic, but my sense is that our leaders will do almost anything to avoid it, since it all seems so very much lose-lose from the standpoint of political expediency. That point has been noted in this discussion as well, and I agree.

(BTW, I'm using the new Safari web browser that Apple has just released. Not bad for a 0.8 version.)

I've wondered whether the cloning issue would respark interest in this topic, but my sense is that our leaders will do almost anything to avoid it, since it all seems so very much lose-lose from the standpoint of political expediency.

Would somebody PLEASE say something stupid or with which I can truly disagree? I�d be glad to start! Really Phil, I think you�ve touched on a big reality of this whole situation. We�re at some sort of political stalemate regarding abortion. And yet I do think that cloning and other issues will push this argument to the forefront (although I wouldn�t necessarily say that abortion is on the back burner right now either).

If the death penalty is seen as something that is incongruous with a democratic, moral society (and I tend toward this view, but not completely) then abortion should take its rightful place alongside this issue. In theory, both the left and the right should be on the same page with abortion � but they�re not. How strange. I think it can only be then that there are various peripheral issues gumming up the works, everything from feminism to the supposed separation of church and state to the supposed intrusion of government. And yet there are kernels of truth in all these things. But what I find most astounding is that these small kernels of truth seem just big enough to overcome an objection to the enormously controversial practice of abortion itself.

Truth looms large, if what one is dealing with is small kernels , look around for a cob because it must be corn , but don't pick it up -- no telling where it's been

Truth looms large, if what one is dealing with is small kernels�

One more thought: It�s always struck me as a bit odd that there should be such fanaticism on the pro-choice side of the debate. I could understand fanaticism coming from the pro-life side; after all, we are talking about, at the very least, the killing of a fetus. But I find it hard to imagine anything more than a sort of principled reluctance on the part of the pro-choice side. I can imagine people talking about principles; about preserving the rights of the individual, about preserving the rights of women, about reducing the intrusion of government into our lives. But to get apoplectically worked up, as many people do, about the RIGHT to kill an unborn child still baffles me. And I really wouldn�t equate this with the strong feelings some people have when promoting the death penalty. In this case we are talking about killing people who are guilty of heinous crimes.

Now I do I realize that I live in a country that exists only because a very great number of people became extremely peeved about the instigation of a small tax by Parliament � a tax so small that by today�s standards it would be hardly noticed. In fact it is said that the tax on tea was so small that one would have to drink literally gallons of it per day for the tax to have amounted to anything significant. But it was the principle of the thing back then. It caused people to tar and feather tax collectors, intimidate and cause violence to local officials and judges, and for tons of tea to be dumped into Boston Harbor. Have I thus answered my own question? Is the zealousness of much of the pro-choice movement of the same patriotic fervor? Or is it, as I suspect, the result of a certain cognitive dissonance?

Without talking to a pro-choice advocate, especially a female (where angels fear to tread), it would be hard to know, but I wonder to what extent guilt feelings are involved in the fanaticism you refer to. I've known a few women who've had abortions, and the aftermath wasn't like having an appendectomy. Perhaps this is a form of the cogntive dissonance you speak of: wanting to believe that the fetus in merely an appendage, while a bonding process is already underway.

You've also pointed out in a previous post how women might feel cornered by mostly "male" driven legislation.

Perhaps this is a form of the cogntive dissonance you speak of: wanting to believe that the fetus in merely an appendage, while a bonding process is already underway.

And I don�t mean to suggest that the pro-choice argument is totally irrational and without a leg to stand on simply because emotion is involved � even strong emotion. But I�m reminded of the way humans have of dehumanizing something in order that they might control it, kill it or treat it quite badly. I�m reminded of the slave ships and their abhorrent conditions. Slaves were an extremely valuable and profitable commodity in early America. One would have thought, from a purely economic point of view, that it would have been more profitable to spend a few dollars on proper food and conditions so that the slaves would have arrived in America in better health and in larger quantity. But it is self-evident to me that the only way one can engage in slavery is to justify to one�s self that whatever race is being enslaved is somehow not worthy of equal treatment. Thus we see the customs and thoughts that were well-established in the South and that existed among the slave traders. I see some of this at work in the pro-choicers and I think it undermines their arguments. Would it kill them (no pun intended) to admit that a fetus is human life? I do think there are some defensible merits to their arguments, but those arguments, at least in my mind, have the tinge of illegitimacy because of the way they spin the facts instead of deal honestly with them.

Agreed, Brad! To me, the argument that "a woman should have the option of choosing to do what she wishes to do with her own body" is disingenious, at best. Any biologist, M.D., or philosopher ought to find it easy enough to affirm that an embryo isn't simply part of a woman's body, but is a new individual entity. Why is it so difficult for politicians to make this affirmation, or to pretend that this is such a "grey area."

Also, it seems to me that there's something horribly wrong on a spiritual level with women and even men arguing for the right to kill their unborn children. This goes against so many natural impulses--like to defend, care for, and nurture a child.

Somewhere in all this we need to recognize that abortion and fetal tissue has become a very big business. It's not simply radical feminists who are funding the defense of abortion laws, but the abortion industry. Some of this dough oils election and re-election campaigns.

Somewhere in all this we need to recognize that abortion and fetal tissue has become a very big business.

Well, here's your chance to educate because I don't know a great deal about this. In your own time...

Brad, if you just do a Google search on fetal tissue, you'll find a lot. Articles like this one from ABC News have blown the whistle on it. Note that Clinton was the one who opened the door for this sort of thing, and the fetal tissue research issue is one reason he didn't outlaw partial birth abortions, which allow for an abundance of fetal tissue to be harvested.

This is a somewhat hidden dimension of the abortion issue.

Hot of the press!
See http://shalomplace.com/inetmin/abortion/index.html to listen to a debate I had with a pro-choice minister some years ago.

Since the abortion debate hasn't ended yet (may never end), I thought I'd post this thought-provoking piece that I ran into. I don't really wish to reopen this debate, but if we ever come back to it then the following article will provide food for thought. See you in 2005.

R U 4 Life? A pro-life case for the abortion pill.

quote:

Hence, for the first time we really have choice worthy of the name. A woman cannot passively defer the decision to medical experts or have it done to her in an abortion clinic where she may be told that her abortion is not a moral problem. She must do it to herself and to her baby--and in the privacy of her own home. This may, in fact, make abortion harder for pregnant women to grapple with, not easier, as some pro-lifers claim. It's one thing--to take a related, if different, example--to support the death penalty. But if we each had to pull the switch ourselves, we might think again.

killing unborn humans, who are in the image of the divine God, should not be tolerated.


The Egyptians did this with the Hebrew babies. The took the infants by the heels and threw them in the Nile for crocodile bait.

Blood the Egyptians wanted, God finally gave them blood to drink. The Lord is a God of judgement (Jeremiah 9:24); therefore, God must eventually avenge the death of those most innocent whom we are killing today. Make sure you're on the right side.

In Service to Humanity
By George Neumayr

quote:

What is the difference between aborting a baby and euthanizing it? Nothing except the timing of the killing. In the Netherlands, a country that never hesitates to unfold the logic of liberalism to its farthest points, doctors have devised a program to euthanize babies deemed defective. They euthanized four babies last year, according to press reports earlier in the week. Now they are calling upon the Dutch government to pursue a more ambitious program that would let doctors euthanize undesirables with "no free will," meaning minors.


C.S. Lewis wrote that evil is done "in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices." Lewis could have added that they don't even need to raise their voices when they go on public radio to explain their evil. On Wednesday, National Public Radio politely interviewed one of the Dutch doctors overseeing the euthanasia-for-children program, Eduard Verhagen, clinical director of the Pediatric Clinic of the University Hospital at Groningen. This white-coated doctor with neatly trimmed fingernails didn't need to raise his voice when asked by NPR quite casually, "How was it decided that they should die?" The children had medical conditions like "spina bifida," responded Verhagen. The babies were born "with incurable conditions," so "we felt that in these children the most humane course of action would be to allow the child to die, and even actively assist them in their death."

What Did Goldwater Mean?
On Roe and more.
By WFB

quote:

Other analysts believe that the senator was fooled by the respect he felt for the Supreme Court. Since the Court had ruled that abortion was okay, what more argument was there to dwell upon?

There is, of course, the difficulty that the Supreme Court is capable of judgments which, on reflection, observers are free to question, and even to oppose. The overriding question being, of course, whether in the exercise of a �right,� the right of someone else has been transgressed upon. In this case, obviously, the right of the unborn child. If the child has a right, surely it is to live. Therefore, to end his life is to go beyond the plausible limits of the mother�s right.

There were two responses to the Court in the Dred Scott decision. One of them can be characterized, roughly, as Lincoln�s. What he said, pure and simple, was that the Court had reasoned incorrectly. The slave was not �property� in the conventional sense. If so, then an owner who wished to transport that slave to another state or territory, where slavery was not institutionalized, could not do so without imperiling his title to the property.

On another thread, Jacques inquired: Phil, this is perhaps not the right forum for this question...but i saw that you and JB were discussing abortion and when a person is recognized as a person. Am I correct that you consider it to be at about 2 weeks. Would you then consider methods such as the "morning after pill" to be abortion or something else?

Yes, Jacques, I do consider the "morning-after pill" to be abortificent in that it's purpose is to destroy a zygote, which is a new human life. That's the understanding of abortion held by the Catholic Church. Even if biological individuality hasn't become conclusively established, it's still an abortion.

You'll note lots of definitions of abortion on the web. fficial&hs=s8x&defl=en&q=define:Abortion&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title" target="_blank">Here's a good summary. Notice the arbitrary ones that define it as taking place before a certain week of pregnancy has gone by.

Addenda to the above:

Here's a good essay on the moral status of a human embryo:

quote:

In Embryo, we argued that the established facts of human embryology and early developmental biology make clear that the human embryo is no mere incidental mass of cells, but is a whole living member of the species Homo sapiens. The human embryo, in other words, is an embryonic human � a human individual in the embryonic stage of his or her development. . . .

Whether he or she was brought into existence by the union of gametes or by cloning, the human embryo is a distinct and complete (though, of course, dependent and developmentally immature) organism. Each of us began life as an embryo, and then developed by an internally directed process into the fetal, infant, child, and adolescent stages, and ultimately into adulthood, with his or her organismal distinctness, determinateness, and unity intact.

That is why it is true � and Saletan should, we believe, face up to this centrally important fact and its implications � that though none of us was ever a sperm cell or an ovum (or a somatic cell that was used in a cloning procedure), each of us was once an embryo, just as each of us was once an adolescent, a child, an infant, and a fetus. What each of us needed in the embryonic stage is what all living organisms, including human beings, need throughout their lives, namely, adequate nourishment and an environment that is suitable for the maintenance of health and well-being. In the embryo, these resources are provided by the mother, though in principle (and perhaps soon in practice) they could be supplied artificially.

Most significantly:

quote:

The scientific evidence, then, indicates that although dependent in many ways upon the mother, the embryo is a biologically, genetically distinct individual, from its first moments oriented toward bringing about its own growth and development, and toward protecting itself from threats to that development, such as polyspermy.

.
A few questions are in order:

Where has the Church stood in centuries past?
Where does the Church stand today?

Let us use a simple litmus test:
Are the stillborn, and the many fetuses who are involuntary aborted, treated as persons by the Church through the practice of burial rites?

If you wish, you may equate Church with Catholic Church, or with the denomination of your choice. Either way...

As far as I know, that is a rather rare event, even when requested by parents.

Respectfully,
ArcticStones

HP, Christian burial has generally been reserved for those who have been baptized; you have to be born for that to happen. Many times, young babies who have been baptized don't receive an elaborate burial, but the Mass for Christian Burial may be used in Catholicism. To my knowledge, this has been the case for many centuries. The "litmus test" has no relevance to the Church's position on abortion, nor on its view of the moral status of a zygote, embryo, fetus, etc.

Burial rites are carried out, amongst other reasons, as a respect for someone�s personhood. The absence of such rites are telling, revealing -- and of course relevant.

While you may feel it has no relevance on the Church�s position on abortion, it is relevant with regards to the bestowing/recognition of personhood.

And it is the "personhood" aspect of this I�m hereby addressing.

HP, I was responding to your inquiry re. Christian burial. Did my point about Baptism make sense? Christian burial is denied even unbaptized adults, who are surely considered persons in any culture.

- - -

I've seen this "litmus test" point presented on other forums as something of a "gotcha" to anti-abortionists. It proves nothing about a culture's considerations of what constitutes a person as, in most cultures, burial ceremonies are as much for the living as the dead -- to say good-bye to a deceased loved one. In the case of stillborn babies, no one's developed a relationship with them, and so there's no great need for a departure ritual. To complicate matters, stillborn babies and miscarriages often involve fetuses at very early stages of development so that it's not always possible to salvage an intact corpse. That these occurrences are rare has also mitigated against cultures developing standard funeral rites for them. If they take place at all, they are usually small affairs and somewhat "ad hoc," as you noted.

I'm wondering if you read the article from NRO that I linked to above? If so, any comments? Can you think of any reason to differentiate between biological individuality and metaphysical individuality? If none such exists, then is not one's definition of "person" subjective and arbirary?

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] Can you think of any reason to differentiate between biological individuality and metaphysical individuality? If none such exists, then is not one's definition of "person" subjective and arbitrary? [/qb]

Those of us who believe in God and who look to a natural law to ground our moral realism also believe that what we consider to have intrinsic value is precisely valuable for reasons that transcend our mere aesthetic and moral sensibilities. This is to say that we consider moral truth to be objective truth. This is not to say that our grasp of same is not otherwise problematical, since we are finite and sinful. Thankfully, because of our shared moral and aesthetic sensibilities and because of what we believe are laws written on all hearts, we recognize some resonance with even nonbelievers when it comes to evaluating moral objects. We recognize this in many of the secular arguments that are advanced regarding the dignity of human life. And this confirms our suspicions that the natural law is indeed transparent to human reason.

There are other problems that transcend this religious-secular divide though and that afflict us even within any given tradition and those are the ones related to philosophy and metaphysics. How do we define our terms and recognize our categories? In some sense, we cannot escape the charge that our terms and categories are somewhat arbitrary.

We must respond to the critique that suggests that our concepts are mere social constructions that must be negotiated by our community of moral inquiry, for it is a serious and valid critique. And I think that our response is almost as simple as saying that we recognize that our foundations (epistemological) are weakened and we recognize that our concepts and categories are somewhat arbitrary but that they are, nevertheless, indispensable to all human value realization endeavors. We need them, for all practical purposes, such as for having a coherent and meaningful conversation about meaning and conversations, themselves.

So, we know that our definitions of human life and human personhood will suffer from arbitrary distinctions but we, for our part, do not accept the premise that they are, at bottom, arbitrary, in and of themselves. It is only our fallible grasps that inflict any arbitrary nature on them. The nominalistic secularists, for their part, must accept the fact that these distinctions are indispensable to all human value realization endeavors, this notwithstanding their belief that those endeavors are grounded merely in shared aesthetic and moral sensibilities. And this is where we come together, those who "do ontology" and those who reject metaphysics as a project altogether.

How does this all speak to this particular issue?

I think we need to ask whether or not our semantical strategies place us, for all practical purposes, on the slippery slopes of dehumanizing human life and depersonalizing human personhood. And we need to appreciate that others can reasonably draw meaningful distinctions in this dialogue and validly and with goodwill employ other terms and categories than we do.

What we moreso need to urge on them are the informal arguments that appeal to our shared moral and aesthetic sensibilities and this includes reductio ad absurdum, slippery slope and Pascal's Wager-type probabilistic arguments; yes, fallacies but pragmatic fallbacks we all rely on when otherwise epistemically thwarted by reality. And how do I translate this from philosophy speak? Basically, we have these arguments: Do we really want to go there? Isn't this the safer route for humankind? Shall we open this Pandora's Box? If we dehumanize here then we'll depersonalize there. Let's draw these ostensibly arbitrary lines together and that will make it more universally compelling because trying to reconcile mutually unintelligible and incommensurable systems with their disparate terms and categories is a doomed enterprise from the outset.

And there does seem to be fairly widespread convergence of moral sensibilities and reasonings regarding the moral status of the embryo at various stages of development. Our task, in my view, is to strive to enhance protection and to thus raise this status to the highest level politically possible at the earliest stages politically possible, such that depersonalizing conversations become moot, such that dehumanizing conversations become rare. And we pray that medical technological advances will help and not hinder, which should be the case.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] HP, I was responding to your inquiry re. Christian burial. Did my point about Baptism make sense? Christian burial is denied even unbaptized adults, who are surely considered persons in any culture.[/qb]

Oh yes, your point makes good sense.
The denial of Christian burials to unbaptized adults is not, however, a universal practice. Far from it.

As far as I understand it, child baptism can be seen as a born life�s first recognition of "personhood" by the Church. It is one of many rites of passage in a Christian community.

Please note, however, that I am not insisting on a black-and-white corollary here! Nevertheless burial as well as baptism practices are most telling.

HP, the "Rite of Christian burial" is a Catholic practice and it is not extended to the unbaptized. Maybe other Christian traditions give some kind of Christian burial to unbaptized people; I don't know. Have you any sources on this that led you to conclude "far from it"?

- - -

Great reflections, JB!

quote:

Basically, we have these arguments: Do we really want to go there? Isn't this the safer route for humankind? Shall we open this Pandora's Box? If we dehumanize here then we'll depersonalize there. Let's draw these ostensibly arbitrary lines together and that will make it more universally compelling because trying to reconcile mutually unintelligible and incommensurable systems with their disparate terms and categories is a doomed enterprise from the outset.

Good approach, but doomed to failure, imo, when you have a lucrative industry such as abortion providers joined with women's-rights groups like NOW and an entire political party unwilling to stand up to them. The discussion is biased from the start, but your suggestion would be a good way for a rational and moral society to proceed.

quote:

And there does seem to be fairly widespread convergence of moral sensibilities and reasonings regarding the moral status of the embryo at various stages of development.

Well, AT LAST! Thank you! I've been saying that how many times?

quote:

Our task, in my view, is to strive to enhance protection and to thus raise this status to the highest level politically possible at the earliest stages politically possible, such that depersonalizing conversations become moot, such that dehumanizing conversations become rare.

That's a real challenge, as such stage for some politicians goes as far as the 9th month and allows for dispicable practices like partial-birth abortions.

I'm sticking to the affirmation that from the embryo on, we have a human life whose entelechy is the fullness of personhood and destiny with God in eternity. That constitutes a "moral object" deserving the the same rights and protections that born babies and adults have. I'm uncompromising on this point as nothing else makes sense to me, and so I am one of those who insist that this be considered in discussion abortion policy. If we're not honest about what we're doing -- what's actually taking place, here -- we cannot make good moral and political decisions about how we ought to deal with the wide range of issues involved. This ought to include consideration of how women and culture have been adversely affected by over three decades of permissive laws.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] HP, the "Rite of Christian burial" is a Catholic practice and it is not extended to the unbaptized. Maybe other Christian traditions give some kind of Christian burial to unbaptized people; I don't know. Have you any sources on this that led you to conclude "far from it"?[/qb]

I am very familiar with the practices of the Norwegian Lutheran Church -- which is a state church. And I have never heard of them denying the rite of Christian burial to anyone, nor denying someone burial in sanctified ground.

At least not in modern times.