The Abortion Language Wars
Three times now, fellow contributor to Vox Nova Sam Rocha has posted on the language surrounding the abortion debate, following my post, ‘Words Do Matter’. To recap, that post was an attempt to respond to the polemical assaults on the pro-life movement from certain elements in the pro-choice movement. Briefly, they argued that the words of our movement were as responsible for the death of late-term abortionist George Tiller as the bullets that actually ended his life.
Sam argues that we cannot assume that truth is inherent in the words we use. This may be true, but here on Vox Nova, I am unaware of any other way of conveying things that I believe and/or know to be true other than through the medium of written communication. I get the sense that Sam is uncomfortable with people such as myself making truth claims.
Sam says in his latest post,
If it were only a matter of using factual information, language, images, and so on, then, telling the truth would be quite simple and we would have very little to talk about.
Perhaps it was never clear before to Sam, and to others, that the fundamental values we hold often come prior to the facts; they are often subjective. When I make an argument against abortion, an argument based upon the true facts, I am appealing only to those who value human life in all stages of development – or those who have the potential to share that value. Graphic language and graphic images serve a useful purpose in that they hit those who are waffling, who are on the fence, rather hard. But do they transform fundamental values? I hope so, but I don’t count on it.
Here I must note, however, that even if it is not ‘only a matter’ – that is to say, even if it is not sufficient to use factual information – it is necessary to do so. It is a pre-requisite. Necessary, but not always sufficient. Why can’t this simply be acknowledged? Or are we to understand that facts and true depictions of abortion are just optional? I suppose we could say that if the sanctity of life is a fundamental value, the facts matter little. I myself am no abortion expert; I know as much as I think I need to know, but it is the value I place on life that guides my considerations.
But in this great journey of life, many are only somewhat clear, if at all, on their values, on where they stand on the fundamental issues of our day. A ‘brute’ presentation of the facts, a harsh reminder from outside of one’s own limited consciousness, is often necessary to help them come along. In the end, one may or may not value human life; but if one is ambivalent or even supportive of abortion on the assumption that the unborn child is not really a human being, then there is no doubt that the words and images we use can only serve to disrupt that position.
Sam then says,
if we desire to bring about beliefs that are rooted in the truth, then, we must do more than use words that we regard as having a single, absolute meaning
If anyone is unclear as to the meaning of a word I or anyone else is using, they need only ask for clarification. For instance, ‘murder’. It is an easy way of saying, ‘the deliberate killing of an innocent human being’. Is there some other word we ought to use to convey that?
The only possible objection to the use of this word is that the ‘thing’ being killed isn’t really a human being. It is some sort of pre-human, non-human, ‘clump of cells’ with no inherent right to live. Well naturally I expect that from someone who calls themselves pro-choice; but here, I thought I was dealing with people who are pro-life, who take as a given that the unborn human being is as human, and possesses the same rights, as anyone else.
Those who share that position should know that there is no point in opposing abortion at all if it isn’t murder. And anyone who did so in the past, that is, on the assumption that abortion really wasn’t murder, probably really was trying to preserve a ‘patriarchal’ society or whatever it is the feminists alleged are the ‘real’ anti-woman motives of the pro-life movement. Well, as I see it, that isn’t a legitimate reason to oppose abortion. Either the unborn human being has human rights or it does not. Either a violation of its right to life is murder, or it is not. And if it does not, and if it is not, then we ought to have free abortion on demand now, tomorrow, and forever.
Sam goes on to admit that “abortion is, as a matter of medical fact, murder” and that the argument establishing it is “sensible”. But still, we are missing something:
What is ignored by this sensible argument is that, to those who advocate for it, abortion is not murder. In fact, abortion advocates see it as an affirmation of the dignity of woman. Many of them volunteer and organize to preserve the right to abortion out of the belief that those who say that “Abortion is baby killing, period!” are in fact trying to subvert women.
I don’t know who ignores all of this, but it isn’t me. I was once in that movement, not exactly abortion advocacy, but far enough on the left to bump shoulders with enough people engaged in that sort of thing.
In the way they see it, we are trying to ‘subvert women’ by taking away a choice from them we don’t believe they have a right to make. It is more than likely true that without abortion, there are many young women who might not make it through college, or through a career track. There may be siblings in crowded poor families who lose their opportunity to do the same because meager resources are spread among greater numbers of children. Abortion certainly has made certain aspects of life easier for certain demographics, men and women alike, from one point of view.
What we believe is that the life of an innocent child is more important than the educational or career plans of its mother or its siblings (it is not strictly a female issue, as you can see, as male siblings and fathers also have a stake in the issue). We can only settle this question by settling the question of whether or not it is ok to kill the living being in the womb. One pro-life writer put it best, and I paraphrase Gregory Koukl: if abortion is not murder, then no reason is required for it. If abortion is murder, then no reason is adequate for it.
Sam tells us about his friend and his daughter:
“Do you have a daughter?” I admitted that I did not. He went on to say, “Until you have a daughter, you won’t understand.”
I have known many people who make this argument – “until you are such and such, you will never understand this issue”. It is complete nonsense, and no other complete breakdown of reason has the potential to annoy me as much as this.
What this man, and so many others, are essentially arguing, is that our concern as fathers would be so overriding that any of the objective moral and ethical considerations we are making here are practically useless. Why have laws about anything, then? And why isn’t this discussion just as valid:
“Are you an Aryan superman?”
“No, I’m not”.
“Then you can’t know what it is like to have to share a planet with all of these untermenschen, particularly the Jews.”
If only we could feel his pain!
Back to Sam:
But the greater point would be that his belief would stay the same, or become even more convinced that those people who think he is an advocate of murder, among other things, are crazy. And his belief, while wrong in many ways, would be rooted in truth, real truth.
You can’t satisfy everyone all of the time. If this man really believes that the love of his daughter is at stake in his position over abortion, why would you even try to argue with him in the first place? Such an irrational position cannot be reasoned with, anymore than that of my hypothetical Aryan superman, or a Southern plantation owner convinced, deeply, of the inferiority of the black man.
The truth of abortion does not appeal to everyone. If this man could look at the bloody, mangled corpses of human beings and not be moved an inch, but instead think that you were the crazy one for even caring about such things, then why would we want him as an ally anyway? Southerners could see for themselves that free black men who made it North could educate themselves, live and work as well as any white man; but did that matter, with all that was at stake for them? Of course not.
As far as I am concerned, we only need a majority, not unanimous consent. The solution to pro-abortion fanaticism is not to convert the pro-abortion fanatics, but to outnumber them and make them politically irrelevant. From that standpoint, our words and images are and will continue to be a success, though there is still a very long way to go – I am often dismayed by the false optimism of pro-lifers whenever a new poll comes out.
And please don’t read this as an argument that they are beyond salvation. I am speaking of the political level; I still believe that, having souls and free will and a conscience, they can change their hearts. What I am saying is that our strategy need not depend upon it, and that my priority is to stop the killing, not convince the killers that they are really killing.
To close this out:
You see, my friend can only begin to have a frank and direct conversation with me when he believes that I truly want the best for women, for his daughter.
Sam, I hate to say it, but your friend is morally stunted. To say exactly what you said here is the same as saying that your friend will only have a frank discussion with you when you believe what he believes. Why can’t the conditions for a discussion be him wanting what is best for fragile human life in the womb?
In the end, Sam, I think you and I have different objectives, and hence, different approaches. You want to get committed supporters of abortion to see that you don’t hate women and to listen to your point of view. I want to make those same people politically irrelevant.
Comments are closed.
Sure, go a head and make them politically irrelevant. I pray you never have to actually minister to a woman or her family. Then the affective element you are relying on in your rhetoric, or truth-speaking as you name it, will be hard pressed. I bet you won’t be able to say in the face of Sam’s friend he is morally stunted.
Good Luck
Is there some part of my argument you actually have a problem with?
Yes, that argument and politics is not life. For as much as I despise Pragmatic Theology for what it has done to Non-Violent expressions of Christianity, it has a point: Ideas and their effects are always confounded by the way the world really works. Argue about Truth all you want, but outside the blog are real people, real experiences, all of which make the right term or reasoned argument seem…well Ivory Tower-ish.
Get your hands dirty in a parish, or an adoption agency, or counseling real women considering abortion and come back to us with how your “truth language” worked out.
Also, I notice you have no sense of the Affective character of language. It language were as “truthful” as you seem to think, misunderstanding would not be a problem. Read Augustine’s De Doctrina and I think you will see that words are merely “Truth-Like” not truth.
Joe, My work and vocation has been working with the pain of men and women who have been forced into a sense of being irrelevant. What I see everyday in my work is the effect of an absence of love and consequently an absence of a sense of value as a human being. This absence is experienced consciously the first time the child experiences a lack of love being expressed by a narcissistic parent who demands that the child meet the need of the parent and become something other than what the child is.
The vulnerable self will then go into hiding and attempt to conform to the demands of the narcissistic parent as an attempt to gain a sense of belonging. That is the nonviolent seed of abortion. However, within the child suffering this type of oppression and dehumanization there is a fear that others will see the nothingness that she or he is and will face further rejection and dehumanization.
This then becomes the foundation of human interaction.
This adult child then forms relationships with others who unconsciously resonate with this underlying nothingness. On the pro-choice side and on the pro-life side these human beings exist and each side guards their vulnerable heart with a rage against anyone who disagrees with their truth.
A person must be prepared for the truth through love that speaks to the pain present in the heart that is protected by the rage of being dehumanized.
Once a person begins to heal from that core wound that person will begin to feel the grief for the child that she lost when she was lost.
That I know to be true.
One last thought. As a father of an adult daughter I would do anything and give up anything to help my daughter keep her child. I would sell my home and live on the street if need be.
Fathers give their children the sense of safety and mothers give their children the sense that they are loveable. A mother must feel safe with the father in order to give their children the love they need.
So Josh,
Your problem with my argument is that it is an argument.
Is there something I said that you think is untrue, something false, something that requires correction?
As for your assumptions about what I have and haven’t done in life, I won’t dignify it with a response, except to say that I am aware of the requirements of civility and tact.
Excuse me: “Is there some part of my argument you actually have a problem with?” Where was the requirements of civility and tact there? What is more, how does calling “murderer” into a woman’s face tactful or even moral?
What I have a problem with is “well reasoned” argument that is too easily divorced from the people it affects. Apparently the problem here is that my statements are not sufficiently divorced from life as you would like them to be. So why not be more dismissive?
What I have challenged as “untrue” is clear at the end: Language, as signs, are not Truth. How do you deal with that in your argument? Also, I think your argument collapses Augustine’s City of God and City of Man. So what if you make the minority politically irrelevant? Have you won then? No, you have only done part of the work, namely the political work. As citizens of the City of God, we have a spiritual, and even greater moral requirement to minister to the people your well reasoned argument has dismissed.
Jesus is the Word of the Father
Well, since you don’t believe language is truth, I suppose the truth is whatever you feel it is, right? For instance, I never said that I did, or advocated, ‘calling murderer into a woman’s face’, nor did I say it was ‘tactful or even moral’ – but it didn’t stop you from claiming that I did.
I mean, did you really think that because a) I believe abortion is murder and b) I said I am aware of the requirements of civility and tact that c) I therefore believe that it is moral and tactful to scream ‘murderer’ in a woman’s face? That’s just ridiculous, Josh.
As for all of this nonsense about “language” not being truth, you tell me – how the hell are we supposed to know anything or convey that knowledge to others? I have absolutely had it with this nonsensical discussion.
Yes, I am aware that winning the political battle is only ‘part of the work’, that there is more to be done, and I have said so on many occasions. It seems to me though that this is a ‘part of the work’ that some people don’t even want to bother with.
The political is all the more important now that we are being singled out as potential terrorists, that our speech is being called ‘hate speech’ – if we lose our right to speak THE TRUTH then there is no point to the rest of it. Our political right to free speech isn’t sufficient but it is a necessary condition of the work we do.
So we have to defend our speech, and we have to defend it especially on the grounds that the things that we say are true, not propaganda, not lies, but true. Otherwise our right to say it is meaningless. I won’t fight for the right to tell lies, would you?
Those who share that position should know that there is no point in opposing abortion at all if it isn’t murder.
And yet (as I have pointed out each time this comes up) Orthodox Jews do not consider abortion to be murder, yet they have strict limitations governing when abortion is allowed. You indicated you would be willing to join forces with Orthodox Jews to legally ban the 99% of abortions you could both agree should not be permitted. But then you would look for some other way to ban the 1% of abortions Orthodox Jews would permit. Why in the world should they make themselves your allies under the circumstances?
Joe,
1) Show me where I identified YOU, Joe Hargrave as the one calling out murderer in this quote. Accusing me of that is equally ridiculous, Joe.
2) There are terrorist cells within the Pro-Life movement. Deal with it, condemn it. If truth is truth (and I say it is) then the label of murderer has to be applied to both.
Now as to the Language and Truth, and the part which you continue to dismiss. Language is utilitarian, meaning it is used to convey our ideas, even the truth which has been revealed to us. In De Doctrina Augustine wrestles with this in terms of naming God, what I would say is the Ultimate Truth. In Book I he says “If they do not believe in a single god of gods, but rather in many gods, or gods without number, all of them having equal status, then for those too they FORM MENTAL PICTURES which corresponds to their various ideas of bodily existence.” And later, “When we speak, the word which we hold in our mind becomes a sound in order that what we have in our mind may pass through ears of flesh into the listener’s mind: this is called speech. Our thought, however, is not converted into the same sound, but remains intact in its own home.” The point is simple, if the material word, written or spoken, is the Truth. Its an idol.
Murder is an adequate term for abortion. No argument there. What I think is problematic, and what you and I continue to butt heads on is the ends to which this language is implemented. My position is that if its implementation is used simply for the political gain of overturning Roe without attention to the women and men this affects, it is no longer an adequate term for the work and must be abandoned for better language. What is more, if the language used insights terrorist acts which contradict the values of a Culture of Life then it should jettisoned without impunity.
Joe,
Once again, a job well done! Your reasoning is solid. You bring up another point that I had not adequately considered. Many, especially here, agree that the wider, multifaceted battle for hearts and minds is essential for the ultimate conquest over abortion. That is something most posts around here have stressed. But in actuality, I’ve come to think that this can often serve as a red-herring: a kind of quiet assurance that we need to do way more than the political battle, so in effect it translates into a demotivation to do anything in the legal battle of inches. Meanwhile, while we constantly stress the war and deemphasize the the importance of the battles (as if everyone who fought them mistook them for the WHOLE of the issue- a fallacy), children are dying.
I haven’t stopped thinking that the battle for intellectual and moral conversions is necessary for the ultimate victory; but I’ve grown farrrrr more enlightened about just how difficult that process will be. It includes a complicated web of philosophical and moral presuppositions, the fabric of an entire world-view, that has been taking shape for hundreds of years. To truly win hearts and minds, being compassionate, convincing people that we don’t hate women and we care for the children when they are actually born, etc. all of that is necessary but not nearly sufficient. In truth I think it will take a relentless challenge to all of the presuppositions that have shaped the modern world-view, and that will mean intellectual victories over generations, which will (with concerted effort) become incarnated in social and cultural forms, and thus shape a modified world view: one in which telling pro-choicers that we care for women will be come really comprehensible to them; in showing them the truth of the infanticide will become an intellectually conceivable possibility for them.
But I’ve come to think that assuming we can do this kind of work in the short term, while somehow diverting energy away from the political front (as if one had to choose between them) is a mistake. Assuming that we can truly change hearts in minds just through action, without concern for the theory underlying modern practice, and all the presuppositions that go into how the Pro-Choice position is conceived; that is a mistake. So in all honesty, we simply will save more lives by fighting for inches, and not JUST trying to convince everyone. I think your last paragraph sums that up well. Though I think the major point is: to conceive of a dichotomy here is wrong. There need not be one.
Josh and others,
I think important distinctions are not being made here. First of all, what Joe seems not to be advocating is an account of prudence that would require us to scream “baby killer” at a poor woman contemplating an abortion in desperation, or Sam’s friend, etc. In some cases, that simply would not be prudent.
What is implied in his post is that however we proceed in our advocacy and dialogue, prudence certainly does NOT dictate that we abandon the truth and the reasoning. While not imposing a vision of how to deal with every situation, he is offering a very important guideline. Whatever shape real dialogue takes, it cannot take the form of abandoning the plain and simple honest truth. No amount of equivocation about what words actually mean and how they mean can alter this.
This attack on argument and reasoning in the name of “real life” is nonsense. We can make a very simple distinction: to talk about the truth and arguments about the nature of abortion is one act; to talk about the effect is has on emotions, how best to communicate that truth in different situations, and the effects that emotion/ignorance has on culpability, etc. is a different act. Why conflate the two? Why impose upon Joe the expectations for something he is not engaging in?
Just come up with a response to his Nazi analogy, and you will likely find yourself appealing to an important distinction like this one.
Pax Christi,
If abortion is murder, and in fact a particularly heinous form of murder (cold blooded, unarguably premeditated, infanticide), if it is criminalized, shouldn’t it be classified as first- or second-degree murder and punished accordingly? Shouldn’t a woman who has an abortion be treated the same as a mother who hires a hit man to kill one or more of her children? Among those who hold out hope of criminalizing abortion in the United States, does anyone expect (or even want) that?
Also: if were are meant to change or abandon the language like “murder” we are using when it seems to be failing to achieve its end of conversion (since, one assumes, the value of the language is in its utility), let me ask this:
How on earth could describing the act as anything less-offensive than “murder” actually contribute any better to the end of changing hearts and minds??? If we agreed to stop referring to genocide as genocide because it was just driving a wedge, and we started using something more accommodating: would we really expect the people supporting genocide to do anything but become MORE entrenched in their delusions??? That would be to concede the moral ground. Why then change one’s mind?
The value of language and truth does not just lie in its utility.
That is a remarkably dangerous and imprudent assumption. In my mind, that is going to do FAR worse than the language of “murder” ever could.
Pax Christi,
. . . that will mean intellectual victories over generations . . .
X-Cathedra,
I don’t think it is wild speculation at all to presume that within a few generations, medical technology will develop to the point where an infant in the womb — at any stage of development — can be transferred to an artificial environment and brought to term. If so, this will do away with the concept of viability and mean that even a first-trimester fetus are viable.
The demonization of Dr. Tiller for performing late-term abortions, which according to Catholic thought would seem to be no more immoral than early abortions, seems to me to be contributing to the idea that some abortions are more acceptable than others — an idea one wouldn’t expect to come from the pro-life movement. But it seems to me that some day in the future, an infant aborted at any stage could be saved, and it is difficult to believe that won’t have some impact on the abortion debate.
if were are meant to change or abandon the language like “murder”
Actually, if I am remembering correctly, when abortion was still illegal everywhere in the United States, abortion was an even uglier and more powerful word than murder.
David,
Those are tough questions. At first glance it would seem I have no choice but to agree that women who get abortions ought to be arrested and tried for murder.
But I don’t think that is a sensible policy and I don’t think it is required to attain our true goal; to stop the killing. I am not unaware or insensitive to the fact that, thanks to the ceaseless propaganda of the pro-choice movement, millions of women believe it is ok to kill their unborn children.
So I am willing to say that we ought to limit criminal prosecution to the abortionists and their financial enablers, at least for a time after abortion is criminalized. You can’t go from a culture of death to a culture of life overnight, and you can’t legislate one into existence. Even so, a just society must have legal protections for all human life.
This would make abortions difficult to obtain, and more importantly, it would establish a precedent that would protect all other ‘unwanted’ groups in the future, such as the elderly, the sick, the mentally handicapped, etc.
In the meantime I do not oppose more financial support for pregnant women, and I believe we ought to do a better job of seeing that the rights of female workers are protected, that their jobs will not be jeopardized because of a pregnancy, etc.
Those are tough questions. At first glance it would seem I have no choice but to agree that women who get abortions ought to be arrested and tried for murder.
Joe,
As I have pointed out before, only five countries — all of them Catholic — ban abortion totally. I am unable to find out exactly what the law is in the Vatican, but in the other four (Chile, El Salvador, Chile, and Malta), the both the abortionist and the woman who procures an abortion are punished with prison terms.
I am not unaware or insensitive to the fact that, thanks to the ceaseless propaganda of the pro-choice movement, millions of women believe it is ok to kill their unborn children.
And what could be more educational than prison terms for women who procure abortions? From your perspective, an abortionist is a hired killer. It strikes me as simply unjust to punish the hit man and let the person who hired him get off scot-free. How about a law that mandates, say, a three-year prison term for the woman who procures an abortion, but gives the judge or jury complete authority to substitute three years’ probation if they determine the woman acted out of ignorance.
It seems to me that if you don’t impose at least some penalty on the women who procure abortions, you are being grossly inconsistent. There has to be something, if only probation and counseling (“reeducation”).
What could be more educational? Are you serious?
What’s strange about this is that you don’t really believe this, at least, I don’t think you do. Why do you keep pushing me to agree with it?
You’re pro-life, aren’t you? I’m trying to sort this out. Do you believe abortion is murder? If so, why are you making this facetious argument? If not, why aren’t we discussing that instead?
In any case, my priority is not education. It is to stop the killing. I believe I’ve said that quite a few times now. Shutting down the abortion mills and prosecuting abortionists will go a long way towards doing that.
Attempt to arrest and prosecute millions of mislead women, and the men who serve as their accomplices, I should not have to say – but I suppose I will, for the sake of this silly argument – would be a logistical nightmare and a social disaster.
If I don’t support the deportation of 15 million Mexican immigrants, I’m sure as hell not going to support the kind of police state it would require to arrest, convict and imprison tens of millions of men and women for seeking the services of an abortionist.
If and when we have a culture of life, firmly established and accepted by the majority, then and only then would it be possible to consider such prosecutions.
If that makes me ‘hypocritical’ or some other word in your eyes, I couldn’t care less. I would rather face the nitpicking of a few naysayers than throw both pro-life principles and sanity overboard for the sake of 100% purism. The important thing is to stop the killing, not to punish every person who thought to hire a person to do some killing. If that’s not enough, then I’ll take it up with God in the next life.
Joe,
I think you make an important and common sense set of points here. I’m not sure why some people think the conversation needs to suddenly become a paralyzing discussion of epistomology (not an unworthy field, but not every conversation must shut down while people assure themselves that words are an imperfect means of conveying meaning from one mind to another) or that “real life” should be a realm untouched by difficult truths.
It’s a sad thing when Catholics use the semblance of the persuit of truth to obscure truth itself, and indeed to absolve themselves of any need of dealing with the truth.
Is it just me, or has the vibe become increasingly weird around here?
For instance, ‘murder’. It is an easy way of saying, ‘the deliberate killing of an innocent human being’.
It seems you think so. My understanding that the defintion of ‘murder’ is the criminal and deliberate killing of an innocent human being. However, under yoru definition, most warfare killing is murder.
David correctly notes that abortion has never in the history of this country (and never in any criminal code as far as I know) been defined as murder.
Joe responds “Those are tough questions.”
Well, Joe, it is not a tough question if one accepts your position. It is a simple question. If you accept it as a tough question, you have made the case that extremist rhetoric is not essential.
Is it just me, or has the vibe become increasingly weird around here
No, things were always weird here, the only thing that has substantially changed is the anti-anti-abortion talking points.
Joe: Thanks for this thoughtful reply. I hope you don’t feel like I was baiting you with my repeated posts. As you know (and pointed out to me) I struggle to make my ideas clear, so, the repetitions were just a sign of my own limitations in communication—limits that you clearly don’t have (I really mean that).
Having said that, I am pretty sure I only wrote two, not three, posts following your own. Although I did cite another, older post (Taking Language at its Word?).
I appreciate the careful points you raise in the beginning and feel that it shows my own blindness to our convergences; sorry about that. As you know, we have serious differences that become quite striking to me in the end.
I am glad that you have make our positions clear here and would like to say something, as briefly as I can, about why I think your political stance verges on utilitarian but may have the trappings of what I seem to want it to have—indeed, think it must have—in the end.
There are two conflicting notions you bring up. One, as a primary objective and the other as a clarification of what the first one is not intended to do. Herein lies my problem.
You wrote: “As far as I am concerned, we only need a majority, not unanimous consent. The solution to pro-abortion fanaticism is not to convert the pro-abortion fanatics, but to outnumber them and make them politically irrelevant.”
And, then, you ask us: “please don’t read this as an argument that they are beyond salvation. I am speaking of the political level; I still believe that, having souls and free will and a conscience, they can change their hearts.”
As I see it, any approach that depends on democracy, majority-rule, or politics in general, to achieve a culture of life will fail. Not for lack of good sense or goodwill, but because at the very heart of cultural change is a change of the heart: conversion.
This is why, in the second quote, you redeem yourself. If you believe that people can change their hearts—if you have hope, in other words—then you cannot possibly see them as irrelevant. I know you try to use that term politically and not spiritually or otherwise, but—and here is my point—we cannot parse out the world into realms of politics and other, separate realms of salvation. The economy of salvation is everpresent and is the only reason to build a culture of life. And I do mean “only.”
You see, murder is not the reason to end abortion. Again, please read me carefully here: Murder doesn’t simply mean taking innocent life willingly or alike. It means a grave offense against the imagus Dei. It is an offense against God, first and foremost. Being such, we cannot simply want to end abortion like a secular humanist or an atheist (yes, I know there are many of them out there who want to end abortion), we must present the distinctly Catholic, Gospel of Life as an alternative.
Such a Gospel requires that we seek conversion at all times, even when those times are embroiled in politics.
I should add that you are a real testimony to me of the consistency that the Gospel of Life requires. Your basic stance on life is on the mark across the board, as I have seen it. I think that you should also add to this brilliance the goal of conversion into your political stance and we could work together.
Even if we cannot directly, I see this very dialogue as productive in that it puts on display the fact that we can dialogue with each other in charity.
Peace.
What could be more educational? Are you serious?
Joe,
I have been in many discussions of abortion and the law, and it is frequently pointed out that there are two views of the purpose of law — the law as teacher, and the law as keeper of order. The pro-life movement puts a heavy emphasis on the law as teacher. Pro-lifers frequently order that as a matter of justice, abortion must be against the law, even if that has no impact on the number of abortions. You, apparently, are taking a different view — that the law should be used not as a teacher, but primarily as a tool to reduce abortion. If I am correct, this is a view I can respect. But for those who believe in the law as teacher, criminalizing abortion by placing penalties on the abortionist sends the message that it is wrong to perform abortions, but not wrong to procure them.
I’m sure as hell not going to support the kind of police state it would require to arrest, convict and imprison tens of millions of men and women for seeking the services of an abortionist.
Well, it’s not tens of millions. It’s about 1.3 million a year. And I asked about probation and suspended sentences and counseling as alternatives to incarceration. There is also the option of making women who procure abortions criminally liable, but in practice not attempting to prosecute them.
If that makes me ‘hypocritical’ or some other word in your eyes, I couldn’t care less. I would rather face the nitpicking of a few naysayers than throw both pro-life principles and sanity overboard for the sake of 100% purism.
I have never used the word hypocritical here. I would say grossly inconsistent. In the name of truth, you insist on calling abortion murder, mass murder, butchery, and so on. You even acknowledge, “At first glance it would seem I have no choice but to agree that women who get abortions ought to be arrested and tried for murder.” It seems to me part of your approach to the whole issue is to try to persuade us that some people are thinking too deeply, and that we should take what we see “at first glance” as the obvious truth. But on this one issue of holding women legally accountable for what you seem to admit are crimes, you shrink from what seems to me to be the plain truth if your claim that abortion is murder is true. And that is that women who procure abortions are culpable. It seems to me that you and the pro-life movement in general suffer from a failure of nerve in your campaign of speaking the truth. If abortion is murder, women who obtain abortions are murderers.
As gets pointed out periodically, the Catholic Church excommunicates women who procure abortions. It does not say, “These poor victims are dupes of the culture and the abortion industry.” I would not argue that civil law should match canon law, but I would say that for those who hammer away, as you do, on the alleged fact that abortion is murder, I am utterly bewildered by your unwillingness to say that women who procure abortions are guilty of murder.
By the way, isn’t it more than a bit condescending to claim that women really don’t know what they are doing when they obtain an abortion? It is not as if the pro-life viewpoint goes unheard. Do you really suppose that any woman who procures an abortion in the United States doesn’t know that the Catholic Church opposes abortion and that the pro-life movement says it’s murder? Do you think women are that oblivious or dull?
For once, I agree with David Nickol, although I suspect he’s only making the argument in order to bait those of us opposed to abortion.
So, to the question of prosecuting those involved in abortion, here’s what I would do: For those who perform abortions, immediate prosecution. For those who procure or abet abortion – including pregnant women themselves – leniency in the first instance, prosecution in subsequent instances. David is right. A legal regime that outlawed abortion would have to make it a crime to procure one for oneself.
Let the crocodile tears – and the moral infantilization of women – begin!
David,
Everytime Joe responds thoughtfullly and convincingly to a point you make, you change the argument. It seems that you are not at all interested in coming to any sort of resolution or learning the truth, but instead you engage continually in a tactic of distraction whereby you come up with new irelevant claims that have nothing to do with points you might have previously made.
Joe, and many many others clearly believe that abortion is murder. He and others place a high vaule on human life and the rule of law, so they think that the killing of Dr. TIller was murder as well. He and others like him place a high value on the lives of women who have abortions and believe that the circumstances of their crime involves mitigating circumstances and they they should not be imprisoned for life or killed. He beleives this because he values life and understands his duty to defend it.
Just because you are too cold hearted to understand pro-life views does not mean they are logically inconsistent or irrational.
You are the one who says that a lot of embryos die anyway so it is okay to kill them. You are the one who sees some sort of inconsistency in offering mercy and reconcilliation to a murderer instead of executing him.
You are the one looking for reasons why it is okay to kill people, while Joe is looking for reasons to defend their lives.
In accusing Joe of being inconsistent, you reveal yourself as an advocate for death. Why do you work so hard to justify killing?
For once, I agree with David Nickol, although I suspect he’s only making the argument in order to bait those of us opposed to abortion.
Mark,
I wouldn’t say “bait.” It simply bothers me no end that people who argue for the criminalization of abortion and who cry murder so loudly don’t want to acknowledge the only logical conclusion of their position — that if abortionists are murderers, women who procure abortions, under our legal system, are accomplices and are just as guilty as the abortionists. Add that to the fact that the Catholic Church excommunicates women who procure abortions, and it drives me doubly crazy to see Catholics calling them victims. How can Catholics argue that women who procure abortions are not guilty when the Church excommunicates them? It is one thing to argue that it wouldn’t fly politically, and the best route to outlawing abortion is to go after abortionists and let the women be. But the argument from pro-lifers is usually not a pragmatic one. It’s that women who procure abortions are duped by the abortion industry and the pro-choice movement and don’t really understand what they are doing.
Really?
“So, to the question of prosecuting those involved in abortion, here’s what I would do: For those who perform abortions, immediate prosecution. For those who procure or abet abortion – including pregnant women themselves – leniency in the first instance, prosecution in subsequent instances.”
How about the men who have fathered these children and leave women with, if not force, the decision? I can see such a structure too easily following the prosecution of rape where the burden of proof is disproportionately placed on the woman.
And even more:
“It’s that women who procure abortions are duped by the abortion industry and the pro-choice movement and don’t really understand what they are doing.”
This has to be the most misogynistic discussion to date. Note that few, if any, women are engaged in it or even advocating for criminalization. Its one place where the “pro-choice” rhetoric has some basis in truth- again the decisions regarding sex and reproduction are made by men with no regard to EVERYONE involved.
David,
This seems to be a conflation. Do you not acknowledge that the act is murder? If not, then I suppose that is for another discussion. But the point here is that if one’s position implies that it is murder it does not necessarily entail that it is prudent to prosecute the women involved in the same way we would prosecute a woman who hired a hitman to kill her child.
Mitigating circumstances are always relevant to the guilt and punishment, though not relevant to the object nature of the act in the same way. It need not change the fact that objectively women murder their children and this is a heinous, objectively evil thing. But it is a separate question to discuss and weigh mitigating circumstances.
It may be that those circumstances are not enough to keep the state from being just in locking up these women. However, it may very well be and seems to me that they are.
There need not be any inconsistency here.
Pax Christi,
Everytime Joe responds thoughtfullly and convincingly to a point you make, you change the argument. It seems that you are not at all interested in coming to any sort of resolution or learning the truth . . . Just because you are too cold hearted to understand pro-life views does not mean they are logically inconsistent or irrational. . . .You are the one who says that a lot of embryos die anyway so it is okay to kill them. You are the one who sees some sort of inconsistency in offering mercy and reconcilliation to a murderer instead of executing him. . . . .You are the one looking for reasons why it is okay to kill people, while Joe is looking for reasons to defend their lives. . . . . In accusing Joe of being inconsistent, you reveal yourself as an advocate for death. Why do you work so hard to justify killing?
ben,
Isn’t this what’s called an ad hominem argument? Or maybe a personal attack? If you want to discuss any of my ideas, I’d be more than happy to respond. But I don’t know that my alleged cold heartedness is an appropriate topic to discuss on Vox Nova.
If my responses to Joe are inappropriate, he can ask me to stop responding to him (and I will), ignore me, or delete my messages.
Josh,
Again, I fail to see how the charge of misogyny actually cashes out here. What relevant moral conclusions about the nature of abortion would women come to in virtue of their sex that the men discussing it here are simply blind to? If a member of the fairer sex were to chime in and stress how difficult it is for so many women to deal with, etc. would that change what is actually taking place during an abortion?
Frankly, if you can understand what happens, even in and through a woman’s body, when a very young member of the human species is butchered, then that seems sufficient enough to draw at least some conclusions about it and its immorality.
See Joe’s Nazi analogy above; or another: just because there are no rich white southern plantation owners from the 19th century here, does that render us ill equipped to make conclusions about the morality of American slavery?
The burden of proof lies with those who make such charges.
And even more frankly, what about the very young male children who are killed when abortions take place? Do they count as some of the “everyone” involved in the issue? Should we perhaps be explaining to pro-choicers that they simply do not know what it’s like to be a boy aborted in the womb? Are not these pro-choice supporters doing the same thing you charge us of?
Pax Christi,
“It’s that women who procure abortions are duped by the abortion industry and the pro-choice movement and don’t really understand what they are doing.”
This has to be the most misogynistic discussion to date.
Do you think the abortionists are in the habit of telling the parents that the fetus is a distinct human life, separate from the woman? When we got the pitch back in high-school we were told the fetus is a lump of tissue. Even recently here on the combo-boxes, Dave Nichols stated that he thought the fetus was ‘human like my kidneys are human’. These are blatantly false statements.
Furthermore, Planned Parenthood advocates what they would call a ‘values neutral’ view of human sexuality. Couples who go to Planned Parenthood are not going to hear that sex is a wonderful gift from god that bonds the spouses together in a spiritual union that has the natural purpose of creating children. Couples who go to Planned Parenthood are going to hear that if it feels good, it is ok, just make sure you get tested and use protection. And get tested again when you switch partners. And if for some reason, you *happen* to get pregnant from having sex, come back and see us.
Think back on your personal relationships and let us know which view is closest to the truth of the human condition?
The slavery analogy is fine. Look at who was “making the legal decisions”. White men. Plain and simple. It was not until African-American men and women began subverting the structure that things began to really change. I have no faith in a group of exclusionary white men to make an adequate decisions for society.
What is more, the analogy fails in this instance for one reason: Slavery is socially condemned today so our perspective on this is defined not by our faith but by our social location.
This is the 21st century, and rigorous argumentation ought to include the voices of as many as possible. But then again, maybe the accounting for emotions and context (most often brought to the table by feminists) is too sloppy for your “reasoned arguments.”
The irony here, is that for the most part we are all Pro-Life. Yet, the most ridiculous assertions are made regarding one another, let alone the assumptions made in the midst of the discussion.
So let me be crystal clear.
1) I agree abortion is murder
2) American perspectives on sexuality are grossly distorted
yet I also think
3) Criminalization of abortion or sexual behavior will not solve either the problems of 1 or 2.
But the point here is that if one’s position implies that it is murder it does not necessarily entail that it is prudent to prosecute the women involved in the same way we would prosecute a woman who hired a hitman to kill her child.
X-Cathedra,
I am not arguing about people who say it would not be prudent to prosecute a woman who obtains an abortion differently from an abortionists who performs it. I am arguing that if abortion is murder, legally speaking abortionist is a murderer and the woman who procures the abortion, as an accomplice, is guilty to the same degree as the abortionist. But even then I am not arguing that the punishment for both should be equal. I am arguing that it does not make sense to me to punish the abortionist but not to have some penalty against the woman — suspended sentence, probation, community service, counseling, or merely a legal penalty that is rarely if ever enforced. For example, I believe it used to be the case (and probably still is) that prostitutes are arrested and punished, but their customers rarely are.
As I have argued, a law that prohibits only the performing of abortions and not the procuring of them sends the message that it is wrong to perform an abortion but not to have one.
Also, it is not usually the case that decisions about mitigating factors are written into laws. It’s up to the prosecutor to decide if there is a case, and then if that case goes to trial, it’s up to the judge and jury to weigh mitigating factors.
It seems to me the pro-life argument (as presented by Joe Hargrave, at least) is that we must tell the truth that abortion is murder, but we must not treat it legally as murder. Joe has said a number of times that if abortion isn’t murder, there should be no restrictions on it at all. He seems to feel quite strongly that abortion is murder, and yet his prescription is not to treat it legally in the same way as other murders. I simply don’t understand the relentless emphasis on murder, mass murder, butchery, and so on, and then the advocacy of a legal approach that declares all accomplices so free of culpability that there is no penalty for them at all, not even one that is on the books but not enforced.
Josh,
if 2) American perspectives on sexuality are grossly distorted
is true, why do you then call
“It’s that women who procure abortions are duped by the abortion industry and the pro-choice movement and don’t really understand what they are doing.” misogynistic?
Jeremy,
Because it assumes that women don’t understand or are incapable of appreciating the gravity of the act.
I am not sure I follow the link you are trying to make between the two. Do you mind saying some more?
Let me ask a more “theological” question. In the case of a woman who has an abortion- who has sinned?
1) The Doctor
2) The Mother
3) The Father
Why is it not all three?
Take a moment to read John 8. I think the problem in this situation is that the adulterous act, criminalized by Levitical Law, is inappropriately applied. Where is the man? This is what I fear in this discussion. As men, we protect ourselves and assume that the legal structures will be equally applied. But unfortunately, this is not the case.
Even recently here on the combo-boxes, Dave Nichols stated that he thought the fetus was ‘human like my kidneys are human’. These are blatantly false statements.
jeremy,
Please be fair. Here is the question that was put to me along with my response.
You attributed to me, in quotation marks, words I never said. I think everyone will agree that that is unfair. Please never do that again. If you are going to dispute something I said, please quote me accurately.
I did not state anything there that can be called a falsehood. You may disagree with my opinion that only religion can tell us whether a fertilized egg or an embryo is a human person or not, but it is stated as an opinion, not a fact.
jeremy: That was taken out of context.
The reason why men and women do not understand the gravity of the act is because the american perspectives on sexuality are grossly distorted. During high school in the 90′s we were bombarded with the ‘values neutral’ view of sexuality and the propaganda that the fetus was just a lump of tissue – a parasite on the mother. Watching TV, we are bombarded with the message that pretty people have sex all the time with none of the spiritual bonding, break-ups, drama and contraceptive failure that happens in real life.
In that way, we are all duped by the abortion industry and the pro-choice movement who are all fed the individualistic morality that is pushed by the pop-culture of today.
Quite simply, people steeped in that culture are being duped into going against their own life experience and reason. There is nothing misogynistic about it. Welcome to the Hook-up culture, where young people feel more comfortable having sex together that actually having meaningful intimate relationship with a member of the opposite sex.
David Nickol Says June 8, 2009 at 9:21 pm
“And yet (as I have pointed out each time this comes up) Orthodox Jews do not consider abortion to be murder, yet they have strict limitations governing when abortion is allowed. You indicated you would be willing to join forces with Orthodox Jews to legally ban the 99% of abortions you could both agree should not be permitted. But then you would look for some other way to ban the 1% of abortions Orthodox Jews would permit. Why in the world should they make themselves your allies under the circumstances?”
Rabi Jonathan Sacks believes it makes sense for Jews and Catholics to join forces:
“Rabbi Sacks rescued the conversation by stressing that the Jewish position regarding abortion is quite close to the Catholic position. His exposition is worth a detailed summary, as it is a close to an official Orthodox Jewish view as we will hear in the English-speaking world. Only in the case of danger to the life of the mother, and only after extensive investigation by competent Jewish authorities, would Orthodox Judaism ever permit abortion. Abortion on demand is inconceivable. As to the question of where the human person begins, Judaism makes a distinction between human life, which is everywhere and always sacred, and the human person. The mother is a person; the fetus is human life. In the exceptional event of a conflict the person takes precedence. Physis (nature) is gradual, but nomos (law) is discrete. Precisely because we cannot say with precision where life begins we cannot allow that abortion is permissible at any stage of pregnancy. Unlike the Catholic position, which proceeds from natural theology, the Jewish position emerges from the legal consideration of the human person, which requires the community to establish a distinction—and that distinction is the event of birth, the physical separation of the baby from its mother’s body. Rabbi Sacks emphasized that the Jewish and Catholic positions converge on nearly the same result, with the only distinction being abortion to save the mother’s life”.
The threat to the mother’s life is extremely rare [far less than 1%], for all that it is used as an argument by pro-abortion forces.
David,
Sorry, I thought I had got the gist of your comment accurately – you were saying that a fetus is human like your kidneys are human – like a part of the body rather than a person? What am I missing?
I am quite amused at the notion that it is only women who are assumed to ‘not know’ the full truth about abortion.
I always list men along with women because many abortions begin with male encouragement, either in the negative or positive sense. Conspiracy to commit murder is as bad as murder itself. Criminal neglect isn’t far behind.
That being said, this is for David:
It does NOT logically follow that murder must be punished in one and only one way, or that it must be punished at all. If you slay an innocent person and get away with it, it doesn’t mean you haven’t committed murder. It simply means you are not in jail.
I mean, it’s a nice try – I know where you’re trying to put me and the rest of us here. But it isn’t going to work. As Sam has pointed out many times now, there are different degrees of murder. There are different circumstances. A person who truly believes that they are doing no more than disposing of unwanted tissue cannot be held to the same standard as someone who believes they are killing a human being.
I find the leftist pap about this being a refusal to acknowledge the moral responsibility of women to be sheer nonsense. Are these really the same people who went up in arms when the Bush administration didn’t want the American public to see photos of American coffins returning from Iraq? The same people who complain endlessly about the corporate media? (Don’t get me wrong – I wanted those pictures shown, and I despise the corporate media).
What this is about is the vaunted compassion that pro-choicers (mistakenly) believe abortion supposedly shows for poor women in the first place. Believe it or not, my opposition to abortion has nothing to do with ‘putting women in their place’. Nothing would be gained from putting them in jail, society would not be better off for it. If there are some lesser penalties, mandatory education or something along those lines, perhaps.
Again, David, my PRIORITY is to stop the killing, using the means at our disposal to do so. I am not interested in punishment or retribution, or if I am, it is only as an afterthought. It is reasonable to go after the relatively small handful of paid killers called abortionists – it would be one more crime syndicate to deal with on top of the others. It is not reasonable to try and arrest millions of people. And it is not reasonable for you to insist that I have no case and no cause unless I give into the demands of the unreasonable.
From one of my favorite sassy ladies, Camilla Paglia:
“Hence I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue”.
Joe,
I figure amidst our disagreements, I should note agreement.
“Nothing would be gained from putting them in jail, society would not be better off for it.”
Well said.
Sam,
Thanks for your reply.
I don’t typically style myself a utilitarian, but I do try to place my moral priorities in a sensible hierarchy.
I have no problem with trying to convert. Even the original Roe converted through the patient efforts of a Christian family. Now she speaks loudly for the cause of life. Converts often do a better job than people who are born into a movement, since they have more experience with the other side.
But I can’t see it as the primary objective in the fight against abortion. There is a lot of killing going on, and I think it is going to take the criminalization of abortion to bring the majority of it to a stop.
The truth is that I think there are many people who are on the pro-choice side of the equation that can and must be convinced to switch sides – to be converted. The strategy of relying on the GOP is a failure – the goal must be to make abortion an important issue again, and it really isn’t, for the vast majority of Americans. They take a position, sure, but on the hierarchy of priorities it ranks rather low. But those are the easy cases.
Every movement has core cadres around which it revolves. NOW, NARAL, and a few other organizations in the case of the pro-choice movement. They are violently hostile to conversion attempts, and I am convinced nothing will change their minds.
So, while I don’t wish to think like a utilitarian, if I am going to think like a strategist, I have to prioritize my resources and use them where they will do the most good. We have to take the existence of a radical pro-abortion core for granted, and plan our moves around it.
“David Nickol: I don’t know the answer. Of course, I do not deny that a fertilized human egg or a human embryo is human in the sense that a human heart or a human kidney is human. But whether it is a person with rights is a question that can be answered, in my opinion, only by religion. If God creates an immortal soul at the moment of conception, then I would agree that [a] human life, in the fullest sense of the word, begins at conception”.
It being the doctrine of the Catholic Church that a human being begins at the moment of conception, either one accepts it or not. You cannot really argue against a Church doctrine, for it is presented as the word of God.
Contrarily, if you do not accept it, you must present a case arguing that the conceptus is as human as a kidney but not as human as a person. What then is the argument?
Is there a possibility that a kidney can develope into a human person?
An interesting legal matter of the old days. When a queen was pregnant, if the king died, there was much anxiety whether the child would be a boy or girl. If some one killed the child in the womb, and it turned out that it was a boy, the murderer would be chopped up for high treason.
“It being the doctrine of the Catholic Church that a human being begins at the moment of conception, either one accepts it or not. You cannot really argue against a Church doctrine, for it is presented as the word of God.”
If this is true, then, I am a heretic (see: http://vox-nova.com/2009/04/30/abortion-the-cult-of-science-and-the-body/)
Sam Rocha Says June 9, 2009 at 3:42 pm
“It being the doctrine of the Catholic Church that a human being begins at the moment of conception, either one accepts it or not. You cannot really argue against a Church doctrine, for it is presented as the word of God.”
“If this is true, then, I am a heretic (see: http://vox-nova.com/2009/04/30/abortion-the-cult-of-science-and-the-body/)”.
Why then you are a heretic. v. Catechism 2270. Nothing to boast about; it’s a common failing.
[The link you give refers to an article by Fr. Yves Congar on poverty].
Try this one: http://vox-nova.com/2009/04/30/abortion-the-cult-of-science-and-the-body/
David,
I agree with your point about the inconsistency concerning the logic of murder in your last reply to me. On this we agree. Though I didn’t find the kind of reasoning you ascribe to Joe in his post. Perhaps I am missing something, but I didn’t find any inconsistency in his position.
The real point that underlies your reasoning is the quote concerning your position on the nature and value of the conceptus. Here I think the fundamentality of the disagreements lies. Personally, I think you’ve conceded to much to a kind of agnostic understanding of the power of reason. I think if you’ve already conceded that the only source of our knowledge about the value, personhood, and right-to-life of the conceptus is revealed religion, than you’ve already lost any battle for hearts and minds. The position becomes interminable in a way I don’t think that it is, and changing hearts and minds logically necessitates that one believe the revelation that
Now questions of “ensoulment” I think are problematic, because of this metaphysical point: if a distinct living entity of the human species at its earliest stage can manifestly be called living (even in a scientific sense), then qua living the being has a soul and its body has a form. Yet for human beings, the rational soul IS the form of its body: there is not a distinct principle informing its living body (soul) and then on top of it another principle that renders it rational. If it is a corporeal, living entity of the human species, even if its a few cells (for even this implies a body informed by a soul), then this seems to entail that its soul is of a rational nature. And that, traditionally, is what defines a “person,” not simply whether it has developed the proper organs to function rationally. And “individual of a rational nature.”
Now this is Thomas’s reasoning (if I’ve recalled it correctly), yet he also tinkers with ensoulment. I’ve come to think of this as something of a lacuna in him which has not be explained to me. But it seems that if we allow that the conceptus is already a living entity before it receives a rational soul (at some later point), then we necessarily imply that what makes it a living being and what makes it a human being are two distinct principles. There are, in a sense, two souls. This is entirely contrary to Thomas’ reasoning. And this would seem to imply that men and women conceive of beings with souls that are fundamentally not human beings, and later become human beings by receiving a second soul.
That seems far more problematic than if we simply tweak Thomas’ reasoning to account for modern advances in our knowledge of such things. If we have a genetically distinct living entity (= active corporeal being, body and soul) then the principle of its activity (even as a developing patch of cells) is a rational soul.
None of this, of course, will be convincing to those who disregard or have no way of knowing about things like “souls,” “forms,” “natures,” etc. But this would raise a bigger question of whether this kind of reasoning is even tenable anymore. I think it is, mostly because the denial of it leads to more profound philosophical problems.
In short, what if we were forced to conclude that the lump of cells that is genetically distinct entity is human (as I believe you hold), but is thereby, even at that stage, in possession of a rational soul? Would that affect your view of the entity’s personhood?
Pax Christi,
Sorry, I thought I had got the gist of your comment accurately – you were saying that a fetus is human like your kidneys are human – like a part of the body rather than a person? What am I missing?
Jeremy,
I am saying a fertilized egg, or fetus, or embryo is human like a kidney, a part of the body, or a whole body, living or dead. It is of the human species. This is not a controversial statement. But I am stopping short of saying that because, if all goes well, it will someday be a person, it already is a person. As I said, at whatever moment an immortal soul exists (if it does) then it’s a person. I am not denying it is a person, and I am very much inclined to agree that in the later stages of pregnancy, it is a person by any reasonable definition. But I am saying that to say a fertilized egg is already a person requires belief in a soul, and the personhood of a fertilized egg is something that only religion can affirm.
I am not saying a fertilized egg is not a person. I am saying I don’t know whether it is or not.
And it is not reasonable for you to insist that I have no case and no cause unless I give into the demands of the unreasonable.
Joe,
I am pointing out what I find an inconsistency in your position. I am not attempting to demolish what you say. You could be 100% correct in your views that abortion is murder, and abortionists ought to be put in prison, and so on, and still be inconsistent about whether or not women should be punished. Pointing out an inconsistency is not saying, “Everything you say is wrong.” It is saying, “I understand why you say that, but if you say that, then why do you say this other thing?”
For a quick example, I think torture is wrong, illegal, and should be punished. Yet I am inclined to agree with those who think it would be a bad idea for the Obama administration to investigate and attempt to prosecute and punish people in the Bush administration who promoted or engaged in torture. I would guess that a number of those who strongly condemn the Bush administration would accuse me of inconsistency there. And maybe people who approved of everything the Bush administration did would say, “If you think torture is so wrong, why don’t you think the Obama administration should investigate and punish torture in the Bush administration?”
It being the doctrine of the Catholic Church that a human being begins at the moment of conception, either one accepts it or not. You cannot really argue against a Church doctrine, for it is presented as the word of God.
Even on a Catholic blog, I don’t think it is an offense to say, “I really don’t know.”
Contrarily, if you do not accept it, you must present a case arguing that the conceptus is as human as a kidney but not as human as a person. What then is the argument?
I thought I couldn’t argue against something that is presented as the word of God, but now you are inviting me to?
Is there a possibility that a kidney can develope into a human person?
Yes, absolutely. A human kidney cell could become a human person by means of cloning.
David,
This is what you wrote:
“It simply bothers me no end that people who argue for the criminalization of abortion and who cry murder so loudly don’t want to acknowledge the only logical conclusion of their position — that if abortionists are murderers, women who procure abortions, under our legal system, are accomplices and are just as guilty as the abortionists. ”
You say that this is the ‘only logical conclusion’. I say it isn’t. It isn’t an inconsistency at all, because my primary goal is not to see that everyone is appropriately punished for their crime, but to stop the killing.
If a secondary goal such as punishment would impede the primary goal, then it would be irrational to pursue that secondary goal.
And as a matter of fact, I do not believe that most women bear as much responsibility as the abortionist. The man who pulls the trigger is the murderer. Without him, there would be far fewer abortions.
The abortionist and his facilities are the machinery of abortion. I don’t believe in prosecuting people who buy and use drugs, but I don’t have a problem with going after the dealers. Putting users of services in prison, whether it is drugs, prostitution or even abortion does no social good, and in fact ends up doing more harm than good.
My goal of wanting to stop abortion is not contingent upon my insisting upon punishment for everyone who seeks one. That is my logical argument and I don’t see how you can possibly counter it.
I am saying a fertilized egg, or fetus, or embryo is human like a kidney, a part of the body, or a whole body, living or dead.
An embryo or a fetus or a baby is a human being, a full fledged member of homo sapiens. An embryo or a fetus is not just a part of a body, or like a dead body. Fetuses and embryos are live bodies and members of the human race.
An embryo/fetus/baby is a human being regardless of the existence of a soul. Human dignity is not contingent on having a soul, and as far as I know, there is no ‘soul detector’ to determine if an individual is human. The embryo/fetus is alive, beyond that we will never know for sure when, or if it gets a soul.
To seize on this theological ambiguity about the ensoulment a fetus and thus declare – I don’t know, you conclude (and correct me if I am wrong) that the fetus or embryo should be considered property (at least until it get’s a soul … whenever that may be).
So to recap, I see two problems with your statements 1) The embryo fetus is biologically a human being, not just a ‘part’ or ‘dead’ but a real live member of the human race.
2) You are effectively implying that a fetus is a “something” (property of the mother) until the fetus receives a soul. When the fetus receives a soul, it becomes a person. Becoming a person is not something any other thing can do – your very reasoning leads one to acknowledge the special nature of the embryo/fetus. A special nature that current abortion laws deny.
When I later state that Dave Nichols said that a human embryo is human like kidney can be human, are you going to get bent out of shape again? What if I leave off any quotation marks?
I think things are getting a little too personal here, and to whatever extent it’s my fault, I apologize.
If I can find the time, I would like to answer X-Cathedra’s interesting observations about the soul, but aside from that, I’m going to cool it for awhile.
David Nickol Says June 9, 2009 at 7:34 pm
“It being the doctrine of the Catholic Church that a human being begins at the moment of conception, either one accepts it or not. You cannot really argue against a Church doctrine, for it is presented as the word of God”.
“Even on a Catholic blog, I don’t think it is an offense to say, “I really don’t know.”
You do not know, neither do I. It is a mystery. That is why we have a Magisterium that can tell us such things.
“Contrarily, if you do not accept it, you must present a case arguing that the conceptus is as human as a kidney but not as human as a person. What then is the argument?”
“I thought I couldn’t argue against something that is presented as the word of God, but now you are inviting me to?”
Cute but not serious. It is you that denies a soul to the conceptus. Can you demonstrate this?
“Is there a possibility that a kidney can develope into a human person?”
“Yes, absolutely. A human kidney cell could become a human person by means of cloning”.
I love “absolutely” in such discussions. Do you have a reference for the success of a human cloning? Or is it merely a “scientific” hope? On what basis do you write “could”?
A side note. There has been in this discussion a reference to “when life began”. We biblical persons know when life began. It began when God breathed life on to the earth. Since then it has been an unbroken chain. [I think you will find this answer far more satisfactory than, let us say, Francis Crick's it must have come in a meteor shower].
What is probably meant is “when does a human life, a human being begin?”. The Church answers at the moment of conception.
Indeed, I think the question of “when life begins” is a poor question. All one need to do is look under a microscope to see that the conceptus is an animated physical entity (then just apply the other scientific criteria). The real question is “when should this living thing be considered a human life?”
This is why I think the quasi-mystical approach to the question of life is the wrong direction to go in. I think to many concede an agnosticism about this as a kind of defensive retreat. We can answer affirmatively that life begins at conception, because no sensible person would deny this; that is well within our cognitive powers. Denying it would require us to treat this case in the most unscientific of ways, as if we can easily identify when other animals are living, animate bodies of a certain species, but somehow, in the case of humans (or “potential humans”), we cannot.
So the real question involves when can the soul of the undoubtedly living thing be called rational. My first thought is that any attempt to act as if it comes later commits one to arguing that humans naturally conceive animals of a different species/nature, and somewhere along the way, whatever it is becomes an entirely different kind of thing in the mother’s womb. Growth and development is not, therefore, a process guided and structured by the kind of thing the being is (as with all other living things), but rather is a process that occurs only insofar as it deviates from that structure and guidance. In other words, metaphysically speaking, this would be tantamount to God destroying one creature (qua this kind of creature) and creating a new one (qua a different kind of creature) miraculously and outside the natural processes. Why assume this? The analogy would be nature/grace. The reason grace does not replace nature is because this would mean, metaphysically, that grace obliterates us as human. But then, technically, we AS HUMANS are not being graced! God just re-does creation.
Why not begin by assuming that the soul of the distinct entity that human reproductive cells combine to form has a soul of a rational kind, and does not need to “jump ship” to a different kind of entity through miraculous intervention in order to develop as human, as rational entity? Why not just assume for starters that the development it goes through is guided by the structure of the kind of being it already is, i.e. substantially human?
Though it may seem crazy to most to refer to a clump of cells as “substantially human” just as you and I are; the metaphysical implications of later “ensoulment” seem just as crazy if not crazier to me.
I would also have to no more about the cloning process you speak of, David. My gut reaction is that it may not be accurate to say that the kidney cell is the actual subject of a “becoming human.” With regard to what the being is, it may be more accurate to say that a human being comes into being from processes involving kidney cells. This would make the cloned entity and the kidney cell relevantly distinct, making the kidney’s “development” into a human person meaningfully different from the conceptus’ development “into a human person.” But as I said, I’m scientifically ignorant about this one.
Pax Christi,
What is probably meant is “when does a human life, a human being begin?”. The Church answers at the moment of conception.
More precisely, the Church says:
“… the conclusions of science regarding the human embryo provide a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of this first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person? The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature, but it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion…
“Thus the fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence, that is to say from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in his bodily and spiritual totality.”