Wednesday, October 20, 2010
John Finnis on the moral status of the unborn child
As MOJ readers probably know, Rob, Lisa, and I -- along with many others with whom readers will be familiar (Cathy Kaveny, John Finnis, etc.) participated in a lively and well attended recent conference at Princeton, "Open Hearts, Open Minds, and Fair Minded Words." The conference was the result of the hard work and vision of Prof. Charles Camosy (Fordham), and he shares some post-conference thoughts here and here.
A highlight of the conference, I think, was the panel discussion among John Finnis, Peter Singer, and Margaret Little regarding the "moral status of the fetus". Prof. Finnis has made available a version of his remarks here at Public Discourse. For me, this part of his piece stood out:
The thing about moral status is, if you believe in morality at all, that it is not a matter of choice or grant or convention, but of recognition. If you hear anyone talk about conferring or granting moral status, you know they are deeply confused about what morality and moral status are. The very idea of human rights and status is of someone who matters whether we like it or not, and even when no one is thinking about them; and matters, whether we like it or not, as at bottom an equal, because like us in nature as a substantial kind of being.
This mattering is the immediate basis for respect, including self-respect, and for guilt or remorse when one betrays another. It goes with the territory we call meaning, which transcends times and places, and forces us to speak about mind or spirit, and freedom of choice. If we are thinking alertly to the realities of the realm of sharable interiority, we know what it is to be a developed and conscious person: a being who finds himself or herself to have a rational nature, capacities that combine intelligibility with intelligence. A nature to be recognized and acknowledged, not conferred. . . .
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2010/10/john-finnis-on-the-moral-status-of-the-unborn-child.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
Thanks for bringing this excellent discourse to our attention. The portion you quoted also stood out for me, as did his remarks on the "radical capacity" of an early human embryo:
"The key concept here is radical capacity. The early human embryo has the radical capacity to think and laugh and pun; all it (he or she) needs is time and nourishment, no more: the actual and active second-order or radical capacity, written into its molecular and cellular constitution, to develop first-order, promptly usable capacities such as to learn a language here and now."
Finnis also provided a needed reminder that the sex of an embryo can be determined even at the developmental stage when the being is "one cell smaller than a pin head." The hard, cold biological facts make clear that any being, no matter what its stage of development, must be human if it is the offspring of human parents. The failure by some to recognize this provable fact--and the moral status the human being by then already possesses--is tragic.
Posted by: Bill Collier | Oct 20, 2010 12:34:23 PM
It seems (to me -- and sometimes apparently only to me) to make a very big difference how we think about the "radical capacity" of an embryo that 60% to 80% of them die within a few days of conception (before implantation), and an additional 10% to 25% percent of them that do implant will die by miscarriage. If we average the ranges and calculate that 70% of early embryos die before implantation and 17% that do implant die from miscarriage, then about 75 out of every 100 of those with "radical capacities to think and laugh and pun" die of natural causes before they are able to develop those capacities into abilities. So of course I can look back to the past and say I began as a fertilized egg, but it is another matter to predict the future of a fertilized egg. Odds are it will not develop to the point where it will be able to look back and think that it began as a fertilized egg. If nature takes its course, the likely future of any given fertilized egg is that it will die before it is a viable human being.
Recently someone on the Commonweal blog who wanted to dismiss the significance of this fact argued that "as nearly as anybody can tell, embryos are spontaneously aborted because they are deficient in some way and can’t become fully formed humans." That, of course, seems to me to be saying that life begins at conception . . . except in most cases when it doesn't. And of course what is a "fully formed human"? How anomalous does a human organism's genetic makeup have to be in order to disqualify it as a human being? Are the profoundly disabled -- say anencephalic babies -- who die shortly after birth less human than the profoundly disabled who die shortly after conception?
If what Finnis argues is correct, then by my calculations, based on the number of live births per year (about 129 million) in the world, 440 million human beings die every year in the earliest stages of life, and they are hardly given a second though.
Posted by: David Nickol | Oct 20, 2010 8:02:12 PM
David, you write: "If nature takes its course, the likely future of any given fertilized egg is that it will die before it is a viable human being." Isn't the following statement also true: "If nature takes its course, the definite future of all fertilized eggs is that they will die (either before or after becoming a viable human being)." So, in both statements, the odds are that the egg will die. What to do with this fact? Should that fact lead to the conclusion that we should not care about that egg -- the viable ones like you and me or the unviable ones -- because it's just going to die anyway. You are just going to die anyway. As am I. Why protect us? The odds are, after all, against us getting out alive.
Posted by: DFoley | Oct 20, 2010 8:55:28 PM
DFoley,
As Bill Collier noted above, Finnis says, "The early human embryo has the radical capacity to think and laugh and pun; all it (he or she) needs is time and nourishment, no more." The only argument I have made is that knowing most early human embryos will in fact, *not* develop those capacities changes one's perspective (or at least my own).
You are not the first to make the "everybody dies" objection. I really don't see the point in it, particularly because I have not made any arguments along the lines of "it's going to die anyway, so why not kill it now." When it comes to human life, there is a dramatic difference between dying a few days after conception and a few days after, say, one's 75th birthday. From the Catholic perspective, if I may quote the old Baltimore Catechism, "God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in heaven." But if life (personhood) begins at conception, that doesn't apply to about 75 percent of human beings. And if you strike out the part about this world and get, "God made me to be happy with Him forever in heaven," it has to be acknowledged that the Church (especially since it abolished Limbo), actually doesn't claim to know what happens to the vast majority of the human race that dies before becoming viable.
I am just saying this changes one's perspective, or my own, anyway. The question about what happened to infants who died without baptism used to be a question about a minority of cases of human life. But if a person comes into existence at conception, we now know that those of us who get to *actually* think, laugh, and pun are a minority.
Posted by: David Nickol | Oct 20, 2010 10:58:28 PM
"I am just saying this changes one's perspective, or my own, anyway."
You've mentioned this twice but haven't specified what these facts change your perspective about. The fact that most embryoes die before implantation does not provide a reason for musing that death is so commonplace we ought to re-think the way we react to it. Compare: we are not particularly disquieted to read about a person dying of natural causes at an old age, but we are disturbed to hear that a person was murdered (even at an old age) without having borne any culpability. Could this be because the manner of death makes all the difference?
Posted by: Clement Ng | Oct 20, 2010 11:59:52 PM
You didn't argue "it's going to die anyway, so why not kill it now." You do seem to argue that "they're dying in great numbers at any early age anyway, so why care much, or at all." I guess I'm curious as to why you would care for those who live longer, if they're all -- we're all -- going to die anyway. That's a serious question: not which humans should we care about, but why care about any humans? What is it about the 7-year old, or the 75-year old, that you find worthy of protecting: they are all going to die anyway. Is it because they have punned, so they are worthy of protecting? Seems those could be the ones to kill first, or allowed to be killed, or to not really care about -- they've already had their pun -- whereas the young ones are *more* deserving of protection: they haven't punned yet.
Posted by: DFoley | Oct 21, 2010 6:49:23 AM
Clement Ng,
If it is the manner of death that makes the difference, let's imagine that because of some factor we couldn't do anything about or even explain, 75% of babies died within a few days of being born. Would we not feel differently about that than we do about the massive loss of early embryos?
You say: "The fact that most embryos die before implantation does not provide a reason for musing that death is so commonplace we ought to re-think the way we react to it." You are responding to an argument I have not made, although note that DFoley has responded to me by saying (my paraphrase, not his words), "Since we all die at some point, why should it make a difference that most of us die before birth?"
Posted by: David Nickol | Oct 21, 2010 7:31:39 AM
DFoley,
You say: "You do seem to argue that "they're dying in great numbers at any early age anyway, so why care much, or at all.'"
That may be the argument you *expect* to follow from what I said, but it is not my argument.
My question (not argument) is that, if the moral status and right to life of a newly formed embryo is equal to our own, why don't we care that 440 million of them die? I am not saying we shouldn't care. I am asking why we don't. Or why you don't.
Posted by: David Nickol | Oct 21, 2010 7:41:06 AM
There was a change in perspective when it was realized that the Earth was not the center of the universe. I am arguing that if human beings who live an earthy life -- and think, laugh, and pun -- are in the minority, realizing that changes our perspective. Catholicism tells us a great deal about those of us who live an earthly life. It does not pretend to know the fate of the 440 million persons who die every year before birth.
Posted by: David Nickol | Oct 21, 2010 7:50:08 AM
David, I apologize. I read your first comment as having a point, rather than simply asking questions. I was reading you as saying that it mattered that so many die (I read your comment this way b/c you started the first post about how it only seemed to matter to you that so many die, that that then changes the moral calculus, is how I (mis)read your post). You are asking why folks don't care or seem to care about certain deaths. I believe some do care. Why others don't care about those deaths, I don't know. I wish everyone did care and that caring was shown in law.
Posted by: DFoley | Oct 21, 2010 8:08:06 AM
DavidN your numbers are overblown and speculative. More generally you seem reluctant to say that you really think embryos aren't people and it's OK to kill them. Maybe you think you would lose credibility if you admit what your views are. So you raise the embryo death issue as implying all kinds of things such as that life often doesn't begin at conception and embryos don't have radical human capacity. But then when people respond to your argument, illustrate its flaws and show that it does not disprove any of FInnis' or the Church's points on embryo dignity, you insist you're not asserting anything and you're just saying it changes "perspective" in some unspecified way that you don't have to account for. Make up your mind. If all you're saying is, gosh that's a lot of dead embryos, fine--all that leaves is the emotional reaction, and whether empirical data backs up your numbers and explains what we really know about what happens that early, which don't actually support your numbers and thus do even less to "change perspective". But if you want to say that because many die it undermines a point of Finnis' and here's why, fine--say that and at least we can argue it. But take a stand one way or the other. Either you are arguing against embryo dignity as presented by Finnis and the Church or you are not.
Posted by: Matt Bowman | Oct 21, 2010 2:43:04 PM
Matt Bowman says: "DavidN your numbers are overblown and speculative."
My numbers are from "Session 1: Early Embryonic Development: An Up-to-Date Account," John M. Opitz, M.D., Professor of Pediatrics, Human Genetics, and Obstetrics/Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Utah, Thursday, January 16, 2003, The President's Council on Bioethics.
http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/pcbe/transcripts/jan03/session1.html
Matt Bowman says: "More generally you seem reluctant to say that you really think embryos aren't people and it's OK to kill them. More generally you seem reluctant to say that you really think embryos aren't people and it's OK to kill them."
My view is that if a soul is immediately created by God for each human being, as the Catholic Church teaches, then once that soul is present, a person exists, and it is impermissible to kill an innocent person. As someone who was raised Catholic and still maintains an interest in Catholicism, I am not prepared to say the Church is wrong. As someone who has many, many questions about the truth claims of the Catholic Church, I am not prepared to say the Church is right.
Matt Bowman says: "Either you are arguing against embryo dignity as presented by Finnis and the Church or you are not."
I know for you everything is black and white, but there is a third possibility here, and that is that I have doubts that Finnis and the Church are right, but I don't know. I think, by the way, that it is possible that the Church is right and Finnis could still be wrong. I don't think Finnis's position is merely a restatement of what the Church teaches. I think he may be making biological assumptions that may not be true.
It appears, from everything I have read on the subject, that early embryo loss is a indisputable fact in all mammals, and as I have said before, the only group that seems really interested in it is the cattle industry, because they could increase their productivity if they could increase the survival rate. Browbeating me is not going to make early embryo loss go away. I suppose I see why so many in the pro-life movement view a discussion of it as a threat, but I am also rather mystified as to why people who claim to care so much about all life, at any stage of development, do everything they can to minimize the magnitude of early embryo loss and try to make it seem an irrelevant distraction.
Posted by: David Nickol | Oct 21, 2010 8:25:59 PM
David Nickol wrote:
"If it is the manner of death that makes the difference, let's imagine that because of some factor we couldn't do anything about or even explain, 75% of babies died within a few days of being born. Would we not feel differently about that than we do about the massive loss of early embryos?"
We might feel differently indeed, because we are inclined to think that this is preventable, whereas the death of most embryoes is not.
If your point is that we don't appear to value things unseen as much as we claim we do, then I am in agreement.
Posted by: Clement Ng | Oct 21, 2010 8:28:21 PM
Yes David, you use a doctor who proposed the high end of estimates in 2003. An American Journal of Bioethics report issued in 2008 by an author who uses your argument that embryo loss means a lack of human dignity in embryos, puts the number at 62 percent. But that report notes that the numbers are based off two studies done in 1962 and 1967.
http://www.amirrorclear.net/academic/papers/scourge.pdf
The data is old--and there's a lot we don't know about what is happening in early unobserved conception and implantation. Your numbers are overblown and speculative.
You say "I have doubts that Finnis and the Church are right, but I don't know." You don't know--that's fine too. But that doesn't mean you are not arguing against their positions. You can pose those arguments, in the course of your own exploration of whether it's OK to kill human beings. Fine. But you can't deny you are making the arguments, just because you claim personally to be an agnostic on the question.
Embryos die. That has nothing to do with whether they are people and it is OK to kill them. Saying that, and saying that many seem to die because they have disabilities, and a small percentage might not have been successful conceptions at all, has nothing to do with whether they are people and it is OK to kill them. It is NOT minimizing their loss or dismissing it irrationally. It is pointing out that your argument is based on a naturalistic fallacy: that whatever happens by nature is morally acceptable when we do it on purpose. That was not true for most of human history when the mortality rate of born infants was high--it was not OK to kill newborns because of their high death rate. And neither does a high death rate have logical implications on the personhood of embryos. Your factual premise does not lead to your (agnostically proposed) conclusion. Pointing out that you have not connected the dots in your argument is not a disregard for embryo life. It's a logical fact.
Posted by: Matt Bowman | Oct 22, 2010 10:51:20 AM
As for seeing your arguments against embryo dignity as a "threat," either you mean that no one may argue against your position or else they are conceding your point, which would be convenient for you but is not true, or you mean that arguments in favor of killing human beings pose some level of danger to human beings, which I gladly concede.
Posted by: Matt Bowman | Oct 22, 2010 10:53:26 AM
Matt Bowman says: "As for seeing your arguments against embryo dignity as a 'threat,' either you mean that no one may argue against your position or else they are conceding your point . . . "
When I say that people who see my discussion of early embryo loss as a threat, I am referring to the fact that when I bring it up, people say things like the numbers are overblown and speculative, or they say, "But everybody dies -- so what?" Or they say, "Just because embryos die of natural causes does not mean we have a right to kill them." But I have never argued that because massive numbers of embryos die of natural causes, that means killing would be any more acceptable. I am always getting responses to arguments I haven't made.
Posted by: David Nickol | Oct 22, 2010 1:04:58 PM
David Nickol,
Can you help me out here? What *is* your argument? I don't see a claim being made, just a bunch of observations. What do you think is supposed to *follow* from the observations?
I think that the reason why you are "always getting responses to arguments [you] haven't made" is that it is difficult to tell what your argument actually is.
Posted by: WJ | Oct 22, 2010 1:26:23 PM
WJ,
That's a fair point. I'll see what I can do this evening or tomorrow. (I only have 12 minutes left on my lunch hour.) But I do want to insist that the phenomenon of early embryo loss in humans is quite significant. I was just reading from a book saying that it is generally agreed that 20% of human conceptions result in a viable baby, whereas in mice the success rate approaches 100%. Attacking the data as "overblown and speculative," in my opinion is not helpful. What if the loss is "only" 30% to 40% instead of 60% to 80%? It doesn't make the issue go away. I have seen higher estimates than the ones I cite, and I have seen lower ones. But I cite the President's Council on Bioethics because it should be a highly credible source to those who are pro-life.
Posted by: David Nickol | Oct 22, 2010 1:56:02 PM
David appears to be very well read on this subject. He knows that people commonly, frequently, insistently, and in the sources he is using, propose his "observations" about embryo loss, in this exact contect concerning the dignity of the embryo, as an ARGUMENT against the dignity of the embryo, and he himself above raises it as an issue implicating whether life maybe doesn't begin at conception and embryos maybe don't have radical human capacity. So, people here have responded to David by responding to the argument he was making--his argument being that these arguments somehow disprove the embryo's dignity as asserted by Finnis (which is what this thread is about!). The responses point out why David's argument is wrong. And David replies in protest, claiming he was not making that argument at all, that it is unfair to say he was, that he's an agnostic on the issue (as if agnostics can't and don't make arguments, at the very least to test opposing views), and that to even respond to his argument is to consider it a "threat" that somehow proves the argument is right and the responders are wrong (without regard to the fact that they have just given REASONS why it is wrong, and without grappling with those reasons). But David's very ridicule of the reasons raised against his argument show, again, that he is making the argument. Yet rather than replying to the responses, he just dismisses them AS WRONG on the basis that he claims he was never making the argument, even as he continues to argue against the responses to his argument. If he is going to reject the responses to the argument, fine, do it and people can argue against his rejection. But rejecting those responses by saying "You're WRONG because I never argued the opposite" doesn't make any sense.
Posted by: Matt Bowman | Oct 22, 2010 5:45:49 PM
Matt Bowman says: "David appears to be very well read on this subject. He knows that people commonly, frequently, insistently, and in the sources he is using, propose his "observations" about embryo loss, in this exact contect concerning the dignity of the embryo, as an ARGUMENT against the dignity of the embryo . . . ."
Actually, I have tried to find as many sources as I can on early embryo loss, but the best I have found is the actually the one I have cited, from the President's Council on Bioethics. Aside from Michael Sandel's book The Case Against Perfection, which has an epilogue titled "Embryo Ethics: The Stem Cell Debate," I can't cite another instance of someone using early embryo loss as an argument against the personhood of an embryo. I have run across people noting the argument and dismissing it in a few sentences, but that's really it.
Here is what Michael Sandel has to say (pages 124-125):
**********
Defenders of in vitro fertilization point out that the rate of embryo loss in assisted reproduction is actually less than in natural pregnancy, in which more than half of all fertilized eggs either fail to implant or are otherwise lost. This fact highlights a further difficulty with the view that equates embryos and persons. If early embryo death is a common occurrence in natural procreation, perhaps we should worry less about the loss of embryos that occurs in fertility treatments and stem cell research.
Those who view embryos as persons reply, rightly, that a high rate of infant mortality would not justify infanticide. But the way we respond to the natural loss of embryos suggests that we do not regard this event as the moral or religious equivalent of the death of an infant. Even those religious traditions that are the most solicitous of nascent human life do not mandate the same burial rituals for the loss of an embryo as for the death of a child. Moreover, if the embryo loss that accompanies natural procreation were the moral equivalent of infant death, then pregnancy would have to be regarded as a public health crisis of epidemic proportions; alleviating natural embryo loss would be a more urgent moral crisis than abortion, in vitro fertilization, and stem cell research combined. But few who are stirred by these familiar causes are mounting ambitious campaigns or seeking new technologies to prevent or reduce embryo loss in natural pregnancy.
**********
I am in full agreement with Sandel here. A high rate of early embryo loss tells us nothing about the moral status of the embryo, and in and of itself would not justify abortion or the use of embryo-destructive stem cell research. However, Sandel's point, and one of my own, is that people who profess to believe personhood begins at conception, and that the life of a fertilized egg or an early embryo is the moral equivalent of the life of a newborn baby or a five-year-old or an adult, do not ACT as if they believe what they say they do.
There is no movement that I know of to shut down fertility clinics, or even to limit the number of "excess" embryos created. (Some European countries do the latter.) There is no movement to prohibit embryo-destructive stem cell research in private labs. As Sandel says, Bush's position on embryo destruction was that it was the taking of innocent life and therefore should be left to the private sector! There is no concerted effort on the part of the pro-life movement to promote medical research into early embryo loss. To the best of my knowledge, there is not even a prayer for the souls of lost embryos.
If every life is important, and millions of lives are being lost before we even know they exist, why does nobody seem to care?
Posted by: David Nickol | Oct 22, 2010 10:47:58 PM
David,
Politics is sometimes triage. You do want you can do. As it is we are winning the movement of hearts and minds on the question of the deliberate killing unborn children by abortion. As we advance, there is nothing our opponents would like more than for us to change the debate to something like contraception or in-vitro fertilization. The general public are so wedded to these things that, at this moment, it would be a fools errand to do anything other than try to undermine the public's confidence in them, which is something pro-lifers are doing.
When you notice pro-abortion advocates, such as yourself perhaps, pushing the prolife movement to be more consistent by changing our focus, what is really going on is our opponents trying to move the debate onto their own winning ground. Our opponents are desperate to change the conversation, which is why they pushed so hard at the Princeton conference to talk about contraception.
The pro-life movement is content to win the larger issue of abortion and in due course, as hearts and minds change further, to take a more vigorous approach to these other issues.
On the question of embryo destructive research. It was a great victory to stall federal funding as George Bush did, and thereby to encourage alternate means to find pluripotent stem cells. In good time, it is happening already, alternate means will win the day.
Posted by: Austin Ruse | Oct 23, 2010 10:01:27 AM
David said: >
Well, the Catholic Church is firmly against fertility clinics, embryo-creation, and embryo-destructive stem cell research, stating that these are grave moral evils. If there aren't people taking up the call to try to end the grave evil of embryo-destructive research, that's a fault of us who aren't willing to work against that evil; but it doesn't make it less of an evil.
David said:>
Let me try a few other scenarios:
"The way we respond to the death of (377 people in West African flooding last week/460,000 people from heart attacks in the US every year/thousands of Haitian earthquake victims dumped into mass graves) suggests that we do not regard this event as the moral or religious equivalent of the death of (Laci Peterson and her unborn child)."
What's my point? That, rightly or wrongly, we react differently to death depending on the circumstances. In increasing orders of calamity there are deaths from old age, deaths from medical conditions like heart attacks, deaths from natural events like earthquakes, deaths from natural events that were preventable, deaths from human accident, deaths from human accident which were preventable, deaths caused willfully by another human. Calamity is also affected by geography (death in my city is more calamitous than death in another country), by age (car accident death of 14-year old is more calamitous than car accident death of 65-year old), and by number (strangely, 1 person's death is often more calamitous than several dozen people at once). I would caution against making conclusions about the value of a human person based on how we react to death: the life of 100-year old woman and earthquake victim dumped into a Haitian mass grave is not of less value than the teenage girl rape/murder victim.
David said >
It's not. The moral significance of a death is affected greatly by whether it was a natural occurrence or one perpetrated wilfully. It makes sense to be more concerned with late-term abortions than with stillbirths, it makes sense to be more concerned with preventing murders than with preventing the natural shutting-down of a 100-year old body.
Posted by: Thales | Oct 23, 2010 10:03:23 AM
Sorry, my quotes of David didn't go through in my post.
Here are the 3 quotes of his that are supposed to be in the post:
-"There is no movement that I know of to shut down fertility clinics, or even to limit the number of "excess" embryos created. (Some European countries do the latter.) There is no movement to prohibit embryo-destructive stem cell research in private labs."
-"But the way we respond to the natural loss of embryos suggests that we do not regard this event as the moral or religious equivalent of the death of an infant."
-"Moreover, if the embryo loss that accompanies natural procreation were the moral equivalent of infant death"
Posted by: Thales | Oct 23, 2010 10:06:30 AM
Additionally, going after contraception and invitro would divide the prolife world since Catholics and Evangelicals are not of one mind of these issues. Our enemies would just love that. In other words, David, what you propose is death to the pro-life movement even on abortion.
Posted by: Austin Ruse | Oct 23, 2010 10:20:13 AM
Austin,
You said: "Politics is sometimes triage."
I wasn't aware the pro-life movement was purely political. As best I can recall, no one on a Catholic blog has ever responded to me with something like, "You're right. Human life is present from the moment of conception, and it is staggering how many of the unborn die without our even knowing they began their brief existence. From a political point of view, it would at best be impractical to take on this issue in the fight against abortion, but the very least we could do is encourage everyone to remember in their prayers the massive number of unborn infants who die."
You said: "It was a great victory to stall federal funding as George Bush did, and thereby to encourage alternate means to find pluripotent stem cells."
As I am sure you know, Bush was the first president to provide federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. This quote is from remarks he made in 2007: "In 2001, I announced a policy to advance stem cell research in a way that is ambitious, ethical and effective. I became the first president to make federal funds available for embryonic stem cell research, and my policy did this in ways that would not encourage the destruction of embryos." Clinton had tried and failed to fund stem cell research, but Bush succeeded. It was really a short step from what Bush did to what Obama did.
You say: "Additionally, going after contraception and invitro would divide the prolife world since Catholics and Evangelicals are not of one mind of these issues."
Actually, when the news of "Octomom" broke, I think the climate was ripe for legislation putting at least *some* limits on what goes on in fertility clinics. We now know that her doctor implanted 12 embryos!
I think certain approaches of the pro-life movement make it very easy for people who do not agree with it to dismiss it all as politics, or even as REPUBLICAN politics.
Posted by: David Nickol | Oct 23, 2010 12:11:01 PM
Thales,
You said: "The moral significance of a death is affected greatly by whether it was a natural occurrence or one perpetrated wilfully."
I believe you are using "moral" in a different sense than Michael Sandel. For those who claim the moral status of an embryo is equal to the moral status of a living, breathing, thinking adult, the moral significance of their deaths is equal. We are talking about moral significance based on moral status. Once you admit there are differences in moral significance, you open the way to arguing that it may be wrong to harvest stem cells from discarded embryos, but it is a wrong that may be tolerated, because after all, the embryos are going to be destroyed anyway. I think it is extremely important for Finnis's argument that the moral significance of the death of any human person is the same, whether it be an embryo that has existed a few days or a person who has lived 50 years.
Posted by: David Nickol | Oct 23, 2010 12:22:06 PM
David,
Oh, I understand, you were quoting Sandel in the middle portion of your post. I missed that. Sorry. I know see the phrase "moral status" means something specific.
Then I disagree with Sandel and agree with Finnis. And in response to Sandel's point that it appears that since we react differently to the deaths of human beings at different levels of development, and therefore, these human beings must have different levels of moral status - I disagree and repeat my second point made above.
Posted by: Thales | Oct 23, 2010 1:27:17 PM
As folks will recall, at the time George Bush was under immense pressure to fund embryo destructive research. After a long national debate and lengthy expert consultation, Bush decided to fund embryonic stem cell research but not embryo destructive research. As you will further recall, there was an immense hew and cry because of this. Recall the speeches at the 2004 Democrat convention. Speech after speech demanded and promised funding for embryo destructive research always to thunderous applause. the Dems really thought they had an issue with the fact that Bush did open the spigot to embryo destructive research.
What he did was take the issue off the boil and put it on the simmer and allow moral science to catch up to immoral science. While we were disappointed in his decision at the time, it turned out to have been wise.
Finally, to put an even finer point on this. There is nothing inherently wrong with embryonic stem cell research that does not kill embryos in the process. Bush did not fund the killing of even a single human embryo.
Posted by: Austin Ruse | Oct 23, 2010 1:42:02 PM
That should read "that Bush did not open the spigot ..."
Posted by: Austin Ruse | Oct 23, 2010 2:08:15 PM
David,
Thanks, that's (somewhat) helpful. I still don't see you making an explicit argument, but I think that I can infer what your argument is from some of your statements above. I hope the following reconstruction is accurate of your views. Please correct me if it's not.
1. Pro-lifers are opposed to abortion on the grounds that an embryo is a human person.
2. Untold amounts of embryos die each year from natural cause.
3. Pro-lifers do not emotionally react to the deaths of these embryos as if they were the deaths of human persons.
Conclusion (A): (From 2 and 3) Pro-lifers do not believe that embryos are human persons.
But Conclusion(A) entails that (1) is false. Hence Conclusion (B): Pro-lifers cannot be opposed to abortion on the grounds that an embryo is a human person.
Is this right?
Posted by: WJ | Oct 23, 2010 2:48:16 PM
Assuming that the reconstruction is more or less accurate (which is perhaps assuming too much), I think that the argument fails, on the grounds that it ignores a crucial distinction and that is misrepresents people's actual reaction to the destruction of embryos.
(1) the distinction between natural evil and moral evil is elided in the argument. We live in a world of untold amounts of natural evils, a world which is "groaning" toward completion in Christ, as St. Paul says, and so it is frankly not surprising that large quantities of conceptions prove to be unviable, and that these persons perish without ever seeing the light of day. What to do except lament the present state of our existence in tears and prayer?
This being said, though, it does not follow from the amount of natural evil on our earth that moral evils are therefore unimportant; or that it is hypocritical to avoid the intentional commission of moral evil on the grounds that a large amount of natural evil already exists. Murder is not excusable on the grounds that my victim might have stage 4 pancreatic cancer, and will die anyway.
Second, as somebody who has himself witnessed his wife experience two miscarriages of nonviable embryos at an early stage in her pregnancy, it strikes me that it is not at all the case that people's emotional reactions to the natural evil of embryonic death is one of indifference. It is rather one of pain and lament. I don't think my family's experience here is at all unusual. When is the last time that you have heard of somebody having a miscarriage very early on in the pregnancy--the end of the first or second month, for example--who has not felt sadness and loss? Second, one fact that suggests that we *do* care greatly about the natural deaths of embryos is that we are constantly trying to improve our medical care of pregnant mothers, so as to ensure that the pregnancy have as good a chance as possible for a happy completion. (The U.S. could do better here--but I am speaking of medical practice itself.)
So I deny that (1) natural evil has any bearing on the question of moral evil and (2) that the description offered by Sandel and endorsed by yourself is an accurate description of how people react to embryonic deaths.
Posted by: WJ | Oct 23, 2010 3:11:44 PM
Thales,
My message above of Oct 22, 2010 10:47:58 PM is just the beginning of what my position is, although I don't know how long I can be the sole person answering everyone's objections.
In response to your reframing of my argument, I would say the conclusion I would draw is that pro-lifers cannot be CONSISTENT being distressed about death by abortion and remaining indifferent to the massive loss of human life from early embryo loss. As we see even in this discussion, Austin Ruse claims that merely discussing the matter amounts to an attempt to harm the pro-life movement. Matt Bowman says the numbers are overblown and speculative. It just seems odd to me that the response of the pro-lifers is to minimize the magnitude of early embryo loss or suppress the discussion altogether as harmful to their movement.
Pointing out that those making an argument are inconsistent is a perfectly legitimate form of argumentation.
Posted by: David Nickol | Oct 23, 2010 4:03:35 PM
David, I would welcome your response to WJ (3:11:44 p.m.), above. It has never been clear to me why the fact (and, obviously, it is a fact) that we (not just "pro-lifers", but almost everyone) are more distressed by abortions than we are by "early embryo loss" is thought by some to expose some "inconsistency" on the part of pro-lifers. It is much worse, it seems to me, for unborn children to be intentionally killed (and for that killing to be facilitated by a legal regime that incorporates the notion that some people have a right to engage in this intentionally killing) than it is for (other) unborn children ("early embryos") to die naturally. What am I missing?
Posted by: Rick Garnett | Oct 23, 2010 4:09:28 PM
Thales,
You say: "Second, as somebody who has himself witnessed his wife experience two miscarriages of nonviable embryos at an early stage in her pregnancy, it strikes me that it is not at all the case that people's emotional reactions to the natural evil of embryonic death is one of indifference. It is rather one of pain and lament."
I do not doubt that on the individual level, people react to miscarriage as you say. But I wonder how many pro-lifers have been personally involved with abortion. Many of the pro-lifers I engage with on blogs are prone to lamenting 1.3 million deaths a year due to abortion. They express deep grief about the killing of so many babies. But it is not like they have actually witnessed any of it personally. It strikes me that it is no more difficult to "empathize" with a lost embryo than an embryo that has been destroyed for stem cell research or an unborn child that has been aborted in early pregnancy. Grief over 1.3 million lives a year is not grief from personal experience.
You say: "I don't think my family's experience here is at all unusual. When is the last time that you have heard of somebody having a miscarriage very early on in the pregnancy--the end of the first or second month, for example--who has not felt sadness and loss?"
My mother once told me that sometime in the early 1950s, she though she might have had a very early miscarriage. She was medically knowledgeable, so it's quite possible she was correct. She called our parish priest and asked what she should do with the tiny mass that she believed could be a very early embryo. He told her to flush it down the toilet. I have no idea what a woman would be told today, but I would love to know. I don't know how it is consistent with the dignity of a human person -- especially one that may have been my brother or sister -- to get flushed down the toilet.
I can't speak from my own experience, but from some conversations on the Commonweal blog, I gather that in general response of the Church to women who have had miscarriages has only recently begun to be commensurate with the loss they may feel.
Posted by: David Nickol | Oct 23, 2010 4:22:20 PM
David,
WJ here (not Thales--but Thales is making points that are similar to mine own.).
I don't see your last response as responding to my objections. I am denying that natural evil should entail the acceptance of moral evil, and I am denying that our--the human community's--response to embryo deaths is as you and Sandel describe. Which of these do you wish to take issue with?
Posted by: WJ | Oct 23, 2010 4:38:29 PM
David,
Nice trick to suggest that I said "merely discussing the matter amounts to an attempt to harm the pro-life movement." Of course, i said or implied no such thing. What i did say is that folks on the pro-abortion left --- is that you, David Nickol? --- would love for us to change the discussion to family planning or IVF so that we can lose ground on what we are in fact winning, the fight against abortion.
Posted by: Austin Ruse | Oct 23, 2010 4:53:46 PM
Rick,
You say: " It is much worse, it seems to me, for unborn children to be intentionally killed (and for that killing to be facilitated by a legal regime that incorporates the notion that some people have a right to engage in this intentionally killing) than it is for (other) unborn children ("early embryos") to die naturally."
Much worse for WHOM? It would seem to me the fates -- whatever they may be -- of an unborn baby who dies of natural causes and an unborn baby who is aborted are identical. To the extent the pro-life movement wants us to grieve for aborted babies but not for babies who die of natural causes, that is the extent to which they make no sense to me.
It seems there are two arguments against abortion. The first is that it is impermissible to take an innocent human life. I understand that completely. The second is that we should somehow empathize with aborted babies because the experience of living a life like our own has been taken away from them. But as I have said, it seems to me the fates of all unborn children who die for any reason are identical. The loss of a future life on earth (if it is a loss) is suffered equally by all the unborn who die.
So I understand the argument against abortion based the alleged moral evil of what the people who procure and perform abortions do. I do not understand the argument based on sympathy for the unborn, although it would be more understandable to me if pro-lifers grieved for *all* the unborn who die.
Let me put things one more way. As I have said many times, imagine that instead of 75% of infants dying within days of being conceived, 75% of infants died within days of being born. You would not console someone who lost a baby a few days after it was born by saying, "It could have been worse. The baby could have been murdered." If the moral significance of the death of an embryo is equal to the moral significance of the death of an adult, then the moral significance of the death of an embryo by natural causes is equal to the moral significance of the death of an embryo by abortion.
I am not suggesting that the pro-life movement drop abortion as a cause and take up early embryo loss just because the number of deaths attributable to early embryo loss far outnumber the deaths by abortion. But I am saying that to simply ignore, minimize, or suppress information about early embryo loss is strange for people who call themselves pro-life.
If millions are dying as the result of early embryo loss and miscarriage, don't they deserve *some* acknowledgment? Don't they even deserve a prayer?
Posted by: David Nickol | Oct 23, 2010 5:07:10 PM
2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
Note that the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not limit itself to saying that embryos should not be actively killed. It says they must be "cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being."
Posted by: David Nickol | Oct 23, 2010 6:05:17 PM
How is it that we are being lectured to about not being pro-life enough by a guy whose pro-life bona fides seem to be limited to coming onto Catholic sites and undermining the teachings of the Church on life and other issues?
Posted by: Austin Ruse | Oct 23, 2010 6:50:09 PM
Austin Ruse says: "How is it that we are being lectured to about not being pro-life enough by a guy whose pro-life bona fides seem to be limited to coming onto Catholic sites and undermining the teachings of the Church on life and other issues?"
Ad hominem argument noted.
Posted by: David Nickol | Oct 23, 2010 7:07:52 PM
David, it is a common tactic among critics of the Church's pro-life teaching to respond to a challenge to their wrong assertions by throwing out six new distinct flawed arguments instead of answering the objection. You have no standing to be the arbiter of what it would look like for a pro-lifer to "ACT as if they believe what they say they do." You aren't one, and you express seriously flawed understandings of the Church's and pro-lifers' position in the first place. It is impossible to addres most of tyour errors. So get back to the original issue. I made the point that the natural death of embryos does not disprove their humanity. You have now conceded that, in itself, though of course that hasn't stopped you from continuing to argue that the position of embryo dignity is false. Prof. Garnett's question is a perfectly valid one: what is wrong with considering the murder of human beings different, as a moral problem, than the natural death of human beings. The answer is obvious and common-sensical, and your only response is that unless pro-lifers try to stop everyone from dying by every means, they don't really believe that anyone is human. That's irrational. You made multiple other errors: that pro-lifers have never been involved in abortion--a ridiculous claim disproven by hordes of post-abortive men and women involved in the movement, and by people who have personally encountered others in close circumstances involved in abortion. You say there is no movement to protect embryos specifically in various different ways, which is simply factually false. You ignore the effect on the private sector of the efforts to stop federal funding of killing embryos. It is insane to say that people trying to fix a society so warped that it is funding killing cannot start by focusing on stopping that funding, because then they prove they don't really believe in helping the victims, because they aren't doing enough. So if a million are being killed and I try to stop the 1000 nearest me, that proves I don't really think any of the million are human? Absurd. Overall our sanctimonious "ad hominem" finger-pointing is betrayed by the fact that all your arguments are attacks on the person--saying that pro-life claims are undermined because the PERSONS aren't DOING and FEELING things (they are, you are wrong) which things YOU determine MUST exist (they need not, you are wrong). There is no point to your entire line of discussion other than what you openly admit to be an attack on pro-lifers themselves that has nothing to do with what embryos are. Which is what this post is about: Finnis' arguments. You have not touched those arguments, nor the Church's view, and that continues to be illustrated more and more clearly as your complaints continue to multiply and go further afield.
Posted by: Matt Bowman | Oct 23, 2010 11:46:50 PM
Matt Bowman says: "So if a million are being killed and I try to stop the 1000 nearest me, that proves I don't really think any of the million are human? Absurd."
Of course it's absurd. And fortunately, I haven't said it.
Posted by: David Nickol | Oct 24, 2010 1:20:28 AM
John Finnis said: "The key concept here is radical capacity. The early human embryo has the radical capacity to think and laugh and pun; all it (he or she) needs is time and nourishment, no more: the actual and active second-order or radical capacity, written into its molecular and cellular constitution, to develop first-order, promptly usable capacities such as to learn a language here and now."
Some have complained that I have not taken on Finnis's arguments directly in talking about early embryo loss. Let me attempt to make the connections.
It seems to me that Finnis here is taking one side of the argument we have all probably seen many times. The kind of argument I am talking about is the one that eventually gets around to someone saying, "An acorn is not an oak tree." There is a never-ending disagreement between one side, which insists that because something has the capacity to develop into another thing, it *is* that thing, and the other side, which insists that a thing that has the capacity to develop into another thing is *potentially* that other thing. So they argue than an acorn is not an oak tree, it's a potential oak tree. And an egg is not a chicken, it's a potential chicken. And a fertilized egg or early embryo is not a person, it's a potential person.
But it seems to me that in the case of the moral status of the fertilized egg or early embryo, this argument overlooks the fact that many fertilized eggs or early embryos don't even have the *potential* to develop into something we would normally identify as a human person.
Is “radical capacity” present — by virtue of membership in the species — even when capacity is not? Suppose something goes terribly awry at the moment of fertilization, and the early embryo definitely could not — with nourishment and time — develop into a human being that, say, had a functioning brain. Say it is either destined to die before it develops a brain, or it is destined to develop as an anencephalic baby, born without a brain and destined to live a few hours or days. At conception, it does not have the capacity to develop a brain. Is Finnis arguing that since it is a human organism, it has a “radical capacity” to do all the things a human organism can do, even if is is so flawed that that it does not have a "real" capacity? If so, it seems to me a circular argument (or something akin to a circular argument). It seems to be saying that a deeply flawed human embryo, by virtue of the fact that it resulted from the union of a human sperm and a human egg, has a "radical capacity" to do grow into a person that can actually think, and laugh, and pun, even if the particular embryo in question does not actually have the capacity to live beyond a few days, even under the best of circumstances -- that is, given ample time and nourishment.
If every fertilized egg is a human person, then it seems to me one must come up with a definition of "human person" that includes human persons that cannot possibly develop into persons with the same capacities as those of us who are arguing about their moral status. Just because some organisms that come into existence when a human egg and sperm unite have the capacity to develop into human persons that think and laugh and pun does not mean all of them do. In fact, it seems very likely that the majority do not have the capacity to develop and live beyond a few days. So I don’t understand imputing to them (if this is what Finnis means) a “radical capacity” to think, laugh, and pun — by virtue of their membership in the species — when they actually don’t have the capacity.
The argument Finnis is making relies on the listener looking back to his or her own origins and saying, "I was a fertilized egg, and I developed into what I am now. I am clearly a human person now, and looking back, I see no break in continuity, so I must have been a human person then." But when we attempt to discern the moral status of a fertilized egg or embryo in the context of a discussion on stem cell research or abortion, we are going the other way. We are not looking back from the existing person to the fertilize egge; we are predicting the future of the fertilized egg or the embryo. And while everyone that exists today began as a fertilized egg and then an embryo, by far the majority of fertilized eggs and embryos will not develop into "walking around persons" (to borrow a phrase from Antonin Scalia).
When I have made this argument before, a common objection is that a large number of the early embryos that die have genetic anomalies and would never develop into persons like ourselves, so they don't count. A very great emphasis is put on chromosomal makeup, and it is argued that the early embryos, by reason of faulty genetic makeup, really weren't human persons and should not be taken into account. But this, it seems to me, is precisely the argument that these people normally dismiss. They are horrified if it is suggested that the profoundly disabled might not be counted as persons. In essence, they are drawing a line and saying that of course the profoundly disabled are persons, but the *very* profoundly disabled -- the embryos that cannot possibly live to the point of viability -- don't count as persons. It seems to me that once you draw the line, it is perfectly legitimate to argue over the point where a line has been drawn, and consequently it is legitimate to then argue that the profoundly disabled should not count as persons.
John Finnis says: "[A]ll it (he or she) needs is time and nourishment, no more . . . "
The following argument was put forward by some of the women on the Commonweal blog, and it makes a great deal of sense to me. (It is interesting that discussions on abortion often take place entirely among men, with the woman's perspective totally absent.) To say all the fertilized egg or embryo needs is "time and nourishment, no more" is to dramatically slight the role a woman's body plays in pregnancy. It is as if the fertilized egg is like a plant seed, and the woman's body is soil (or to be a little more inflammatory, dirt). A woman's body is discussed as being to a developing embryo as a flower pot is to a plant. But of course that is not true. It seems to me more accurate to say that pregnancy is something a woman's body actively does, not something it passively endures. Both Finnis and Singer were faulted for minimizing the role of the woman in pregnancy.
[I have borrowed, with modifications, a few paragraphs in the above message from posts I wrote on the Commonweal blog. Apologies for the repetition to anyone reading both sites.]
Posted by: David Nickol | Oct 24, 2010 3:27:49 AM
The "human organism", whole individual and integrated, is defined by certain minimal biological characteristics. Someone is a human being even if they have a club foot. But a molar pregnancy is not a human being. These are simply biological facts. They are not "circular reasoning." When Finnis says the human organism has radical capacity, he is talking about the whole individual and integrated human organism as defined biologically.
Whether and how many embryos die and from what is speculative. You don't have video evidence of it. We can't examine the bodies. Your evidence seems to be comprised of two studies, one conducted in 1962 and one in 1967. You use higher estimates than many advocates for embryo killing do.
But regardless of that, it seems true and is asserted by the very sources you cite that many embryos who die in pregnancy often die because they have disabilities. No one credible or relevant is saying that all of them are so disabled they aren't people. Many have disabilities that cause death but they are still people. Some are so deformed that "conception" didn't really occur. How many of each are we talking about? Who knows? Your numbers are speculative, so this too is speculation. It has nothing to do with the point of what a successfully conceived embryo is.
Posted by: Matt Bowman | Oct 24, 2010 7:26:03 AM
David, for the last several days, you have (if I understand you correctly) been pressing others to consider, among other things, these two facts: (1) Many embryos die early, for various reasons other than abortion; and (2) "pro-lifers", as a rule, are not moved by these deaths in the same way, or to the same extent, as they are by the deaths of unborn children caused by abortions. Both of these facts (putting aside the questions that have been raised about *how many* embryos die early for reasons other than abortion).
I think that everyone in the conversation accepts these facts. And, I think several in the conversation have been pressing you, in turn, to answer the "so what?" question. What is it that you think follows from these facts? Is what follows, in your view, "John Finnis' account of what it means to be human unsound"? Is it that "pro-lifers are hypocrites who don't really believe what they say they believe about abortion"? Is it that "actions which cause early-embryo-death should be regulated in the same way as should abortion"? Or something else?
Posted by: Rick Garnett | Oct 24, 2010 8:31:23 AM
By the way, David, at the time the Nobel was announced, a number of pro-lifers denounced IVF, including me at TheCatholicThing.org:
http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/doesnt-this-make-anyone-queasy.html
Posted by: Austin Ruse | Oct 24, 2010 10:58:42 AM
Rick Garnett says: Is what follows, in your view, [A] "John Finnis' account of what it means to be human unsound"? [B] Is it that "pro-lifers are hypocrites who don't really believe what they say they believe about abortion"? [C] Is it that "actions which cause early-embryo-death should be regulated in the same way as should abortion"? [D] Or something else?
A. Yes, it is unsound. I made this argument explicitly Oct 24, 2010 3:27:49 AM. To summarize briefly, Finnis's argument was a familiar one with a familiar response. Finnis sees an embryo in the earliest stages of development as a person, because it has the capacity, given nourishment and time, to think, laugh, and pun. The familiar response is that the embryo is not, by reason of that fact, a person, but rather a *potential* person. But in the light of early embryo loss, Finnis's argument is further weakened by the fact that most embryos do *not* have the capacity, given nourishment and time, to think, laugh, and pun, because they do not have the capacity even to live. Furthermore, to say of a fertilized egg or embryo, "[A]ll it (he or she) needs is time and nourishment, no more," is simply false, and grossly minimizes the role of a woman's body during pregnancy. To say that a pregnant woman provides "time and nourishment, no more" is to overlook, or denigrate, the pregnant mother and vastly oversimplify what an embryo needs to even survive, let alone develop.
B. "Hypocrisy" is your word, not mine. To point out an inconsistency in a person's argument is not necessarily to accuse him or her of hypocrisy. I have been careful not to use the word "hypocrisy."
C. The causes of early embryo loss are largely unknown, so it would be bizarre to attempt to regulate them like abortion. My point is that it would be consistent of the pro-life movement to view early embryo loss as a medical problem about which something can be done. As I have pointed out a number of times, the cattle industry looks upon early embryo loss as a problem. The pro-life movement apparently does not.
A number of times, I have asked if AT LEAST there couldn't be a PRAYER for those who die in the earliest stages. The silence has been deafening.
As I have said before, I am undecided as to whether human life (personhood) begins at conception, and my current position is that nonreligious arguments cannot prove a fertilized egg or early embryo has the same moral status and right to life as an adult, a newborn child, or even a third-trimester fetus. But if the Catholic teaching about ensoulment is correct, that changes everything. As someone who was raised Catholic, although I can't bring myself to affirm that teaching, I can't bring myself to utterly dismiss it, either. And at the times when I am leaning toward believing in the soul, I am all the more baffled that pro-lifers are so hostile to figuring out the implications of early embryo loss.
Posted by: David Nickol | Oct 24, 2010 2:17:46 PM
David,
It seems that you think that Catholics/the Church doesn't show any care for embryos lost in miscarriages; you mention that story from the 1950s and you say that there isn't a prayer for those who did in the earliest stages.
It might surprise you that today, it is very common for there to be prayer services/Masses for embryos lost in miscarriages. My parish's bulletin this morning had a notice for an upcoming memorial Mass for parents who have lost children including through miscarriage. There are also many prayers specifically for miscarried children and grieving parents - just do a Google search for miscarriage prayers.
Posted by: Thales | Oct 24, 2010 3:12:41 PM
Sorry, typo: ".... you say that there isn't a prayer for those who DIE in the earliest stages."
Posted by: Thales | Oct 24, 2010 3:15:37 PM
And it is offensive, David, that you insist that we jump through your hoops. "Pray. Pray. PRAY, I SAY!" You should back off on that.
Posted by: Austin Ruse | Oct 24, 2010 3:56:22 PM
Thales,
I am aware of prayers for couples who have lost children through miscarriage. What I am talking about is the lack of any acknowledgment of -- even prayers for -- the millions of deaths that are never known about because they occur too early to be detected (except with very careful scientific monitoring).
Do you know what the advice would be today for a woman in my mother's situation? She might have been dealing with a tiny blood clot or some such thing, or she might have been dealing with a very early embryo. What is a woman supposed to do in such a situation?
Posted by: David Nickol | Oct 24, 2010 5:03:01 PM
Austin Ruse says: "And it is offensive, David, that you insist that we jump through your hoops. "Pray. Pray. PRAY, I SAY!" You should back off on that."
You seem to be engaged in some kind of total war with me which obliges you to resist, contradict, or denounce everything I say, to the point that it offends you when I suggest praying for the dead!
Let me take this opportunity to suggest to everyone who believes that life begins at conception to pray for the uncounted millions who die before it is even detected that they exists.
Is there no one in the entire Catholic blogosphere who is willing to endorse the idea of praying for these souls who have no one else to pray for them?
Their mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters never knew they lived so briefly and then died. Is it so wrong to suggest they deserve our prayers?
Posted by: David Nickol | Oct 24, 2010 5:19:03 PM
David,
Re: advice for your mother. I'm not a priest and I've never counseled a woman on her miscarriage, but in my opinion, the priest in your story acted inappropriately. My mother had a miscarriage and got a lot of counseling and direction from her spiritual director. That is what should have happened in your story, and not a priest simply saying "flush the toilet." It is my understanding that it is a fairly common practice for Catholic hospitals to take the remains of miscarriages and treat the remains with dignity, like having them buried in a cemetery, so I don't believe toilet flush is the preferred method for disposing of miscarriage remains. There is also a growing tendency to have funerals for miscarried children.
Re: lack of prayers for embryo deaths that are never known about.
Your demand for more prayers for embryos that are miscarried but which we never know about, is a little strange since we don't know about them; you're asking to pray for an unknown person who might or might not have existed. It would be kind of like a Mass intercession for a man in an isolated Amazonian tribe who died, but who we don't know about. Now, certainly, there are many people in the world who die without anyone being aware of their existence. And the Church does recognize this fact: the official prayers of the Church, like the Mass, always pray for those who have died, especially for those who have no one else to pray for them. So just as I think the Church is still serious about the humanity of the Amazonian man dying without the Church's knowledge even though the Church doesn't specifically talk about him, so do I think the Church serious about the humanity of embryos who are miscarried.
Posted by: Thales | Oct 24, 2010 5:27:59 PM
THOUGHT EXPERIMENT
Assume true machine intelligence is achievable. (I personally believe it is.) Assume someone has created a computer program for a supercomputer that learns from experience (such programs already exist), and that this particular program is so sophisticated, if allowed to run for, say, 9 months, it will have amassed sufficient knowledge and experience to be self-aware, to think, to laugh (in its own way), and to pun. Once the program is loaded into the computer and starts to run, is it morally acceptable to shut down the computer before the program reaches the critical moment of self-awareness and personhood? It unquestionably has the potential to be a person. Does that potential make the hardware/software combination a person with a right to life even before it thinks its first thought or makes its first pun?
Posted by: David Nickol | Oct 24, 2010 5:30:34 PM
"Is there no one in the entire Catholic blogosphere who is willing to endorse the idea of praying for these souls who have no one else to pray for them?"
David,
I just saw your second post to Austin. Yes, I'm willing to endorse the idea of praying for those souls who have no one else to pray for them, including miscarried embryos. And I think the Catholic Church agrees with you, since as I said in my previous post, the Church constantly prays for those who have died, especially for those who have no one to pray for them.
Posted by: Thales | Oct 24, 2010 5:31:23 PM
David,
Your call for prayers is more along the lines of a sharp stick in the eye. If I thought you were sincere, that would be another story, but you aren't. You advance this idea as a strategy of argumentation. You lack credibility.
Posted by: Austin Ruse | Oct 24, 2010 8:03:46 PM
Your last plea for the Catholic blogosphere to pray for miscarried babies reminded of this powerful historical speech, and just as sincere:
"But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America!"
Posted by: Austin Ruse | Oct 24, 2010 8:14:57 PM
David,
Your computer hypo doesn't work since it is not an entity with an immaterial soul. God created human beings with an immaterial soul - that is why human beings have a right to life, and entities without an immaterial soul, like animals or computers, don't have a right to life in the way that humans do. (Note: the fact that human beings have an immaterial soul is not merely a truth of religious faith; the pagan Aristotle reasoned to this truth also.)
A better thought experiment is to ask about the 21-year old who is in a coma, or the 80-year old with advanced dementia or Alzheimers, or you, David, when you are sleeping. All those are instances of a human being who is not self-aware, or thinking, or laughing. Do you think they have a reduced "moral status"?
Posted by: Thales | Oct 24, 2010 10:35:37 PM
Austin Ruse says: "No credibility, David."
Another ad hominem.
I actually don't see that I have said anything that requires credibility. The topic of this thread is "John Finnis on the moral status of the unborn child." I have laid out my arguments about early embryo loss and how I believe they related to the topic. It should not make any difference whether I am a paid agent of NARAL sent here to undermine Catholic teaching, or an angel from heaven sent to enlighten the pro-life movement regarding all the deaths of unborn infants they are ignoring. My credibility or character is not the topic of this thread and is not even relevant to the discussion.
Posted by: David Nickol | Oct 24, 2010 10:39:53 PM
David,
You accuse the prolife movement of hypocrisy, though you do not use that word, because there is not a national campaign on IVF. You suggest a prayer movement within the prolife movement for the souls of these children and that our suppose lack of interest in your admonition is further proof of something, not sure what. I repeat, sir, you have no credibility in this area at all.
Posted by: Austin Ruse | Oct 25, 2010 10:04:43 AM
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
