One reason for disagreeing with the claim advanced by the Catholic bishops that human life begins at the moment of conception when an egg is fertilized by sperm involves the definition of murder. By definition, murder involves the deliberate taking of human life. As a result, if human life begins when an egg is fertilized by sperm, then the deliberate destruction of that fertilized egg involves murder. By this reasoning, abortion involves murder. But the Supreme Court legalized abortion. But can murder be legal? Isn't murder against the law?
But perhaps the Catholic bishops are mistaken about when human life begins. This brings us back to the question that Obama was asked at Rick Warren's church. My response to the question is two-fold: (1) an infra-human life-form does begin when an egg is fertilized by sperm; but (2) the distinctively human life-form emerges only with what is known in the Roman Catholic tradition of thought as ensoulment. Yes, I am working with what is known in philosophy as the body/soul distinction.
The doctrine of ensoulment in the Roman Catholic tradition of thought holds that ensoulment with the distinctively human soul is decisive. But I am saying that ensoulment does not occur at the moment of conception when an egg is fertilized by sperm, the Catholic bishops to the contrary notwithstanding.
Thus in answer to the position advanced by Catholic bishops, I am advancing paradigm of the human person as having two souls (i.e., life-forms): (1) an infra-human life-form and (2) a distinctively human soul (i.e., life-form). It follows that I am advancing the paradigm of the human person as having two natures: (1) an animal nature and (2) a distinctively human nature.
As is well known, Christianity has for centuries advanced the view of the historical Jesus as having two natures: (1) human nature and (2) divine nature, so that he is said to be fully human and fully divine. But I think that that view of the historical Jesus is mistaken: I think that the historical Jesus was fully human, but not divine. Nevertheless, the idea of one person somehow embodying two natures (human and divine) should serve as an instructive example to help us understand the paradigm of the human person that I am advancing.
Related Reading: I have explained my reasoning regarding abortion most fully in my lengthy op-ed piece titled "The Catholic Bishops Want No Debate About Sexual Morality" that was published at OpEdNews.com on October 28, 2010. For further discussion of the immateriality of the distinctively human soul, the interested reader might want to read Adler's INTELLECT: MIND OVER MATTER (Macmillan, 1990), mentioned above. For a discussion of the Roman Catholic position regarding abortion, see Garry Wills's book HEAD AND HEART: AMERICAN CHRISTIANITIES (Penguin Press, 2007, pages 523-30). (Wills is a practicing Catholic, but I am not.)
Let's review. Fetzer uses deontological moral theory to work out his position regarding abortion in the first trimester. But the Roman Catholic bishops use natural-law theory to work out their position opposing abortion in the first trimester. Both present reasoned positions and give reasons for their respective positions. I myself have advanced an alternative to their position.
To be sure, we should always be prepared to give one another reasons to support claims we make in civic debates, and we should insist on the use of reasons in civic debate about contested issues such as abortion, as distinct from appeals to somebody's religious beliefs. For this reason, I find Obama's apparent inability to articulate a reasoned position about abortion disappointing, to say the least. To be sure, I understand that Obama upholds legalized abortion. There is no doubt about that much. That much is a relief for liberals who support legalized abortion.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
