Do me a favour
Good old Vatican. Not that there’s anything surprising about it, but good old Vatican all the same. Grown women, who cares; pre-conscious insentient fetuses, all-important. So the woman was raped, so what; she has to have that baby!
A thought experiment. Not the kidney one, a different (though similar) one. A woman is newly pregnant against her will; she doesn’t approve of abortion and isn’t going to have one. She discovers the fetus has a very rare disease which is quickly fatal unless the fetus can be removed and implanted in a compatible host; such hosts are very rare but can be found via a computer search of a medical database. A compatible host is found. Is it murder if she refuses to be an actual host? Not just that – would anyone even think she had a very strong duty to be a host? Would anyone even think she had a weak duty?
I say no. Hardly anyone would think that. (Perhaps I’m underestimating the obsession with the fetus.) So the difference must be that in the usual case, the fetus exists because its mother had sex with a man. Why is that a kind of difference that makes a difference?
Okay put it more charitably, and emotively. The difference is because the fetus belongs to the person whose uterus it is in. But she’s the one who doesn’t want it. The Vatican perhaps thinks she ought to want it. But – is it really the Vatican’s business who loves whom, who wants whom? If the objects of the loving or wanting are not the kind of entities we otherwise think are owed occupancy of our bodies?
“Not just that – would anyone even think she had a very strong duty to be a host? Would anyone even think she had a weak duty?”
Interesting thought experiment! I’d say “no”, but I think this is strongly related to the fact that the prospective host was found through a computer search and, supposedly, is unconnected to the woman concerned in any way. Suppose the prospective host is the best friend of the pregnant woman concerned. Does this change the conclusion of moral duty?
Another thought experiment: I walk by the canal and see a man thrashing about in the water, who obviously can’t swim. Do I have a strong moral duty to jump into the canal and save the drowning man? I’d answer affirmatively. (Let’s imagine that the water in the canal is affected with a pollutant, exposure to which results in discomfort and health risks comparable to those of pregnancy, just to make things a bit equal). Now, suppose I know that people drowning in polluted canals is a daily occurrence in the Republic of Bacteria, halfway around the world. Do I have a strong moral duty to go over there and save drowning people? I’d say no.
But if that goes, our moral duties to other people are strongly affected by location, opportunity, etc. Not sure I like the result.
Yeah, the analogy would be stronger if the fetus were implanted in the compatible “host” against her will, and then we ask: may the host choose to abort it? Presumably the Vatican would still say “no”. So the host’s having sex (or even being biologically related to the fetus) is not the relevant issue after all.
Merlijn de Smit: “But if that goes, our moral duties to other people are strongly affected by location, opportunity, etc. Not sure I like the result.”
But surely one’s duty to help someone must, in part, depend upon one’s ability to help them. How can I have a duty to do something if it is actually impossible for me to do it?
I would also think that any particular “duty” would have to be balanced with my other responsibilities.
OB: “The Vatican perhaps thinks she ought to want it.”
The Vatican thinks that it is up to God to decide who dies. God has decided that that fetus is going to die, so that’s okay.
At the other end of life, however, the Vatican wants it the other way around. You can’t turn OFF the respirator that is keeping someone alive (apparently against God’s will, because He has decided that their time is up) because that would be killing them.
The usual question:
Waht about all the natural “abortions”, where fertilisation takes place, but either no implantation, or release after a few days?
Given the catholic stance on “human life beginning at conception” …
I have asked this question many times, and have been met with a deafening silence form the deluded.
( Sorry, meant believers, there. )
So God is the ultimate abortionist?
This reminds me of the libermertarian joke about there being only one monopolies commission.
“A compatible host is found. Is it murder if she refuses to be an actual host?
No, because the host’s body is her own body and she alone can decide what she wants to do with her body.
“Not just that – would anyone even think she had a very strong duty to be a host”?
No, I do not think she has a duty towards anyone. It is her body. Compatible host – or not compatible host. Period!
“Would anyone even think she had a weak duty?”
Nonetheless, you obviously mention
“weak duty” for some reason, – so it must somehow fit into the foetus ‘actual host’ equation.
The fact that she volunteered by computer database to act as host – one would think she would honour commitment. In that sense she may have a weak duty…But on the other hand, one can do what one like with ones own body. And one can change at any given time one’s mind. [Am sounding like the queen]
[If, that is – there are no binding contracts]?
Please do ignore comment if it sounds too much off the wall. Am not familar with ‘thought experiments’.
<>“familiar” <> it should have read <
Pregnancy is god’s punishment for sex – therefore the person who didn’t have the sex shouldn’t have to be punished.
G. Tingey asks: “Waht about all the natural “abortions”, where fertilisation takes place, but either no implantation, or release after a few days?”
Is your point that we should be allowed to induce abortions simply because they often happen on their own, without our inducement? Would you support an analogous argument made by a murderer: “What about all the natural deaths, where people live for a while, but then die after few years/decades?”
“Therefore the person who didn’t have the sex shouldn’t have to be punished”
Ah, you can say that again to all the children who grew up in industrial schools [such as Goldenbridge]. As the staff perpetually told them – they were unclean, appalling and shameful for ‘pure’ly having being born. They then did not have sex, well, technically, that is – unless it was – upon them – foisted.
But they were punished.
The difference, as I’ve said before, is that people (not just mothers) do have a legal responsibility to look after their own children, whereas they don’t have such a responsibility to anyone else’s. In general, most of us tend to think this is right. It would be ludicrous to impose on me an obligation to feed or clothe other people’s children, but monstrous not to impose on me the obligation to feed and clothe my own. Would we really have sympathy with a mother – or father – who neglected or endangered their children and defended themselves by saying ‘why should I have the responsibility just because I was the one who had sex?’
Thus this thought experiment fails for the same reason as the kidney one.
I still think that the only issue is whether a foetus is a child, i.e. a person. I think it isn’t, hence the abortion decision only involves one person, i.e. the mother.
Tea: though I agree with your point, i.e. sometimes people fall from high places – this does not justify throwing them off, I think (or I hope, at least) that G. Tingey was challenging the internal logic of religious objections to abortions here: if God exists, and is good, and if life supernaturally begins at conception, then why does God allow so many spontaneous abortions? I don’t think the conclusion that abortions are morally unproblematic is intended to necessarily follow.
“The Roman Catholic position is that life begins at conception.
While this may or may not be debatable, one must accept and respect the religious beliefs of everyone.
If, however, the Vatican truly believes that the life of EVERY child is sacred, why does it it also condemn the bombings of civilians in the many wars that are occurring, at this moment – or are unborn children more important than those who are already playing among us?
Amnesty International is well known for its consistent advocacy of Human Rights and the Rule of Law.
Consistency in concern for all Human Life would be a welcome change in Vatican pronouncements”.
Vatican Whispers.
Merlijn,
But if that’s what G. Tingey wanted to say, then his question is simply about the problem of evil, and miscarriage is just one of the many, many examples of evil (i.e.,in the eyes of those who see the fetus as a person).
It’s one thing to ask why god allows evil, but no one normally suggests that, because god does allow evil things to happen, there’s *therefore* no reason why we should be criticized for doing evil deeds. If that’s not what G. Tingey is suggesting when it comes to abortion, then what purpose is his observation supposed to serve?
Perhaps he’ll find a moment to answer this himself :)
Tea has missed the point.
As Marie-Therese says, the RC position is that human life and “the soul” begins at the moment of conception.
Also they take the view that all abortion is evil.
This makes god the biggest mass-murderer going.
No, it is not analgous to a killer claiming that everyone is going to die.
What I am pointing out is the complete logical inconsistency (even inside their own definitions) of the RC stance.
It is nothing to do with “the problem of evil” – that’s an easy one: god is a sadistic torturing bastard, assuming that he is “all-powerful”, as the beleivers all claim.
It is to do with trying to get a straight answer out of the RC – and the evangelicals, for that matter.
Particularly as it is possible to prevent most natural abortions – the woman just has to take thalidomide …..
‘Yeah, the analogy would be stronger if the fetus were implanted in the compatible “host” against her will, and then we ask: may the host choose to abort it?’
Yes but I didn’t want a stronger analogy in the sense of one that matched abortion even more exactly, I wanted one that isolated particular aspects. I wanted to isolate the aspect of the ability to save the fetus’s life, separate from its presence in her body. Mind you, the question you ask is also interesting. There are several ways one can vary the experiment, that pose different questions. What if the only possible host is the mother’s sister? Does she have a duty?
“Suppose the prospective host is the best friend of the pregnant woman concerned. Does this change the conclusion of moral duty?”
It could – but in what direction? Don’t forget, the mother didn’t want to be pregnant. She doesn’t want an abortion but she doesn’t want a baby either.
“Presumably the Vatican would still say “no”. So the host’s having sex (or even being biologically related to the fetus) is not the relevant issue after all.”
Yeah maybe not. If you’re right about what the Vatican would say, maybe not. So the relevant issue is presence inside someone’s body? Once it’s in it stays in unless God intervenes?
That raises an issue…we’re not allowed to use embryos for stem cell harvesting, but no one is expected to have the embryos implanted – no one has a duty to save them via implantation. Why’s that, I wonder. Funny kind of middle ground there – funny kind of limbo.
Funny kind of middle ground there – funny kind of limbo.
Don’t let that bother you, OB. Der Papenfuhrer has declared that Limbo was just a theory, now discarded.
Gah. Never mind. That joke seems a bit forced even to me. I just get so sick and tired of the absurdities of Catholic pronouncements that mockery is the only possible answer, and even that becomes tiresome. Religious conviction turns otherwise intelligent, compassionate men into vicious half-wits, and Ratzinger seems determined to make himself the foremost example of this phenomenon for the 21st century.
I’m increasingly of the opinion that the election of Ratzinger was the best possible choice. With every pronouncement he makes the papacy that little bit more irrelevant to the laity.
Pity he won’t be around long enough to really bed down the disconnect between his aggressive pontifications and the lives of ordinary catholics.
I know, G, the reference to limbo was meant to recall the recent shifting of ground. Limbo? Oh, er, ah – we changed our mind.
But yeah, about Catholic pronouncements. I heard a few minutes of some chat with Richard John Neuhaus on the radio the other day, until the absurd contortions he was going through became too unbearable. Something about how if it’s doctrine you have to do this while if it’s some other thing that is less than doctrine you can do that – and I found myself childishly shouting that it’s all bullshit so skip the nice distinctions.
But the thought behind this thought experiment is a question about what Catholicism really thinks about all this – what is it about them that makes them so strongly prefer the fetus to the adult woman? I really am curious about it.
Oh, that part’s easy. The Catholic Church is one of the most relentlessly misogynistic institutions in history. Keeping women in their place is the essential nature of ALL of their policies relating to women. They mouth pieties about human rights and human dignity, but somehow when it comes to how the family should be structured and who can hold power within the church, “human” means “male human.”
But you knew that already, surely.
“Yes but I didn’t want a stronger analogy in the sense of one that matched abortion even more exactly, I wanted one that isolated particular aspects.“
Right, I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise, my worry was rather that there were too many confounding variables (in particular, ‘distance’ and a kind of doing/allowing distinction) that prevented your analogy from isolating the aspects deemed morally relevant (by the Vatican) in the original case.
“I wanted to isolate the aspect of the ability to save the fetus’s life, separate from its presence in her body.“
But then you go on to say, “So the difference must be that in the usual case, the fetus exists because its mother had sex with a man.” This doesn’t follow, because it is not the only difference between your two cases. The analogy is unhelpful, then, in the sense that it is morely likely to obstruct than to aid one’s understanding of your opponent’s position.
Richard, you need an initial of your last name or something. You make far too much sense, and spell too well to be our beloved plumber from London.
Ah, apologies, I wasn’t aware of the ambiguity. (Homepage: here.)
Oops, I missed the last bit of OB’s comment!
“So the relevant issue is presence inside someone’s body? Once it’s in it stays in unless God intervenes?“
Yeah, I think it’s meant to be something like that. More precisely, I’d expect them to appeal to a purported distinction between ‘killing’ vs. ‘letting die’. But this rests on all sorts of questionable assumptions about what the “natural” course of events is, and – especially – why the status quo should be morally privileged.
“That raises an issue…we’re not allowed to use embryos for stem cell harvesting, but no one is expected to have the embryos implanted – no one has a duty to save them via implantation. Why’s that, I wonder. Funny kind of middle ground there – funny kind of limbo.“
Indeed! Most odd. They end up having to say that the embryos should just be left in the freezer till they naturally expire (or the world ends or something). That way, we keep our hands clean — we didn’t “kill” them. Such attitudes strike me as problematic — as though the deontologist really cares more about their own “moral purity” than about “life” as such. But now we’re getting into the whole ‘consequentialism vs deontology’ debate…
Definitely not the other Richard…
Not that there’s anything wrong with getting into the whole ‘consequentialism vs deontology’ debate!
The Richard who isn’t the other Richard is always blue, and the Richard who is the other Richard always puts a period after his name. It’s easy to tell them apart!
Richard, no, I know it doesn’t follow, I was pretty much flailing at that point – trying to pin down what really is the crucial factor, and aware that I wasn’t succeeding.
“The same is shown in James 2:26, which tells us that “the body without the spirit is dead”: The soul is the life-principle of the human body. Since from the time of conception the child’s body is alive (as shown by the fact it is growing), the child’s body must already have its spirit”.
Thus, in 1995 Pope John Paul II declared that the Church’s teaching on abortion “is unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors . . . I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church” (Evangelium Vitae 62).
The early Church Fathers agreed. Fortunately, abortion, like all sins, is forgivable; and forgiveness is as close as the nearest confessional.
The Didache
“The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child” (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).
Notice that it does not mention girls?
I’m very sorry, but I’ve just about reached the point that I won’t listen to what any believers in God/G-d/Allah say, no matter how nice, liberal, broad-minded, subtle, profound, or well-dressed in miter and surplice they are. It’s just plain nonsense, this God stuff. I say we can all save a lot of time by just ignoring the whole thing.
Any moral pronouncements the God-talkers make that have any sense to them can be easily based on any number of godless grounds; the rest of them should be junked. How could anything be plainer?
Thank you O.B. for not pointing out that the Richards can be told apart by their spelling.
The difference is because the fetus belongs to the person whose uterus it is in.
This may be your opinion, but it is not necessarily anyone elses. Other people might say that there is no difference, that the difference is because in the “usual case” the woman aborting the child is a parent of it, and certainly most people do draw a distinction between not rescueing someone and deliberately killing them.