Inherent and Equal Dignity: A Reader Responds to Steve S.

A reader writes:

Steve Shiffrin's recent post responding to John Breen and Michael Scaperlanda is coarse, uncomprehending, and creepy.

He castigates those who use the "shrill rhetoric" of calling abortion murder.  Yet he engages in the shrill, ideologically partisan, and philosophically unjustifiable rhetoric of calling human beings in the embryonic and early fetal stages of development mere "human organisms that could develop biologically," and "human organisms without nerves or brains."  Coarse -- and hypocritical.  He provides not the slightest argument to sustain the alleged distinction between a mere "human organism" and a human being.  Nor does he take the first step towards answering those critics of abortion and embryo-destructive research who have argued that the distinction cannot be sustained in light of the facts of human embryogenesis and early develoment and the spectacular failure of efforts to identify the "person" or the "real" human being with the brain, or consciousness, or the immediately exercisable capacities for characteristically human mental functioning.  Uncomprehending.  The rhetoric of "human organism" (which, of course, is what all of us are) is a mere rhetorical ploy to define certain human beings -- those at early developmental stages when some people have an interest in being permitted to exterminate them -- out of membership in the human family.  Creepy.

Religion need not be brought into any of this, but since MoJ is supposed to be a Catholic blog, it is worth asking on what basis a Catholic can possibly distinguish "living human organism" from "human being" -- especially when the distinction is deployed to justify failing to protect (and even licensing the killing of) those who are unfortunate enough to be categorized by those in power as mere "human organisms."  If there is one thing that is utterly bedrock about the Catholic understanding of humanity, it is that all living members of the species Homo sapiens, irrespective of age, size, stage of development, location, or condition of dependency, are human beings -- persons possessing inherent and equal dignity and a right to life.

Clearheaded and intellectually honest advocates of abortion do not pretend that their position is compatible with the Catholic understanding of humanity and fundamental human equality and dignity.  Take

Princeton

philosopher Peter Singer, for example.  Unlike Shiffren, Singer understands and freely acknowledges that "living human organisms" in the embryonic, fetal, and infant stages of development are human beings.  He doesn't shrink from this truth, or engage in word games to obscure it from view.  He knows that if "having a brain" makes a difference to moral standing, it is because the brain functions to enable creatures of certain kinds to possess self-awareness and to carry out certain forms of mental activity.  But, of course, humans don't have a brain that functions in that way until months after birth.  Hence, Singer defends the morality not only of abortion, but of infanticide.  Singer's conclusion is horrific, but at least he faces up to the scientific facts and is honest enough to speak out loud about the implications of his moral-philosophical premises.

Evidently, Shiffren would like to find a middle ground (one that could somehow still count as "Catholic") between the view of the nature and basis of human dignity taught by the Catholic Church (though not by the Church exclusively, nor on the basis of sheer revelation) and a view like Singer's.  If he takes the trouble to examine the scientific and philosophical literature, and to consider the facts and arguments carefully, he will join those who have already ventured forth and found that the "middle ground" is nothing but quicksand.