George's clarification on selective abortion

Earlier today I posted an excerpt from CNN that included a rather odd characterization of Robby George's views on selective reduction.  Prof. George writes to clarify:

[The reporter's characterization of my position] is very misleading, though I don't think she intended to mislead.  It was a very long interview that unavoidably required the introduction of some complicated scientific and philosophical issues. At the beginning of the interview, I explained why I and others are opposed to IVF in principle in the first place.  I then explained the health and safety issues that exist even if we lay aside the question of the morality of IVF -- issues having to do with the safety of mothers and the health of children they may conceive by IVF.  Then I explained the European regulations that limit the number of embryos that may be implanted and said that if IVF is permitted by law at all, then regulations such as these should be imposed.  I further explained that the creation of so-called "spare" embryos that might either be destroyed or placed in cryopreservation is a grave violation of the rights of those embryonic human beings.  Then I tried to explain to her at great length the distinction between direct and indirect abortions, not to justify indirect abortions (which, as I explained, are sometimes justified -- e.g., in the case of removal of a cancerous but gravid uterus -- but usually not), but to show her that in the case of indirect abortions questions of fundamental fairness or justice are what control the moral evaluation.  I think that this is what she had trouble following, despite my efforts (and what I'm sure was her good faith).  It is, after all, a complicated business for people who are not accustomed to thinking through issues like this philosophically and who aren't acquainted with the long western and Catholic tradition of casuistry about the ethics of actions that cause death.  In my opinion, which I explained to her, "selective reduction" need not be, and often is not, "direct killing."  (I am using "direct" here as it is used in philosophical analysis--for a good explanation see Germain Grisez's famous article entitled "Towards a Consistent Natural Law Ethics of Killing."  In natural-law ethics, killing in self-defense and killing advancing enemy combatants in a justified war are examples of "indirect" killing.)  But even in those cases in which it does not violate the norm against direct killing, it is still wrongly causing death (because there is a violation of fundamental justice) and it is therefore an offense against the rights of the child or children whose lives are taken.  That's why I oppose it.  It is true that it is often not the same (though in some cases it is the same) as a social indication abortion, and I conceded that.  (The motivation can be different, as can be the orientation of the will. The ultimate goal may be to save the life of the mother and/or the lives of the remaining children in circumstances in which the number of children being gestated creates a grave risk that the pregnancy will fail prior to their viability.) 

But the norm against direct killing is not the only norm that is relevant, which is why even indirectly causing death (i.e., performing an act that one knows or believes will cause death even where death is not the precise object of one's act) is wrong (fundamentally unjust) in most cases.  When the reporter tried to compress all this into one or two sentences, I'm afraid it came out sounding rather odd and ambiguous.  My mistake, I guess, was in offering a level of philosophical depth and detail that just isn't suitable for inclusion in a newspaper article.  Incidentally, on the question of whether selective reduction is morally justified, I didn't say that I "probably" support the woman's choice to carry her babies to term.  Notice that she didn't quote me on this, it is her characterization.  I think I know what went wrong on this point.  At both the beginning and end of the interview (which was about the whole spectrum of issues raised by the case of the woman with octuplets, and not just the question of "selective reduction"), I told her that what I would say would have to be reported as tentative because there was a lot of uncertainty about the facts of the case and there had been some conflicting reports in the media.  She probably stuck in that term probably" (which, again, she didn't quote, it was her characterization) out of respect for that request.  It's too bad, though, because it makes it sound like I'm unsure.  In fact, I haven't any doubt that what the woman did in refusing selective reduction was right.  To have done otherwise would have been wrong.