Although, as H. Tristam Engelhardt has observed, "many describe the status of the embryo imprecisely by asking when human life begins or whether the embryo is a human being . . . no one seriously denies that the human zygote is a human life. The zygote is not dead. It is also not simian, porcine, or canine."
Philosopher Peter Singer, who is famously and enthusiastically pro-choice, has acknowledged that "the early embryo is a 'human life.' Embryos formed from the sperm and eggs of human beings are certainly human, no matter how early in their development they may be. They are of the species Homo sapiens, and not of any other species. We can tell when they are alive, and when they have died. So long as they are alive, they are human life."
Similarly, constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe, a staunch pro-choice advocate, has written that "the fetus is alive. It belongs to the human species. It elicits sympathy and even love, in part because it is so dependent and helpless."
_______________
mp
Sunday, February 12, 2006
UNBORN HUMAN LIFE
When Life Begins
Robert George, Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton, had this to say to my query to Rick regarding Indiana's proposed statute and the question of when life begins:
"I am writing in connection with your posting on the Mirror of Justice website about the basis or bases for the belief that the life of a human being begins at fertilization. You say that you think that there is a basis in science sufficient to support the belief, but that you also accept it on religious grounds. I don't know about other religious traditions, but the teaching of Catholicism that the life of a human being begins at fertilization is itself based on the science. So far as I know, the Church proposes no independent religious basis for the belief. Indeed, the Church did not teach that the life of a human being begins at fertilization (though it has always taught that direct abortion is gravely wrong even in the earliest stages of pregnancy) until modern embryology and human developmental biology established that with the successful union of gametes substantial change occurs, causing the gametes to cease to exist as their constituent DNA molecules enter into the production of a new and complete human organism that (unlike the gametes) is genetically and functionally distinct from the organisms (i.e., the parents) whose gametes united to produce this result. In other words, the Church began to teach what it now teaches about the status of the newly conceived human being when science made clear that from the zygote and blastula stages forward the product of fertilization is a living individual member of the species Homo sapiens.
raised one, I also spent a significant number of years as a Buddhist and that my own acceptance of life beginning at conception dates back to that time period. Although it may in fact be grounded in science, the Buddhist belief was never expressed as being grounded in science. If, in fact, religious beliefs regarding when life begins are grounded in science, then, as Rick originally posited - the statement about when life begins is scientific. But people don't always speak in those terms, which is why I raised he question whether it is imcumbent upon the legislature to ground the statute in science rather than in terms of belief (even if science underlies the belief).
first paragraph might be a little puzzling. After noting that the
Church did not teach what it now teaches about the status of the newly
conceived human embryo until after science had established the fact of
substantial change occuring at fertilization, I go on in the remainder
of the sentence to give the up-to-date description of that change,
including a reference to DNA. Perhaps it goes without saying that the
Church did not have to wait until after the discovery of DNA to know on
the basis of the embryological facts that began to emerge with the
discovery of the ovum that substantial change occurs at fertilization."
Question for Rick re Indiana's Proposed Consent Law
In connection with a proposed Indiana law, Rick asks "in what sense is the statement that 'human life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm' anything other than a 'scientific[]' claim?" Rick: doesn't the answer depend on the basis on which the legislature has determined that women should be informed that life begins when the ovum is fertilized?
The belief that life begins at conception can be based on both religion and science. I think there is sufficient genetic and other scientific evidence to support the claim, but I personally also accept the claim as a matter of religious belief. There are people, however, who dispute the scientific claim and who don't accept the religious claim.
So it seems to me the bigger question relating to Ulmer's statement, is: if the legislature is going to say women must be informed that human life begins when the ovum is fertilized, should it be incumbent on the legislature to have made the determination based on science and not on religious belief?
"Taking No Positions on the Issus of the Day"
Rick references Will Baude's comments about Catholic Universities and greatness. I, too, was struck by the assertion that a crucial function to be performed by universities can only be performed by a university that takes no position on the issues of the day. I do not disagree that it is important that all universities (Catholic or otherwise) engage with positions that are contrary to their own views and beliefs, and that a university that is unwilling to so engage is not performing a crucial function of a university.
However, it is illusory to think that there exist any institutions, universities or otherwise, that take no position on the issues of the day. That the positions are not expressed in religious or moral terms does not mean they do not reflect an underlying view of the humam person and the person's relation to others. And that underlying view of the human person has an impact on how one views "the issues of the day."
I explore this question in the context of views of the nature of the corporation in my article, Using Religion to Promote Corporate Responsibility (39 Wake Forest Law Review), where I argue that secular views of the corporation that purport to be value-neutral are just as value laden as religious views.
Can a Catholic university be "great"?
Will Baude, over at Crescat Sententia, has a thoughtful post about Notre Dame's ongoing discussion about academic freedom, Catholic character, the Vagina Monologues, etc. (Here are some earlier MOJ posts on the matter). He writes:
[D]espite my being a libertarian and a staunch believer in the values of the Kalven report, I agree. There is no problem with a Catholic university deciding to construct a distincct institutional identity.
Now, caveats. I do think that being a great university requires a certain ideological neutrality on the important issues of the day. That means that a great university, ideas and views are to be expressed by individual scholars and students, not by the institution as a whole. That means, maybe, that universities that are avowedly and purposefully Catholic can't be "great".
But I am also a pluralist-- so the existence of libertarian universities, conservative ones, liberal ones, Catholic ones, seems to me a very good thing. For those who want an education that presupposes certain important moral premises, a university founded on those premises may be a perfect home. More power to them and those who work at them.But I do think-- and I fully admit that this reflects the bias of my Chicago roots-- that there is an important function fulfilled by universities in society, and that the crucial core of that function, the enduring challenge to existing practices, codes, and policies, can be performed only by a university that takes no position on the issues of the day.
Now, I disagree, of course, with the claim that Catholic universities, to the extent they try to construct and maintain a distinctively Catholic character and mission, cannot be "great." Or, more precisely, I am not drawn to any definition of "great" that excludes the possibility of "great" distinctively and authentically Catholic universities. Also, I am skeptical -- even though, like Will, I greatly admire the University of Chicago -- that there really are any universities that "take[] no position on the issues of the day", or whose approach does not "presuppose[] certain important moral premises."
Indiana's proposed consent law
In Indiana, where I live, there has been a lot of talk about a proposed abortion-related law, which would -- the Washington Post reports -- require women seeking an abortion to be informed in writing that "human life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm." According to some who oppose the proposal, it "blurs the line between church and state":
"To put our religion or faithful beliefs into a statute that's going to be law, without being able to back it up scientifically, I have real hard questions about doing that," said state Rep. John D. Ulmer (R), who voted against the bill.
Let's concede, for the moment, that reasonable people can disagree about the merits of a proposal like this one, and also that the purpose of the law is to dissuade women from having abortions. That said, in what sense is the statement that "human life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm" anything other than a "scientific[]" claim? After all, the proposal is not to require women to be informed that "it is always immoral to cause the death of human beings", or that "human beings are endowed by their Creator with an inalienable dignity from the moment of conception", or that racial discrimination is wrong, or that recycling is good. The information required by the proposal is relevant (many think) to moral arguments about abortion, but how is it a "religious belief[]"?
"Un-Mix[ing] Mixed Marriages"
This story, in today's New York Times, is interesting ("Reform Jews Hope to Un-Mix Mixed Marriages"):
With intermarriage so common, Reform synagogues like Larchmont Temple embrace interfaith couples. For the most part, concerted efforts to encourage non-Jewish spouses to convert have been frowned upon. Now, however, in what would be a major shift of outlook for Reform Judaism — the largest and most liberal of the three major streams of American Judaism, with some 1.5 million members — that may be changing. . . .
Reform congregations across the country are wrestling with how to respond. The push, which is accompanied by materials and initiatives on "inviting and supporting conversion," treads on emotionally fraught territory for thousands of interfaith families.
It also clashes with a longstanding aversion among many Jews to anything resembling proselytizing. "I have the inherent Jewish struggle," said Rabbi Jeffrey J. Sirkman, leader of the Larchmont congregation. "It's that inner struggle of knowing that we want to reach out there as much as we can. At the same time, we don't want to appear to be the Lubavitch," referring to the Orthodox sect of Hasidic Jews known for its aggressive outreach programs, especially focusing on nonobservant Jews.
"I'm not going to be standing at the corner," he added, "asking people if they are Jewish."
Obviously, proselytism by religious believers (or by anyone else) can take many forms, and raises many questions about respect, toleration, good manners, political power and truth. And, some religious traditions might, for reasons internal to those traditions, emphasize more than others the need to invite others to "come over" (cf., proselutos). It seems to me both that many today proselytize (or "evangelize") badly, and that many today are too sqeamish about proselytism. (Here is a paper of mine, "Changing Minds: Proselytism, Religious Freedom, and the First Amendment," that should be out soon).
Saturday, February 11, 2006
More on Presidential Power and Original Sin
Sorry it's taken me a while to return to this topic, but I want to clarify an issue raised by Rick's response to my post about the implications of original sin for the President's domestic surveillance program. I don't presume the insight necessary to pronounce the surveillance program as categorically un-Christian; rather, I object to Christians' failure even to engage publicly the tension between this Administration's security-driven consolidation of authority and a non-negotiable belief in the fallen nature of those doing the consolidating. Maybe the threat of terrorism is so pressing that the present course is prudent. But Christians' foundational conception of human nature should at least be part of the conversation.
Rob
Reinventing Criminal Justice
We have often discussed, here at MOJ, the purposes and justifications of punishment. So, readers and bloggers might be interested in this essay, from the Washington Post, called "Reinventing Criminal Justice", discussing a bill called the "Second Chance Act" that is working its way through Congress. The author writes:
Over the past several years, a large segment of the public seems to have warmed to the idea [of rehabilitation]. According to a national survey commissioned by the American Civil Liberties Union in 2001, 40 percent of Americans believe that the primary purpose of prison should be rehabilitation rather than punishment, deterrence or maintaining public safety.
As noble as this preference may be, it is based on the common misconception that effective rehabilitation programs exist and merely need to be expanded. Unfortunately, the reality is that most of the state and federally funded interventions in use have never been evaluated, and the few rigorous assessments that have been published in journals of psychology and criminology show that these traditional rehabilitation programs have no lasting effect.
As a psychologist who studies offender interventions, I hope that, as lawmakers begin to survey the evidence to inform their decisions, they will give attention to the data showing that the more certain an offender is that he will be caught and (swiftly) punished for the next crime he commits, the less likely he is to follow through on that criminal act. In fact, the certainty and swiftness of being caught and penalized appear to be more important than the severity of the punishment.
Friday, February 10, 2006
Catholics and Muslims
The Tablet
February 11, 2006
Editorial: A gulf that Catholics can bridge
The self-appointed Chief Inquisitor of Religions, Richard Dawkins, presented a series of television programmes recently in which he dismissed and derided various religious fundamentalists. By treating them as if they were representative of the whole, he was able to persuade himself that it was religion per se he had exposed as absurd, not just extreme and distorted expressions of it. A certain truth was unwittingly revealed by his efforts: secular fundamentalists like himself need religious antagonists with equally closed minds. The current row about the Danish cartoons that ridiculed the prophet Muhammad must please him immensely, for the reaction is exactly what he needs to prove his point. The burning of embassies abroad and the carrying of placards on London streets containing the words “Kill” or “Death to …” only add to the impression that Islam is irrational, absurd and dangerous.
This week’s conviction of the Egyptian-born imam Abu Hamza al-Masri at the Old Bailey for incitement to murder and other similar offences fits this picture entirely. In vain do the great majority of Muslims and their leaders cry “Not in our name!” Thus does the gulf of mutual incomprehension and distrust grow ever wider.
But it must be bridged, if the degree of harmony necessary to social cohesion is to survive. That places a special responsibility on the shoulders of those in the West who have not in principle closed their minds to the claims of religion, and can reach out to understand and explain what Muslims in Britain must be feeling. Catholics and Jews, because of their own experience as minority religions which have not always been popular, have a particular role in this; and Catholics being the more numerous, have the greater responsibility.
As
well as being a model for integration without assimilation, Catholics
have a religious sensibility that enables them, at least more readily
than secular intellectuals, to empathise with what Muslims are feeling.
They too have not rejected the help of metaphysics in shaping their
conception of reality; they too have an absolute rather than a
relativistic morality; they too value the family and want to pass their
beliefs on to their children; their faith also has a strong
international dimension. They understand how much pain ridicule and
contempt can cause when directed at revered religious figures, and why
that pain can quickly turn to indignation and anger. And they have
learnt when it is best to turn the other cheek. Being more familiar
with the secular mindset, Catholics may help to explain Muslim
feelings. In short, they may be in a position to supply the missing
link. It is sorely needed.
_______________
mp
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
