A Michael P. rightly points out, we are deeply divided (even among Catholics) on the moral status of the unborn human. I should hasten to add that there are still a number of individuals who remain confused over the biological status of the unborn human – I encounter them every year in my Constitutional Law class. These are the political realities as Michael P. has suggested. And, I assume that most people who deny either the biological or moral status of the unborn human act in good faith. It would be not only unreasonable but uncharitable for me to think otherwise.
But, there is another elephant crowding in the room – the Fall. We are selfish, sinful creatures who often want to do what we should not do. (I can testify to this from much personal experience). But, being reasoning creatures and being children of God, we feel compelled to justify our actions. Strangely, it is this fact that we must deceive ourselves (in good faith, mind you) in order to justify doing what we should not do that gives me hope. Buried deep in side of each of us is that prick of conscience that can be covered up but not eradicated.
With respect to the moral status of persons, we see these arguments repeated throughout history. What does the Bible or natural law say about the moral status of the indigenous population of the Americas? It's all very cloudy you see. If the answers were clear, we would have consensus but since we don't have consensus, the answers must not be clear. And, well, if Indians share a moral status equal to that of European's, then what right do we have in enslaving or abusing them. So we develop arguments to justify our actions. And, it is left to irritants like Bartolomé de Las Casas to speak truth to power. What does the Bible or natural law say about the moral status of Africans? It's all very cloudy you see. If the answers were clear, we would have consensus, but since we don't have consensus, the answers must not be clear. And, well, if Africans share a moral status equal to that of whites, then what right do we have in enslaving them. So we develop arguments to justify our actions. And, it is left to those irritating voices to remind us of the truth of the matter.
And, so it is we abortion and the moral status of the pre-born human! What does the Bible or natural law say about the moral status of the pre-born human being? It's all very cloudy you see. "If natural law teaching were clear on the matter, a consensus would have been formed by those with natural reason." And, well, if pre-born humans share a moral status equal to post-born humans, then what right do we have to intentionally kill them. So we develop arguments to justify our actions. And, it is left to irritants like Robert George and others to speak truth to the current prevailing powers.
I really love raw honesty in the discussion of these grave matters, and Jed Rubenfield, Daniel Callahan, and Dawn Johnsen provide us with an honest assessment that a pre-born human must be denied personhood status at least in part because granting moral status would adversely impact all who favor the abortion license. Jed Rubenfield, in a 1991 Stanford Law Review article, argued that "the consequences of deeming a fetus a person must be recognized as relevant to the decision of when (if ever) a fetus acquires this status." He also said: "[b]ecause it establishes the point at which a woman's constitutional right may be abridged, the determination of a fetus's personhood cannot be divorced from the constitutional interests protected by that right." A decade earlier, Daniel Callahan said: "One of my own motivations in trying to make a distinction between 'human being' and 'person' was perhaps my desire for an outcome that would allow women to have abortions. Hence I said to myself: 'My gosh, if this kind of distinction is not possible we can't have abortions. Therefore, let's see if I can make another move that will give me the kind of outcome I want.'" Panel Discussion, Legislating Morality: Should Life be Defined?, in DEFINING HUMAN LIFE: MEDICAL, LEGAL, AND ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS 335, 339 (M.W. Shaw & A.E. Daudera eds., 1983)(statement of Daniel Callahan). And, in a 1986 Yale Law Journal article, Dawn Johnsen said that "[t]he social determination of how the legal system should view the fetus should be informed by a careful consideration of all potential implications" and that "[t]he legal status that society chooses to confer upon the fetus is dependent upon the goals being pursued and the effect of such status on competing values."
