Dr. Feser on Catholic "rights," Healthcare, and Abortion [Jay Watts]

Here is a link to a lengthy, thorough, and informative post by Dr. Edward Feser at What's Wrong With the World about Catholic democrats and their misunderstanding of the Catholic language of rights as it pertains to healthcare. I have friends that have struggled with this and they generally reject my attempts to explain these nuances as the ravings of a misinformed Protestant. Dr. Feser is a scholar and a Catholic, and his own explanation is air tight as near as I can tell.

His basic point is as follow: There is clearly a hierarchy of importance among issues based on the gravity of moral offense and the use of the term “rights” does not mean what most people think it does when used by the Catholic leadership in relation to healthcare.

Simply put, we should not understand the affirmation of a fundamental right to life as equal to a general right to available healthcare. If we did then we are forced to except that we have a moral obligation based on the type of being that we humans are to create a society that experiences a level of wealth and scientific advancement sufficient to provide the best healthcare conceivable at any given level of technological development. In addition, a certain number of qualified people are morally required to become doctors and nurses to maintain an affective doctor patient ratio in that society. If that number is not met voluntarily then forced conscription into the medical educational system is a moral necessity. If individuals are failing to work at an appropriate level in charitable giving the government is obligated to provide that healthcare with no respect to the individual's freedom of association and participation because healthcare is equal in priority to the fundamental right to live without being unjustly killed by your fellow man.

But Dr. Feser does a yeoman's job of explaining why this simply is not the case and how traditional Catholic teaching is heavily dependent on the principle of subsidiarity, which entails that the agency bearing the most responsibility to take care of the needs of their fellow man is the private community and not the government. That the term “rights” as used throughout Catholic literature enjoys various understandings as to the implications and urgencies of recognizing whatever right is being discussed. In other words, and shamelessly stealing from Orwell, some rights are more equal than others.

His main point is to distribute the blame for this misunderstanding between two distinct groups. The Catholic leadership, particularly the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the politicians that have used this confusion to justify and celebrate their Catholicism in championing certain social causes. The Bishops, according to Dr. Feser, are culpable for not being clear that their encouragement for Catholics to engage these other social issues (healthcare, poverty, and the like) should not be seen as a declaration that those issues are morally equal in importance and urgency with the issue of the massive destruction of human life through abortion. The politicians are guilty of either doing nothing (Stupak) or doing worse than nothing (Pelosi, Kerry, Biden, Giuliani, and Schwarzenegger to name a depressing few) by championing and endorsing the legal right of women to do something that is in direct contradiction to the moral teachings of their Catholic faith. The post is extensive, and I highly encourage a careful and complete reading.

I would like to add that these Catholic democrats that endorse government run healthcare need to immediately amend their insipid and cowardly stance on abortion. Their claims that personal opposition to abortion should not translate into laws that impact those who disagree with them as to the nature of human life are ringing awfully hollow today. Their behavior over the past several months has exposed that talk for the farce that it always was. It is time to own up to the truth of your position. You support law that has empowered the willful, morally reprehensible, and government sanctioned destruction of more than 50 million human lives in the United States since 1973 alone. You have no problem legislating your morality as long as it is consistent with the democratic party platform, so please just admit finally and once and for all that you do not care about abortion, the unborn, or Catholic teaching on the matter. This ruse has grown tiresome and your latest power grab against the will of the majority of American people makes it untenable to pretend that you care about the freedom of others to live without your “moral interference” for their own good.

The Pro-life Political Podcast #1 and Only [Serge]

LTI is not a political organization and does not endorse any candidate. The regular participates of the LTI podcast - namely Rich, Scott, and Jay - wanted to change gears and explicitly discuss politics - specifically the recently enacted health care reform bill and its impact on the pro-life cause. Thus, the link to the podcast below is not LTI material, meaning the views expressed are individual opinions and are not endorsed by Life Training Institute. Furthermore, LTI spent no money or staff resources producing it.

Scott described this one as a barnburner yesterday and I could not agree more. Enjoy.

Click here for the direct download

http://media.libsyn.com/media/serge13102/Polipodcast1.mp3

Effectively Responding to Moral Relativism [Josh Brahm]

While working last week with the Justice For All exhibit at Kennesaw State University, I got into a conversation with two students, Justin and Teesha, about moral relativism. There are few topics more difficult to discuss than moral relativism. This is partially because it’s a complicated topic already, but also because few people are open to changing their views on relativism. Even if a person is typically open-minded, the whole concept of relativism is that we can have differing views on a subject, yet we can both be right.

When I train students to respond to moral relativism, I tell them to start by asking a clarification question. Steve Wagner of JFA points out that there are two different types of relativism, so it’s best to ask, “do you believe morals are relative to individuals or cultures?”

If the person believes morals are relative to cultures, I’m going to ask, “then how can you judge the Nazi’s decision to slaughter the Jews?”

If the person believes morals are relative to individuals, I’m going to say, “then you can’t distinguish between a father who feeds his daughter and a father who molests his daughter, can you? They just have different preferences.”

I’m going to share with you an excerpt of my dialogue with Justin, in hopes that it will give you some “tools for your toolbox” to use the next time your friend says “morals are relative.”

Justin:   There is no such thing as objective truth.

Josh:    Is that a true statement?

Justin:   Well, it’s true for me.

Josh:    I understand that, but is it true for me too, or is it just true for you?

Justin:   I don’t know, but it’s definitely true for me. There are some things I believe are wrong, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong for everybody.

Josh:    Okay, well do you think we could agree that there are some things that are objectively wrong? Like rape, for example. Wouldn’t it be wrong for someone to rape Teesha?

Justin:   Well, it would be wrong for me.

Josh:    I understand that, but when I say ‘rape is wrong,’ I mean that there is something inherently evil about the act of rape itself. It seems that when you say ‘rape is wrong,’ you’re simply stating a personal preference.

Justin:   Yes, it’s wrong for me, but who am I to judge someone else?
(I could tell by Teesha’s body language that she was slowly coming to grips with the natural consequences of Justin’s worldview, and it was making her a little uncomfortable, but she didn’t say anything yet.)

Josh:    What about child prostitution? It happens all around the world. Can’t we at least agree that that’s really messed up?

Justin:   Well, I personally don’t think that’s right…

Josh:    Yeah, but some people do. Some people think it’s okay to sell little girls' bodies for sex with adult men. Isn’t that just wrong?

Justin:   Well, some people grow up with different parents and in a different culture than me. So I definitely wouldn’t do it, but who am I to judge another culture?

Josh:    I definitely agree people’s worldviews are partially shaped by their parents and culture, and that we should strive to think freely and clearly, and not just adopt whatever our parents taught us. (Justin nods approvingly.) But couldn’t an entire society be wrong about the “rightness” or “wrongness” of paying to have sex with 7-year-old girls?

Justin:   I think it’s wrong, but it might be right for them.
(Teesha interrupts that she disagrees with Justin. “Well I think that would be wrong!” she replied.)

Justin:   Something can be wrong to me, but that doesn’t make it wrong for someone else. Maybe it’s right to them. There is no objective right and wrong.

Josh:    Look, everybody used to think the earth was a flat disc on the back of a giant sea turtle. Were they right?

Justin:   It was right for them.

Josh:    Yes, but were we ever actually on the back of a giant sea turtle?

Justin:   *pauses / stammers*

Josh:    Do you understand the Law of Non-Contradiction? It is not possible that something be both true and not true at the same time and in the same context.

Justin:   But there is no truth!

Josh:    See that?! You just made a truth statement, that there is no truth! I don’t even have to refute that. Your argument is refuting itself! It committed suicide. It was Dead On Arrival.

Teesha laughed, and we moved on to another topic, and went our separate ways a half hour later.

Why was I able to be so quick on my feet in that dialogue? Because I had already prepared for that kind of conversation. I read books like “Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air” by Frank Beckwith and Greg Koukl or "The Case for Life" by Scott Klusendorf. I listened to CD’s over and over on this topic, so I could master the material for myself. A lot of my responses were not even original! But they were tools in my toolbox, ready to be taken out when the opportunity came up.

I also chose to describe some of the most despicable acts I could think of. (I purposely left out the more graphic descriptions in this article, but suffice to say, I left little to the imagination.) I did this because it’s one thing to stand on a college campus and say there is no objective right and wrong, but it’s another thing to hear what it’s like for a 7-year-old to be forced to have sex with an adult man. There’s a reason we have a negative gut instinct when hearing things like that. It’s the kind of thing bioethicist Leon Kass refers to as “the wisdom of repugnance.”

So start preparing yourself for conversations like this! One way to do that is to listen to the weekly podcast at www.ProLifePodcast.net, read Scott's 5-Minute Pro-lifer articles, or listen to the LTI Podcasts. Then you can be ready the next time someone tells you, “fetuses aren’t persons,” or “I’m personally pro-life but I wouldn’t tell someone else what to do with their body,” or even, “There is no truth. Morals are relative.”

Whatever you do, find a way to get involved. Moral relativism is one of the most destructive worldviews of the century. It’s become so popular that it’s even creeping into our churches unnoticed. It’s important that pro-lifers are able to combat it respectfully but effectively.

Mind-numbing Nebraska Legislation [Elizabeth]

Nebraska lawmakers are trying to pass the Abortion Pain Prevention Act — which would ban abortions after the 20th week of gestation — after more than 2,800 abortions were performed in the state in 2008, according to an article published on NewsNetNebraska.

The author of this legislation, Sen. Mike Flood, was recently quoted as saying if the fetus can feel pain, it’s worthy of the state’s protection.

I know that Flood is pro-life and is well-intentioned, but our ability to feel pain has no bearing on our humanity and, therefore, our right to protection under this nation’s laws.

If he’s merely introducing this bill in hopes of doing some good, then I applaud his efforts. But this bill rests haphazardly on faulty reasoning.

Let’s adopt Sen. Flood’s reasoning for a moment and say that pain should be the determining factor that transforms a fetus into a Fourteenth Amendment-protected human being. His own expert testified before the legislature that a developing fetus can likely feel pain at 20 weeks, if not before.

That “if not before” should surely prompt Sen. Flood to want to pinpoint the stage at which an unborn child develops the capacity for pain. Otherwise, if there’s a chance the fetus is enduring pain, it shouldn’t be forced to suffer dismemberment in its mother’s womb. We should err on the side of caution.

Also, under Flood’s reasoning, a patient anesthetized for surgery must temporarily fall out of the grace of state protection.

And, actually, as Scott Klusendorf pointed out in The Great Abortion Debate, the author of Principles of Anesthesiology asserts that the neurological structures necessary for pain are present in the fetus between 8 and 12 weeks gestation. Even pro-choice advocates have suggested giving a fetus the benefit of anesthesia during abortion because fetuses at 19 weeks gestation have been seen thrashing about violently during blood transfusions carried out in utero.

Under Nebraska’s current law, abortion is forbidden beyond a fetus’ viability, which they’ve determined is 24 weeks — with the exception of extenuating, grave physical risks to the mother. The new restriction would base the ban on pain rather than viability.

Francis Beckwith breaks down the problem with using viability as the point at which the state takes an interest in the life of the unborn in his book, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice.

Beckwith points out that changing from nonviable to viable “does not impart to, or remove from, a being any property or properties that would change that being’s identity.”

He argues that, perhaps, the nonviability of the unborn should “lead one to have more rather than less concern for that being.”

Finally, he concludes that, “each of us, including the unborn, is nonviable in relation to his environment.” If you want to learn about your nonviability, stand naked on the North Pole, he suggests.

Still, Flood has a lot of common ground with pro-lifers. He’s trying to prohibit as many abortions as Roe v Wade will allow. Perhaps, if the legislation passes, it will reopen a dialogue on the topic. And that’s what needs to happen. Sooner or later, the debate always returns to the crux of the issue: “What is the unborn?”

Until legislators look honestly at that question and allow the evidence to lead them where it will, mothers — many of whom are unaware that their unborn children are whole and distinct human beings — will continue determining the worth of their unborn children during all nine months of pregnancy in most every state.

All a-Twitter about abortion [Megan]

            Recently, Tampa native Angie Jackson decided to post her observations regarding her abortion on Twitter. Jackson tweeted (the use of which as a verb still disturbs me, but that is irrelevant) regular updates as the RU-486 (mifiprex) pills she took worked to terminate her pregnancy.

            Doing so was Jackson’s attempt to “demystify” abortion for other women. A self-proclaimed “anti-theist,” she was shocked when around one-third of the feedback she received was negative, even hostile. Sadly, portions of the so-called Christian response were not in any way befitting of ambassadors of Christ, but that is a separate issue.

            In a video blog on YouTube, Jackson talks about the ordeal.

            It is grossly apparent that Angie Jackson misses the crux of the debate.

            Her appeal is largely to autonomy. The assumption that the unborn is not a human being is unmistakable.

            “I am having an abortion…right now,” Jackson informs her audience.

“It’s basically like a miscarriage,” she says. She doesn’t clarify what she means, and such a claim demands clarification.  The terms “miscarriage” and “abortion” (as she is using it) exist on starkly different sides of a fence called “deliberate.”

            “It’s not that bad,” she says of the pill’s effects with a shrug. “It’s nothing compared to childbirth. Compared to labor. Compared to late-stage pregnancy.” (The last was included because Jackson’s prior pregnancy was considered high-risk. According to an ABC News article — a link to which is above — her doctor(s) told her a second pregnancy might be risky. She received an intrauterine device (IUD) to prevent a second pregnancy, but conceived anyway.)

            To borrow a tactic from Scott, she’s right. It’s not that bad compared to a difficult third trimester, certainly in comparison to labor and childbirth. IF THE UNBORN ARE NOT HUMAN.”

            “This is the best choice,” she says.

            She’s right — if the unborn are not human.

            “I just want to let everybody know that you too can have an abortion if you want one,” she says.

            She’s right — if the unborn are not human.

            “It’s okay.”

            “It’s not shameful.”

            She’s right — if the unborn are not human.

            “It’s not killing a child.”

            She’s right — if the unborn are not human.

            Jackson clearly cherishes her 4-year-old son.

            “He’s my world,” she claims with a smile.

            Her assumption that the unborn are not human blinds her to the realization that the differences between her 4-year-old and the 4-week-old embryo she was aborting as she made that video were only four — size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency (SLED) — none of which would justify terminating the life of the latter.

            The embryo is smaller. Jackson’s 4-year-old is smaller than she is, but no less valuable.

            The embryo is less developed. Jackson’s 4-year-old is less developed than an adolescent or adult male, but no less valuable.

            The embryo is in the womb. Jackson’s 4-year-old no-doubt moves or is moved from room to room and place to place on a regular basis — distances that far exceed a birth canal measuring only inches. His environment does not justify taking his life.

            The embryo is dependent. Jackson’s 4-year-old is no-doubt dependant on his mother or other adults for survival in his tender youth. Diabetics are dependant on insulin — but neither is less valuable because of their dependencies.

            Abortion may be mystifying to some. But a mystery, by definition, only remains a mystery until more is known.

            Jackson’s tweets shed some light on what an abortion via RU-486 feels like, but not on what abortion is.

            No matter what it feels like, abortion is a process that either takes the life of a human being unjustly, or it does not.

            The science of embryology has solved the mystery of when human life begins. The images on LTI’s web site go a long way toward solving the mystery of what kind of things the unborn are — the law of biogenesis confirms it.

            In fairness, if Angie Jackson believes the unborn are not human, her actions make sense with regard to acting in accordance with her belief. Wishing to chronicle the experience so other women would know what physical changes to expect with RU-486 makes sense. But believing a thing doesn’t make it true. Wishful thinking is just that — wishful thinking.

In examining Jackson's claims, we find ourselves at a familiar crossroads. As Greg Koukl points out, if abortion does not take the life of a defenseless human being, no justification for it is necessary. If it does take the life of a defenseless human being — and it does — no justification is adequate.

I'll take some evidence suppression with my equivocation, thank you. [Jay]

About a week ago William Saletan of The Slate's Science/Human Nature department published an article discussing the Tebow ad aired during the Super Bowl. I had intended not to comment on it because the content is hardly worth the time to write about and ought to be beneath Mr. Saletan. I say “ought to be” because unfotunately more and more of this sort of sloppy rhetoric is showing up in his otherwise well thought out columns. Ultimately, I decided to write this post because I am teaching a class with Megan on the Christian worldview and we are discussing fallacies at the moment. This piece by Mr. Saletan provides a great opportunity to look at a couple of doozies.

Lets start with the title of the article, Focus on Your Family: The pro-life case for pregnancy termination. Hang on folks because as you can see we are in for a wild ride of equivocation. What does he mean when he uses the term “pregnancy termination?” The term "termination" brings to mind either abortion or miscarriage for me; the abrupt ending of the pregnancy through the death, whether intentional or undesired, of the baby. So read ahead and see what Mr. Saletan is referring to as “pregnancy termination.” He follows links provided at Focus on the Family and finds the first person accounts of two women named Laura Huene and Aimee Weathers. Both of these women had pregnancies that involved fatal abnormalities in their unborn children. Both women were advised to abort. Both women carried their children to 32 weeks at which time the risks to the mother outweighed the benefit to continuing pregnancy and their doctors induced labor.

Or in the equivocating article by Mr. Saletan, they terminated their pregnancies. Wow. In case you think I am overstating the impact of the title lets look at some of the gems from the article itself:

“Pam [Tebow] was willing to die, trusting God to take care of her family. Laura seems to have made a more practical decision. She had three children, and by expelling Pearl at 32 weeks, she survived to bear a fourth.”

“Aimee, like Laura, pushed her baby out well before term to protect her own health.”

“Induced delivery at 32 weeks isn't abortion. But it's a compromise. Sophie Ann lived nine minutes. Pearl, too, died quickly. We'll never know to what extent their prematurity shortened their lives. Their mothers, for all their love and devotion to life, couldn't save them. But Laura and Aimee could save themselves. By doing so, they could take care of their surviving children and give life to others.”

So the induced labor of Pearl at 32 weeks is an expulsion? Aimee pushed Sophie Anne out of her body? Do you see how his language is painting a different picture than the stories told by the mothers in question? They expelled children that posed a danger to them. They pushed them out to save their own lives and preserve their families. The terms are technically correct but used in such a way to further the equivocation. Early birth is pregnancy termination in that pregnancy ends at premature birth as is trivially true with all births I guess. But in this case the confusion of the terms only serves to support Mr. Saletan's specious point.

Which leads me to the second point. Mr Saletan is a very thorough and meticulous man in most articles. If there is information out there that strengthens his position and undermines his opponents he will winnow out every little detail to make certain that his readers are not being fooled by a deliberate suppression of evidence. That is why it is impossible for me to believe that he is as ignorant about birth at 32 weeks as he comes across in this piece and I am left to conclude that we have met fallacy number two on our journey. The direct suppression of evidence that would weaken his argument.

Lets look at another excerpt from the article:

"It's a beautiful story. But hold on. Thirty-two weeks is well short of full term. Pregnancy normally lasts about 40 weeks from the last menstrual period, and any baby born before 37 weeks is considered premature. Delivery at 32 weeks is that much worse for the baby."

And lets look at a quote already mentioned above one more time.

“Induced delivery at 32 weeks isn't abortion. But it's a compromise...We'll never know to what extent their prematurity shortened their lives.”

Mr. Saletan provides a helpful link to a page that gives the general list of dangers that accompany preterm childbirth, but is there more to this story? Did our normally inquisitive journalist not ask this basic question, “Why would two different medical professionals independently pick 32 weeks as a threshold?” If you go to the bottom of the information page that Mr. Saletan offers they recommend that you visit the March of Dimes for more information. I did just that and found out the answer to that question.

You see at 32 weeks the survival rate for babies is 98%. Their skin is usually no longer translucent, they have often developed the ability to suck which means they could be fed with a bottle, and they are dramatically less likely to suffer brain bleeds. They do often need help with respiration and are at a greater risk of long term respiratory issues and learning disabilities than babies born later in pregnancy. But what is the baseline risk for those abnormalities?

Lets get some idea about how good medical professionals are at preserving life. Even at 26 weeks preterm birth (less than 1% of all preterm births occur prior to the 28 week mark), the survival rate for the babies is about 80%. This group is at the most risk for long term problems. About 25% will face long lasting disabilities and almost half will suffer more minor issues such as behavioral or learning problems. But look at those numbers again. Our medical professionals are so proficient and accomplished that about 75% of surviving babies born that early will NOT face long lasting disabilities (that is about 60% of all babies born at 26 weeks). And nearly half will not face the more minor issues affecting intellectual and emotional development (about 40% of all children born at 26 weeks).

When you are characterizing a mother's decision to induce labor at 32 weeks as a compromise in the same family as abortion, it might be helpful to present the full story. As Mr. Saletan is apparently unwilling to do so, here it is. A woman that carries a high risk pregnancy to 32 weeks and then induces labor has given her child a 98% chance at survival and dramatically increased their likelihood of avoiding the vast majority of preterm difficulties. She has entrusted her child at that point to medical professionals who use their considerable knowledge to attend to the health and well being of her child and have a remarkable track record of success. A woman that goes to the doctor to get an abortion has about a 100% chance of having her child killed by the medical professionals that use their considerable knowledge and surgical skill to tear and cut her unborn child to pieces and extract it from her womb. Does that clear up the distinction?

The most objectionable aspect of this article to me is his characterization of the women in question as having compromised their pro-life positions by inducing labor at 32 weeks. Yikes! Only someone that has suppressed all evidence that undermines this ridiculous assertion and so confuses his terminology could print this nonsense under the heading of "Science." It is instructive to us all to see how a couple of innocent (or not so innocent depending how you choose to interpret this) fallacies can muddy the waters of reason.

Mr. Saletan had a point to make. In order to support it he confused his terminology with the sloppy use of the word “termination” and he suppressed evidence that would undermine the credibility of his argument. He also outrageously insulted two innocent women, but on that count I guess we can cut him a little slack. He is clearly so confused that in suggesting these mothers made a choice that, in his mind, purposefully harmed their unborn/premature children to preserve themselves he apparently thought he was paying them a compliment. Sure his evaluation of their actions would horrify them, but he almost seems to admire the caricature of them that he has created. That is quite possibly the most disturbing thing about this flawed article.

How to Defeat a Pro-Abortion Argument [SK]

That's how energetic host Todd Friel titled this 6-minute interview