Home > News > God & Country > Robert George Answers Doug Kmiec's Questions on Life Issues

Robert George Answers Doug Kmiec's Questions on Life Issues

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I am having a hard time seeign www.usnewsc.om in Operas 5.6, just thnought I wuld tell you about it?

seo lace of AL 12:11AM May 02, 2010

+1

soundtracks of AL 6:42AM July 17, 2009

Thank you, Mr George, for your eloquent and reasoned discussion of the moral implications of abortion and stem cell research. It is encouraging beyond words to at last hear the intelligentsia draw a line in the sand on this issue (in addition, of course, to the inspired writings of the late JPII).
Mr Kmiec's reasoning though not morally sound (because it allows that the end of fewer disadvantaged unwed mothers justifies the means of abortion) is embraced by so many Catholics as they all too briefly consider the debate. Some search for a rationale that allows them to be in step with modernist thinking, and once they find Mr Kmiec, they stop thinking. Sadly, it is a habit that many Catholics have formed over the years in response to the Church's directive against contraception-where, once again, they prefer to deny and ignore the carefully deliberated teachings of the Church, softspoken though they are here by the American clergy.

b alario of CA 1:38PM May 27, 2009

This president is the most pro-abortion pres. in history. He supported allowing babies who survive botched abortions from being resuscitated.
Life begins at conception. Obama is a constitutional lawyer so he says. Well the Dominican Republic has passed that into law.
So, for the Supreme Court and his idea of following international law, here is a precedent that even Ginsburg should approve.
The child is dismembered and burned with saline during abortion. Just because you can't hear the scream doesn't mean pain is not felt. That is TORTURE. He state that America does not torture.
There but for the grace of God goes he.

Corinne DellaVilla of NY 9:23PM May 12, 2009

The issue is one of value as Peter Singer has stated. We bomb and produce collateral deaths or on purpose caused deaths in Hiroshima and Dresden and Iraq. The rational is save our way of live and save more lives by doing so. These are exceptional circumstances. And so is being pregnant and the the eventual responsibility of raising a child. So just as the people of Hiroshima and Dresden were persons so is the beginning embyro. This is not a scientific issue; clearly it is a an early human; rather, is the way we perceive our world. And pregnancy and abortion are seen as exceptional circumstances; hence, never in our history is a mother who aborts or her husband who encourages her to do so or her family held accountable at law for any kind of felony.
What makes for an exceptional circumstances. Again, not science. IT is how we experience the world. We experience and then we rationalize. This accounts for different cultures and religions.
And a second issue, contracts are not enforceable involving promises to utilize one's organs to save another; that is if one contracts to donate one's kidney and reneges and the perspective receiver dies as a result, this is not actionable at law. This applies to pregnancy where one is utilizing one's body to sustain the life of another. An officer in the army cannot order a soldier to donate blood to save a dying comrade; of course, social opprobrium would control the donation. A doctor is not liable for failure to use a pint of his own blood to save a patient assuming no other source. I think without it being stated explicitly, this is the way many look at pregnancy. Hence, there is not the social opprobrium to abortion. At worst, seen as a necessary evil like collateral damage.
The issue comes down converting one to experience the world as you do as in religion.

len of PA 10:30PM April 08, 2009

Let me correct a statement I made.
"An abortion at any point in the pregnancy is the taking of innocent human life given the position that we should not exclude any class of humans from the community deserving of protections of the law."
In fact, all abortions are the taking of innocent human life given the clear scientific fact that the embryo...fetus that exists in the mother's womb in a pregnancy is a distinct, whole human organism. We, of course, should not exclude anyone from the equal protection of the laws, but that simply has nothing to do with my description of what abortion is as a matter of science. Making abortions permissible excludes the most vulnerable and smallest members of the human community from the protection of the laws.

John Kim of TX 5:56PM April 07, 2009

Let me correct a statement I made.
"An abortion at any point in the pregnancy is the taking of innocent human life given the position that we should not exclude any class of humans from the community deserving of protections of the law."
In fact, all abortions are the taking of innocent human life given the clear scientific fact that the embryo...fetus that exists in the mother's womb in a pregnancy is a distinct, whole human organism. We, of course, should not exclude anyone from the equal protection of the laws, but that simply has nothing to do with my description of what abortion is as a matter of science. Making abortions permissible excludes the most vulnerable and smallest members of the human community from the protection of the laws.

John Kim of TX 5:52PM April 07, 2009

Darcy,
It seems from the little I can gather on this forum that you are an individual who wants to give both sides of the argument a fair shake. If that is the case, I suggest you take a look at Beckwith's monograph with Cambridge Press titled: Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice. He addresses the objections you make cogently. I also think you should be a bit more careful to throw around terms such as "absurd, incoherent, and inconsistent." Is it possible that my argument is absurd in that you want to reject the conclusion? Sure. But, as a matter of logic, my argument is simply not inconsistent. To clarify, I, at least, think that no class of humans whether Jewish, Black, mentally impaired, or very young should be excluded from the human community. The question of moral culpability in an abortion is a complex one, and I suggest you do some more reading in legal philosophy. I think you are conflating these two concepts, when I've demonstrated that they are not one and the same.
Again, you raise an interesting point. An abortion at any point in the pregnancy is the taking of innocent human life given the position that we should not exclude any class of humans from the community deserving of protections of the law. That, however, does NOT entail that I think all women who have abortions 4 weeks into pregnancy are morally culpable. Quite simply, there are a host of other considerations that must be looked at. Take for one that the culture by use of euphemism misinforms women as to what exists within her womb in pregnancy, a member of the human species. If it is the case that a woman committed this act not realizing that she was taking innocent human life and there were plausible circumstances for that to be a fact she should not have known, then she would lack moral culpability.
Last, I don't know if you are feigning surprise by my admission that the intentional killing of an 8th month old child in the womb for economic reasons is a heinous act. If you doubt that it is a serious moral failure, I suggest you search your conscience. It is actually quite clear that the vast majority of Americans think that abortions of the kind described above should be prohibited.
Best,
John

John Kim of TX 4:57PM April 07, 2009

Let's try and see if you can answer a question. Is there any point in the life of an unborn child that you believe it obtains any rights? One third of hte way out of the woan? Is it okay to kill the baby then? One half of the way out? What is your dividing line, since you insist on ridiculous strawmen.
Now let me try something else, trusting full well that you will likley not read nor respond to what I write here. Do you understand that not even everyone who kills an adult human is charged with murder? Some are charged with first degree murder, some with second degree murder, some with voluntary manslaughter, some with involuntary manslaughter, some with reckless homicide, some with criminally negligent homicide etc. What is the difference in these crimes? The value of the person killed is equal in all of these cases. It is the intent and action of the killer that established the crime and punishment. Therfore, our society and legal system could establish the value of the child as a human being, and then establish ramifications for abortion in whatever manner we decide. We don't have to adhere to the beliefs of Darcy who looks on an unborn child of any age as having the same value as a decayed tooth because it is an unwanted item in the woman's body.

Bovertine of CA 8:39PM April 06, 2009

John Kim of TX wrote: Now, let's take your scenario. Genuine depression is a serious medical issue. I think one can plausibly make the claim here that as a result of chemical imbalances one would not be exercising one's will in a way that would bear moral culpability. In this instance, the woman may lack mens rea.
What you are doing here is providing a POSSIBLE defense that could be used for the woman. However, if in fact abortion is murder and a three-week-old fetus is an American citizen afforded all of the rights of any other citizen, the fact is that this three-week-old fetus "died" as a result of the mother’s suicide attempt.
Whether or not the woman would be found guilty is not the issue. The issue is that if the pro-life assumptions are accepted by our society, the woman in my scenario would have to be charged with the murder of her three-week-old fetus. If found guilty, then she should receive the same sentence that would be given to a mother who killed her two-year-old child. My point is that this is a scenario which would be beyond laughable, and yet, this is exactly where the pro-life position leads.
The fact that pro-life advocates do not like to admit that this is where their “logic” would lead us does not in any way invalidate the problem that their claims create. The pro-life advocate’s reluctance to admit the logical outcome of their claims only underscores in the inability of the pro-life advocate to be reasonable and/or consistent.

Darcy Grant of IN 7:48PM April 06, 2009