A moral one, yes (at least in terms of truly preventable accidental deaths.) Not a legal one though.

Do we in principle have a moral duty to try to save every embryo from accidental death? It's a yes or no question. If you're tempted to answer “not yet, but we tend to grant more rights over time,” that means today the answer is “no” and leaves us still bobbing among the pickles.

That's part of what a lot of right to lifers argue- that abortion rights have led to a decline in general respect for life.

That's a curious idea. In historical perspective, it seems like we have more reverence for life than ever. Society is much less violent than it was a couple centuries or even a couple decades ago, people feel more and more compelled to help random strangers on the other side of the globe, and we're extending more and more concern for animal and environmental welfare. Even the concern for the welfare of fetuses is AFAIK of recent vintage. If one takes their opinion literally, it seems to be in distinct conflict with the evidence.

I'll add option #4 then. Take the first part of option one- the definition of right to life as protection from murder, and insist that this must come first. Just as, for instance, the founders framed the right to life as primary. Society, and the rest of our legal system, has built upon that addition protections from negligence which can cause death, but I would bet that early statutes focused mainly on prohibiting deliberate killing.

So, I don't see any inconsistency in focusing on right to life as defined by 'protection from deliberate killing' first. It's a foundational concept upon which everything else is built. In fact, that's part of what a lot of right to lifers argue- that abortion rights have led to a decline in general respect for life.

you wrote: “I'm sorry Archangel if it offends you, but I gave EWTN radio all possible benefit of the doubt.”

I did not know this information you put forth about electioneering violations.

And not at all offended, incidentally, by your thoughts about ewtn.

I can now better see where you are coming from. Thank you.

dr.e

I see only three ways out of the ethical pickle. Either right to life implies only protection from murder, and there's some other reason we exert ourselves to prevent accidental or negligent deaths of adults; or it implies one thing for adults and another thing for embryos for some reason we would need to conjure up; or it implies all three, and someone granting one but not another is not truly recognizing a right to life but is acting on some other principle.

EWTN TV is considerably milder in rhetoric than EWTN radio. Generally EWTN TV runs concurrent with EWTN radio, however radio programming includes local programming also. Local call in programs are very interesting with regard to political rhetoric that the catholic church denies it broadcasts. Specific hypocrisies as well as electioneering violations are prevalent, especially as an election date approaches. Electioneering violations this past election really shocked me. Therefore it did not surprise me one bit when a doctor was murdered by a zealot in the Kansas City area earlier this year and only a few months after the election.

Well, again, I can agree with you that abortion rights are based on the relative 'value' of the right to life for the fetus, and that some people simply don't agree that the basic right exists before birth.

But I don't agree with your particular rationale for value (basing it on the number of natural deaths that occur in that population.) And I think you are also confusing two issues- property rights vs. right to life. Our Constitution and legal system is framed on a much more absolute right to life. The concepts of manslaughter vs.first degree murder don't have anything to do with the relative value of the person killed. We don't, for instance, say that if a victim wasn't valued by any other human beings then society is hypocritical for charging his killer with murder.

And I think you're confusing two issues. One is how valuable a thing is, the other is the level of premeditation leading to its end. If we agree the answer to the first is “not very,” complaining that someone dispatched it deliberately is vindictive. It's as if my partner got mad at me for throwing out his “favorite shirt” that he never wore…and which was, technically, mine.

The deeper issue is when life becomes valuable enough to protect from perils, whether they're deliberate or accidental. And on this I can categorically say I have no categorical answer, other than categorical lines are too simplistic. The Catholic view that every sperm is sacred is absurd, and the Jewish view that the fetus is fully alive only when it graduates from med school is perhaps too extreme the other way.

The point of conception is too early, both because so many zygotes aren't biologically viable and because in practice no one is prepared to go to bat for them, except insofar as that involves giving someone else a hard time. The moment of birth is unambiguous, but babies a few moments after birth are pretty much the same as those a few moments before, so how can they have become a whole lot more valuable in the meantime?

If ever there was a question that resisted black-and-white answers, it's this one. In a way, a policy with some vague guidelines about trimesters which ultimately leaves women to figure it out for themselves seems like the only possible solution.

Meh, now you're losing me again. All life is pretty much designed to lose a large fraction (and every life ends naturally at some point!), so I still feel you're putting a greater onus of internal consistency on those who see the issue of taking (not just 'not saving', but actively taking a life) life during the fetal stage vs. everyone else who acknowledge that taking a life after birth is morally wrong and should be legally prohibited. Using your rationale, one could argue that a subgroup of the population which is born with a serious congenital disease condition (pick one- say, cystic fibrosis) represents the same kind of 'waste' built into the system- a sort of natural selection for the human population- and thus it would be impossible to argue that these people should be saved. IOW, you seem to be missing the VERY important distinction between accepting natural deaths and actively killing a living being.

Really I think the more logical position for abortion rights trumping right to life of the fetus is that legal personhood doesn't begin until birth. I don't agree with that position, but I don't find it illogical either.

hi there Father Time and thanks for replying to me. I respect your preference to 'not say.' That's ok. I am interested in where people come from in their thinking a little more than they sometimes have time to leave in a comment.

I do read between your lines a bit, tho. EWTN used to be a communications system to evangelize and pray with listeners… long ago. I've not heard radio broadcasts, only seen the TV programming. It was very mixed on that day in terms of holiness vs angry people. The soul of the Church is at issue for many. Thanks.
dr.e

Yes, the meme model is a good one. The movement has latched on to the baby killing meme because it's much more virulent, even though it doesn't fully make sense. I think it appeals to conservatives because it also plays into their displeasure with promiscuous sex and ducking consequences, both of which are on firmer rational ground.

Human reproductive systems are designed to lose a large fraction of embryos; ultimately that cannot be squared with a moral obligation to save them. I think followers of the movement are sincere, they just haven't put together the contradiction. And even if they did, a few built in contradictions often make a more potent meme.

As for my studies, I’d rather not say. However I would recommend listening to EWTN radio all day every day for at least six months. Leading up to an election is a good time. The hate rhetoric comes out and cannot be camouflaged should you continue to listen. After the indoctrination, it’s only a small step to become a “Martyr for God” as so many good Catholics have done throughout history. Sacrificing one’s self on the ongoing battlefield between good and evil to save the “babies”.

It’s all there. You just have to be persistent.

So I agree and disagree with both camps.

No, I just felt that you were overplaying that hand- your initial comments seemed to suggest that this was really the main reason for opposing abortion but the 'baby killing' meme is an easier sell to society.

At any rate, your last comment is more nuanced in terms of the variety of motivations within the movement, and I'm content to leave it there.

I'm not accusing anyone of a hidden agenda, and in general I find charges of hypocrisy rather silly. I hope you're not suggesting conservatives' disapproval of irresponsible sex is either my imagination or a secret. Remember I'm a right-wing zealot myself, or so I'm reliably informed by many people here. Conservatives oppose promiscuous sex because society has learned over the centuries that it leads to broken families and the spread of disease. Look around at the 40+% divorce rate and the AIDS epidemic, and it's hard to deny conservatives have a point.

Nor am I suggesting pro-lifers are anything but well-intentioned, compassionate people. I just think they've been oversold on the movement they're part of, and they haven't noticed. In that, perhaps, they're like most people in most movements.

For clinical abortion, irresponsible sex is the antecedent. For manslaughter of various types, other actions precede the killing. Those other actions (I gave the example of cell phone usage while driving) may or may not be the focus of the law. Those decisions are made on a case by case basis.

I presume that you wouldn't say that the citizens, legislatures, and law enforcement officials of states that don't have legal prohibitions against use of cell phone while driving are disingenuous when they still insist on prosecuting people for vehicular manslaughter if they kill an individual as a result of their irresponsible cell phone behavior. Why not? If they're not 'going after' people for the antecedent act, then does that mean that they aren't being honest about what they believe is irresponsible, or does it mean that there hasn't been a determination in that case that such a law on balance is necessary or good?

Same with abortion- people might believe that sex without regard to taking responsibility for a potential pregnancy is morally wrong and that it precedes the unwanted pregnancy. We may wish that no one would be so irresponsible as to get themselves into that situation, so that abortion would not be necessary. But that doesn't mean that there's a hidden agenda to prohibit irresponsible sex because we think it's 'naughty.' It is just an example of the end decision being the one that is morally wrong in a secular sense as well as a religious one, and therefore ought to be addressed by the law.

I think you greatly underestimate the desire of many prolifers to help women who face unwanted pregnancies, and perhaps if you had a more balanced view of that you'd see that it isn't about punishing the adults involved- just not allowing them to take a fetal life as a result of their prior actions.

I'm sure that you can find examples of the type of religious individuals who want to shame women for having had sex and gotten pregnant, or punish them. It's just that that's not at all the bulk of people that I've encountered in the prolife movement, and the kind of caring that you say that we would show if our priorities were correct is very present in a lot more people than you seem to give credit to. Maybe my experience is also anecdotal, and perhaps skewed because I tend to associate more with people who help out and support crisis pregnancy centers where compassion and assistance are profound, rather than putting a lot of my time and focus on those who agitate for legal changes. But I'd still challenge you to look at the overall picture, not just a narrow segment that you seem to have encountered.

Just trying to understand where you're coming from.

Just would mention, you can read my articles here at TMV on Fred Phelps starting back a couple years ago, as well as about my confrontation with Fred at the Columbine High School memorial. Fred claims to be a Baptist, but it is thus far not possible to find a Baptist in the hierachy who will endorse him unequivocally.

thanks.
dr.e

I'm not saying pro-lifers have an obligation to do anything, just that their actions speak louder than words. They make choices about which lives to defend, and those choices suggest their priorities are not quite as billed. It's understandable, since “save babies” is a nobler sounding cause than “stop having loose sex,” but the disparity dings their credibility.

The act of texting or cell phone use in and of itself has no moral bearing, but the context of doing it while driving is irresponsible. Similarly, in a secular sense, there's no rationale to declare consensual sex as immoral- though religious folks might attach additional conditions for its morality based on the sacramental commitment of the participants (that part is a religiously based tenet, but it also derives in part from the potential responsibility attached to the consequence when a pregnancy results.)

Virtually no one wants to criminalize extramarital sex, but some do see it as an act of immorality and that's in part due to the irresponsibility that leads some to then decide to abort a resulting pregnancy.

Basically though, 'right to lifers' have no greater or lesser obligation in fighting all of these antecedent sins than does anyone who supports laws against murder, manslaughter, or any other classification of illegal killing. Recognizing that there are antecedent acts doesn't mean that people must fight to criminalize or even attempt to stop those antecedent acts- instead, it's a matter of holding people resonsible for the consequences if they freely choose to engage in those acts and the undesired potential result occurs.