Good question, bad answers
David Gibson raises a number of important questions in his last post. But one of them — the one mentioned in his title — seems to me to be preeminently important, and I’d like to focus on it here.
If it’s true that both Obama and Biden managed to avoid sounding as clueless as Nancy Pelosi (a very modest achievement), it’s also true that their responses suggest that neither of them has thought very carefully about abortion as an ethical and legal problem — rather than, say, an electoral or sectarian problem. They both continue to reach for the term “theology,” perhaps because they think it will convince the religious voter of their seriousness and respect. I, like many other religious voters, have no doubt of their seriousness: theirs has been, from the beginning, the more serious of the two campaigns, and the more respectful of the voter’s intelligence. But abortion is not, or not primarily, a theological issue, and so Biden’s talk about pluralism and devout disagreement is not very helpful. In fact, it is very unhelpful, because it is a distraction.
If human life begins at conception, and if every human life deserves the same legal protection, then talk of “ensoulment” is beside the point and anachronistic. I understand that these are big ifs, but my point is that these prolife claims are based not on special revelation or Catholic dogma but on embryological evidence and ethical reflection.
If Biden were asked whether the lives of one-year-old children should be protected by law, he probably would not answer that while he’s prepared to accept, as a matter of faith, that a one-year-old girl has the same rights he does, he’s not willing to make this judgment for other people in a pluralistic society.
He would not say this mostly because almost everyone agrees that one-year-olds are human beings and — to complicate things slightly — human persons. And we can all be thankful for that. But the reason many people offer for withholding legal protection from embryonic and fetal life turns out to be a reason one could (and a few do) use to argue for scrapping or reducing legal protections for one-year-olds. For a one-year-old child, like the unborn, is not a fully developed human being; and, again like the unborn, she is not physically independent.
If the argument is that the fetus, while perhaps a human being, is not yet a human person because she does not possess some minimal set of distinctively human properties or faculties, such as self-awareness or speech, then it is an argument that could be applied, mutatis mutandis, to everyone except fully mature adults in perfect health. So the newborn would have more claim to our protection than the fetus, the healthy five-year-old child more claim than the newborn (or the disabled five-year-old child), the adolescent more claim than the five-year-old, etc. Of course we are not used to thinking in terms of such a graduated scheme, but do we have a good reason not to?
This is a difficult topic, but it is also an important one. I do not fault Obama and Biden for not offering fully developed theories on Sunday morning chat shows. I do fault them for making it sound as if this controversy were about private religious scruples. In fact, no controversy could be more public, in the proper sense of that term. It is an argument about the scope of the community these candidates would like to lead and govern.
Matthew, well said. For those who profess to be Catholic, “to whom much has been given, much will be expected.”
Much indeed is expected.
“He has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent away empty.”
http://www.ibiblio.org/prism/Mar97/iraq.html
http://www.psi.org/resources/pubs/EngHiRes.pdf
http://www.unicef.org/southafrica/SAF_resources_annual2007.pdf
http://www.psi.org/resources/pubs/EngHiRes.pdf
http://www.dmiglobal.org/pdf/tanzania-annual%20report-2007.PDF
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_/ai_104971296
Matthew et al, I’ve made a comment on the David Gibson thread concerning Archbishop Chaput etc. That is also relevant to what you have said here. You will see that I’m not wholly in your camp.
Matthew,
The law basically defines a person as a human being who has been born and is alive. It is a broad enough definition to cover newborns, 5-year-olds, the disabled, the sick, and the elderly. It is not the pro-choice side that wants to redefine who a person is. It’s the pro-life side.
As I always point out, Catholics and Jews have different ideas about when life, in the sense of personhood, begins. Do you want Obama, Biden, McCain, and Palin to decide whether the Catholics or the Jews are right?
Do you thing embryologists and ethicists have been absent from this debate, and do you think if we assembled a blue-ribbon panel of scientists and bioethicists, they would solve it once and for all?
By the way, as Cathleen Kaveny has pointed out, there are religious and moral arguments about when life begins, and there are also very serious arguments that even if it is agreed that life (personhood) begins at conception, abortion should nevertheless be legal. So even answering what appears to be the central question doesn’t answer the question about what the law ought to be or whether Obama is wrong to support Roe v Wade.
It might be interesting for someone to recommend a really good, evenhanded book covering the arguments for and against abortion, because it’s doubtful if we debate it here yet again, anyone will come up with anything new. I am sure that not everybody would be willing to read an evenhanded book on the topic, but I think many would, and I certainly would.
Has there ever been a book assignment and discussion on dotCommonweal?
Germain Grisez wrote ABORTION: THE MYTHS, THE REALITIES, AND THE ARGUMENTS, which came out, if I recall, shortly before Roe v Wade.
Although dated in some respects, it is a thorough treatment of the issue from various angles.
Whether a fellow blogger would consider this book “a really good, evenhanded book covering the arguments for and against abortion” is, of course, another matter altogether.
Anyway, worth at least a look if not a read.
As I always point out, Catholics and Jews have different ideas about when life, in the sense of personhood, begins. Do you want Obama, Biden, McCain, and Palin to decide whether the Catholics or the Jews are right?
Catholics and (traditional) Mormons disgree about how many wives a man can have. We don’t seem to have too much problem letting the government decide who was right on that one.
It seems to me the Catholic Church is having great trouble in convincing its own people that abortion is always wrong. And why is it that when their pronouncements no longer have influence on their Baptized do they expect secular law to back them up, irregardless of what the majority of what U.S. citizens believe? Joe Biden and Pelosi made a big mistake in trying to put forth Catholic teaching and tradition. They should stick to the U.S. law.
Is there a right to choice, a free will?
There is no question that God gave us free will. We can choose evil but we will suffer the consequences.
From the Baltimore Catechism
Q. 145. What is “Free Will”?
A. “Free Will” is that gift of God by which we are enabled to choose between one thing and another; and to do good or evil in spite of reward or punishment.
From the second edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church
“1738 Freedom is exercised in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect. The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and public order.”
Now this is my argument: Why it so difficult for the church to understand why Catholic politicians support that ability to choose that is given by God? The law does not say we have to have an abortion. Democratic politicians are persons who have sworn to uphold the Constitution and all U.S. laws. From the above quote, “This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority”
I think it is very dangerous for the country that some church officials and prominent Catholics, to blatantly given carte blanche to Republican politicians who have supported other intrinsic evil actions that are justified by changing the meaning of words or denying that certain rights exist. They have not gone after Republican public officials with the same shrill outcry that is directed against Catholic officials who have supported the law of freedom of choice for abortion. The implementation of torture or an unjust war or suspension of habeas corpus may be given a mild rebuke sometimes, but not the shrill outcry that is directed against Catholic officials who have supported the law that gives freedom of choice to women
I know this is over the top but I truly feel this way. Did you know Hitler was against abortion (granted only for his Arian race)? If he was running for office in the United States I feel we probably would be encouraged by some Church officials to vote for him because he was against abortion!
F. C. Bauerschmidt,
But I wasn’t asking about the government and the “traditional” Mormons. I was asking about the Catholics, the Jews, and abortion. So my question has not been answered.
Of course, it wasn’t just the Catholics who opposed polygamy. I don’t believe there was any other religion or group in America who supported polygamy, whereas there is a wide range of opinions among many religions regarding abortion.
In any case, bigamy/polygamy is nominally illegal in Utah and elsewhere, but the laws are not enforced. Might that be a model for abortion law?
Mattthew wites: “If human life begins at conception, and if every human life deserves the same legal protection, then talk of “ensoulment” is beside the point and anachronistic.”
Alas, I don’t think there’s any dodging the question of personhood, represented in traditional theological language as ensoulment. It is human persons who are possessed of innate dignity and therefore human rights. The question on which reasonable people disagree is when an enbryo counts as a person. And as you say, many of the criteria offered for personhood of embryos would be objectionable if applied to other stages of human life. But not all. For example, doesn’t personhood require individuality, that one be a single entity? Twinning is one issue involving indivuality as a criterion, but I think the real challenge along these lines to the life-at-conception argument is chimerization.
Here’s how chimerization works. It sometimes happens that two independent early embryos come into contact with each other. When that happens, the two embryos may fuse, and go on to form a single individual with two distinct genotypes. This occurs naturally (and rarely) in humans, and can be induced in animals.
If each independent embryo was a person, but if each single later embryo is also one person, then we have a situation in which a person has disappeared in the fusion of two embryos. The common term for the disappearance of a person is “death.’ Yet in chimerization, somehow a person has died while not even a single cell of the organism has died. It is basic Catholic doctrine that human persons are incarnate beings, a body-soul composite. How could a person die without the death of a single cell?
Wouldn’t it be more consistent with an incarnational theology to assume that personhood requires that the embryo have passed the stage at which chimerization is possible? That would be around 12 days gestation (or, practically speaking, 5 or 6 days, since implantation would make it nearly impossible for embryos to fuse later than that.) The embryo before then is a human organism, but not yet a human person, since personhood requires that one be an indivudal. Indeed. Benedict posed the question in the negative “How can a human individual not be a human person?” Here it may be asked, “How can a human person not be an individual?”
It is certainly possible that personhood does in fact begin at conception. But isn’t it also theologically reasonable to infer from chimerization that personhood may begin later? If reasonable people of good will may disagree, and if the Catholic magisterium allows only one stance, that of personhood at conception, it is hard to say that an appeal to reason or biology alone would settle the matter. Rather, it becomes a matter of believing in the special inspiration of the Catholic magisterium to recognize personhood correctly, and we may not require that acknowledgment from those of other faiths in a religiously pluralistic culture.
I wonder what Nat Hentoff would make of Biden’s suggestion that the pro-life position is a theological one, and not an issue of basic human rights. I think Peggy Noonan expressed the sentiments of a lot of people in her reaction to Obama’s abortion answer at the Rick Warren forum.
“As I watched I thought: How about “Let the baby live”? Don’t parse it. Just “Let the baby live.”
As to the question when human life begins, the answer to which is above Mr. Obama’s pay grade, oh, let’s go on a little tear. You know why they call it birth control? Because it’s meant to stop a birth from happening nine months later. We know when life begins. Everyone who ever bought a pack of condoms knows when life begins.
To put it another way, with conception something begins. What do you think it is? A car? A 1948 Buick?
If you want to argue whether legal abortion is morally defensible, have at it and go to it, but Mr. Obama’s answers here seemed to me strange and disturbing.”
Lisa, thank you for the biology lesson. However, since chimerization might be “possible” for “around 12 days gestation (or, practically speaking, 5 or 6 days),” might it not be wise to err in favor of letting unborn human life take its natural course leading ultimately to death or birth?
Again, we get bogged down in details — scientific, theological, philosophical, etc. — that will never be resolved in our lifetimes or beyond.
Each of us on this thread was lucky enough to make it to this point in life.
Absent the hard cases (rape, incest, life of the mother), why not let things be, simply be?
Lisa Fullam makes several interesting points. I’ll try to address a few of them here.
First, I would have no problem with the use of the term “ensoulment” if it were merely an old-fashioned way to talk about personhood. But notice that when this term is used, it is usually in some phrase such as “moment of ensoulment.” The idea seems to be that there is a moment of conception and then, after an interval of disputed length, another moment of ensoulment, when, by some supernatural intervention, the embryo or fetus becomes a person. This way of thinking and talking strikes me as deeply problematic and, especially when it is used by politicians, irritatingly coy. When it comes from members of a party that champions the importance of science as against religious obscurantism and wishful thinking, it also strikes me as somewhat hypocritical.
The ongoing debate among philosophers and bioethicists about the significance of twinning and chimerization is an important one, and we should not dismiss it as hair-splitting or “getting bogged down in details.” Details matter. I am not persuaded that the possibility of twinning shows that the embryo, before a certain stage, is not an individual—for the same reason I am not persuaded that if scientists are one day able to clone an adult human being using stem cells, this will prove that the cloned adult was never really an individual. Similarly, it is not obvious to me that if two separate embryos, before a certain stage of development, can combine to form a new embryo, this demonstrates that they were never individual to begin with. But this (very, very rare) phenomenon is a source of real philosophical puzzlement, and I hope prolifers will give it greater attention, lest they be accused of the same cavalier disregard of embryology that has characterized so much prochoice rhetoric.
Finally, it is perhaps worth pointing out that if the main debate were between those who believe that personhood begins at conception and those who, following Ms. Fullam’s argument, believe that personhood begins five or six days after conception, the abortion issue would not have the political traction it has today, and Catholics could devote even more attention to other important issues, like the provision of health-care to the uninsured. Unhappily, the main debate is between those who believe that unborn persons deserve legal protection and those who, following Rep. Pelosi, believe that the question of when life begins “shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.”
Joseph, the problem is, there are competing interests. Not killing an unborn baby is at the very same time a requirement that its mother provide significant bodily life support to it.
The church teaches that things must be allowed to take their course from the moment of sex–no intervention. And indeed, contraception was criminalized for a long time. And the Church, in Massachusetts, fought long and hard to keep it criminalized.
The church teaches that a woman many not interfere with the procreative aspects of sex EVEN TO SAVE HER LIFE. So, if you have heart problem, and you have sex–no contraception. You need to risk death, rather than use a condom. Or never have sex with your husband again.
But secular law, and the vast majority of Americans do not accept that teaching as a matter of morality. And even the church itself doesn’t think it should be imposed as a matter of law.
So the question is, as a matter of secular law, can you impose the burdens of pregnancy on a woman if what is at stake (for whatever reason) is not a human being yet?
Absent the hard cases (rape, incest, life of the mother), why not let things be, simply be?
So you are saying there are no “hard cases” except for rape, incest, and the life of the mother? Isn’t it rather cavalier of you to assume that the rest are “easy cases”?
As to the question when human life begins, the answer to which is above Mr. Obama’s pay . . .
Of course, we now know that what Peggy Noonan writes is not necessarily what she thinks, but in any case, the question asked of Obama wasn’t when human life begins. It was, “At what point does a baby get human rights?” If you skip past the unfortunate “above my pay grade” remark, Obama did not give a bad answer regarding the issue of abortion.
My problem with the pluralism argument had always been that it seems rather selective – for many, it appears that it is only relevant for the lone case of abortion – all of their other policy positions which are based in their personal faith are fair game for legislation. The classic example is capital punishment – Senator Kerry or Speaker Pelosi, for example, are vigorous opponents of the death penalty in spite of vast public support for the practice. I presume they personally agree with Church teaching on capital punishment, yet they are not prohibited by deference to religious pluralism to oppose the practice in spite of the will of the people. Have they ever made an argument as to why they seemingly treat abortion differently? Is there any moral / ethical basis for why abortion would be treated differently than abortion with respect to deference to pluralism? I must also add that Senator Biden is not in the above category – he is a fierce proponent of the death penalty.
Putting aside the merits of their claims, I am amazed that politicians as successful as Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi would make the political blunder of arguing theology in a way that was sure to invite rebukes from U.S. Catholic bishops. They’re not going to win that argument. Are they taking advice from Geraldine Ferraro?
I suggest that they read Mario Cuomo’s famous 1984 speech at Notre Dame. He mentioned, but wisely avoided, the argument that Catholic tradition allowed for a diversity of views on the morality of abortion. He instead argued as a politician, contending that it is not feasible to outlaw abortion – that it wouldn’t work. It was a much smarter political move – as a politician, he had the home-field advantage in that debate with the bishops. And, in another clever political thrust, he put the onus on the bishops to reduce abortion by winning over the hearts and minds of the public – Catholics, too.
The speech:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mariocuomoreligiousbelief.htm
And the U.S. bishops’ rebuke today:
http://cnsblog.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/usccb-responds-to-biden/
I’m sorry if this is too far off topic, but I think David was trying to discredit Peggy Noonan by invoking a recent news story in a dishonest way. Here’s a link to what was actually said while she was in commercial break on MSNBC and there others who corroborate her take on the events as they occurred.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2IyOTRlNGIxNTY4OTZkZjllZWYzYzkwNDRhOTYwYTc=
It seems to me that the abortion discussions on this blog could be simplified somewhat if people stopped saying that the Catholic Church teaches that “life begins at conception” in the sense that “a person is present at the union of sperm and egg”. The Church does not, not, not teach this. Many fundamentalist Protestants believe this (e.g., Sarah Palin) but this is not the precise teaching of the Catholic Church. The Church holds now as it generally did in the middle ages (and for purely philosophical, not theological reasons) that a person is present only later in the gestation process. It *does* teach, however, that the little creature present at the (ordinary) union of sperm and egg has the same right to life as the later embryo/fetus has.
It seems to me that this latter teaching of the Church (that the non-person has a person’s right to life) is highly debatable, and it also seems to me that we could eliminate the stem cell research problem entirely if we could on a consensus about the ontological status of that tiniest of creatures and what its rights, if any, are.. As I see it, if it isn’t a person, it can’t have a person’s right to life, from which it would follow that stem cell research is not morally objectionable. We could then proceed to the main problem: is the later organism,the fetus a person and if so, does it have the same human person’s right to life that born persons do?
I would like to have joined in these threads about abortion earlier but I’ve been very ill (no, not dead :-) and then was dodging hurricanes. There have been some other misconceptions expressed here, I think, about just what the Catholic Church does and does not teac about the morality of abortion, and they need to be cleared up. Further there are some severe linguistic problems that need clarification, e.g., the various meanings of “a life”, “human life”, “human being”, “person”, “human person”, etc., etc.
Complexity, complexity.
\]\\\\\.
No, Adeodatus, that is not a link to what she actually said. That is a link to her attempt to explain what she said. This is what she actually said:
You can listen to the exchange here: http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/09/noonan_caught_on_hot_mic.html
I’m sorry if this is too far off topic, but I think David was trying to discredit Peggy Noonan . . . .
Adeodatus,
Even if Peggy Noonan can argue that her remark “It’s over” did not refer to the McCain campaign, she cannot reconcile her hymn to Sarah Palin in her online column with her remark, “The most qualified? No! I think they went for this — excuse me– political bullshit about narratives.”
Anyone who watches the kind of television show Noonan was appearing on knows that the partisan political operatives are not giving you their candid opinions when the microphones are on. They are spinning. Are you really saying there was no disconnect between what Peggy Noonan had written and what she was caught saying on the open mic?
. . . . by invoking a recent news story in a dishonest way.
Do you really think it was dishonest of me to say that we know what Peggy Noonan writes is not always what she thinks?
Clara, regarding your statement, “but not the shrill outcry that is directed against Catholic officials who have supported the law of the freedom of choice for abortion”
This is because without The Right to Life, one has no other Rights.
Yeah, in the full context of what Noonan has written vs. what she said, the exact meaning of “it’s over” is a minor, minor point — one she’s trying to turn into the main point to distract us from the actual significance of her live-mic mistake. (Now that is a really novel approach — I wonder if it would work for the McCain campaign?)
My very favorite part of Noonan’s attempt to save face is when she alludes to a comment she made during “an on-the-record press symposium” that contradicts — and only mildly, at that — the her off-the-record criticism of McCain’s campaign. As if it were a given that no columnist, and certainly not a conservative columnist, would ever say one thing in public and another in private!
Nancy said: “Clara, regarding your statement, “but not the shrill outcry that is directed against Catholic officials who have supported the law of the freedom of choice for abortion”
This is because without The Right to Life, one has no other Rights.”
And yet somehow in the United States where abortion is legal, we do, in fact, have Rights.
From, “Do Embryos Have Souls?” by Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, PH.D
“We must recognize that it is God’s buisness as to precisely when he ensouls embryos. We do not need an answer to this fascinating and speculative theological question, like counting angels on the head of a pin, in order to grasp the fundamental truth that human embryos are inviolable and deserving of unconditional respect at every stage of their existence. Rather, this moral affirmation follows directly on the heels of the scientific data regarding human development, which affirms that every person on the face of the planet, is, so to speak, an overgrown embryo.”
Whether you continue to debate the question or not, Father Tadeusz gets to the heart of the matter. As Catholics, we are called to Believe in The Deposit of Faith, and Trust that Christ Has entrusted this Truth to His Church. At the end of the day, for those who profess to be Catholic, the question will not be, “Did you do what you thought was right”, but rather, “Did you keep the Faith.”
The Good Father didn’t mention anything about the Faith requiring us to vote for a Republican candidate. Is this something that you extrapolated yourself?
The issue is, some who profess to be Catholic, have misrepresented the Catholic Church, in regards to abortion and The Right to Life. I hope that ALL the Bishops,will have the Courage to
correct ANY statements that are made or written that are a misrepresentation of the Catholic Faith. We, who profess to be Catholic, are to vote with a conscience that has been conformed to Christ.
Whether you continue to debate the question or not, Father Tadeusz gets to the heart of the matter. As Catholics, we are called to Believe in The Deposit of Faith, and Trust that Christ Has entrusted this Truth to His Church. At the end of the day, for those who profess to be Catholic, the question will not be, “Did you do what you thought was right”, but rather, “Did you keep the Faith.”
Nancy,
If you read the quote you gave from Father Pacholczyk, you will see that he is dismissing arguments based on faith (“We do not need an answer to this fascinating and speculative theological question . . . .) and making an appeal based on “scientific data.” So I don’t know what The Deposit of Faith has to do with what he says.
At the end of the day, for those who profess to be Catholic, the question will not be, “Did you do what you thought was right”, but rather, “Did you keep the Faith.”
This is a bewildering statement, since it is everyone’s paramount duty do do what he or she thinks is right. Thomas Aquinas said it would be better to die excommunicated than to violate one’s conscience.
Matt, I don’t really get the gist of your post exactly.
You seem to be objecting to abortion being reduced to a a “religious scruple”? How do you define “religious scruple”? And how is abortion not, or “not primarily” a “theological issue”?
If you take abortion out of the realm of religion–and it seems to me you’re moving toward that case–then don’t you have to explain how abortion upsets the general public welfare in the same way that, say, robbing the local bank does? How does legal abortion harm those whom the laws now protect?
Margaret Steinfels suggested discussing arguments against abortion from a non-theological POV after a discussion about Nat Hentoff’s pro-life piece. In discussing abortion about that same time with my mother, who believes neither in God, nor souls, nor hell, and who considers herself pro-choice, she said she believed that abortion performed after a fetus could feel pain was cruel and caused suffering, and ought not to be allowed anymore than animal cruelty was allowed.
I think most Catholics would be outraged by my mother’s notions, as many participants on this blog were offended by Steinfels’ query whether abortion could be argued on grounds other than theological.
If I followed the arguments on the Steinfels thread correctly, taking abortion out of a theological context is dangerous because it separates abortion from the larger Catholic teaching from which abortion derives–the notion that as the Body of Christ on earth, we are bound to protect the marginalized, weak, defenseless, sick and suffering.
“If you Love Me, you will keep my Commandments.”
“If you Love Me, you will keep my Commandments.”
And I certainly do love God and try to keep His Commandments. But I am not seeing how this extends to an obligation to vote for a Republican candidate necessarily.
And here’s why. I think that an injunction placed by someone on Catholics to treat abortion as the most important issue when going to the polls requires us to vote for the political party that treats abortion as the most important issue. There are no such parties in the United States. We COULD have a party that makes abortion the most important issue, but the people voting for the party that claims to have an abortion ban in its platform refuse to punish it in any way when it does not in fact execute its platform. So the plain irony is, if Republicans want to promote an abortion ban, they should refuse to vote Republican in this election (rather than require Democrats to vote for a Republican) since the Party has reneged on abortion just as it has on their “principles” in regard to the economy and to small government.
You should build yourself a party that puts abortion first, before you tell anyone that their moral obligation to put abortion first requires them to vote for people who won’t do that.
Unagidon,
The problem with the current setup is that one party does put abortion first. Is there any other single issue that is a deal-breaker in the relationship between a candidate and the Democratic Party?
I may be mistaken, but I think somebody could be a gun-totin’ chaw-smokin’ redneck and still be a Democratic candidate in a blue state. Much harder to be a clean cut Ivy League pro-life Democratic yuppie.
Unagidon, no where does anyone say, you must vote Republican. I am sure that you are aware that Catholics worship the God of Love NOT the God of coercion.
ooops, that should be the god of coercion, since only one is the real God, God.
Neither party wants to address abortion in a serious way. The Left has achieved legal abortion in the United States, but they won’t even look at the modest restrictions that could exist around it such as one sees in Europe, because the Democrats have been appealing to the same slippery slope logic that the GOP has. This is the way the debate has been framed.
The debate is framed in such a way as to be insoluble. First, there is this strange and incorrect assumption that the only secular argument against abortion has to be a “scientific” one. And since there will never be any scientific proof of when one becomes “human”, since our definitions of human are already not scientific ones regardless of who we are. Second, the GOP will not say to what extent it is against birth control. But its hard line approach to abortion requires it to be against some forms of birth control used by most people who use birth control but who nonetheless oppose abortion. So part of the foundation of the debate on their side is simply dishonest. Third, as I mentioned before, Catholics who would otherwise vote Democratic are being encouraged/ordered to vote Republican under the excuse that the abortion issue is most important. But as I mentioned, it is not the most important issue for the GOP and never has been. Fourth, the argument that one is more likely to get a positive outcome from a Republican than from a Democrat is in this case what we call a “lottery argument”. One is more likely to win the lottery if one enters it than if one doesn’t, but the likelihood of winning either way is almost the same. Finally, the GOP has a women’s rights problem. Only one part of this problem is the abortion issue. It is unfortunate that the Democrats have taken abortion to be a banner of their support for women, but on the reverse side, the GOP might make more traction with women if they did things like support equal pay.
It is all these underlying things that are hidden in the contemporary debate that are making both the Right and the Left count on packing the Supreme Court in the future. Each side knows that insofar as the issues are being framed, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have a majority.
Unagidon, interesting points. May I ask for clarification/concession on some of the items you raise above?
“The Left has achieved legal abortion in the United States, but they won’t even look at the modest restrictions that could exist around it such as one sees in Europe …”
Maybe we could qualify that statement to say Democratic politicians? I’m a Leftist (but not always a Democrat), and I support legal restrictions on abortion although not outright criminalization of all abortions for all reasons whatever.
“First, there is this strange and incorrect assumption that the only secular argument against abortion has to be a ‘scientific’ one. And since there will never be any scientific proof of when one becomes ‘human’, since our definitions of human are already not scientific ones regardless of who we are.”
How else do you appeal to those who don’t believe in God–or who don’t interpret the will of God in a Catholic way–except by appeals to reason and science?
“Second, the GOP will not say to what extent it is against birth control. But its hard line approach to abortion requires it to be against some forms of birth control used by most people who use birth control but who nonetheless oppose abortion.”
Not sure I follow. Are you saying that, for example, the Pill might be an abortifacient in that it prevents a fertilized ovum to adhere to the womb, then the GOP is hypocritical in not condemning the Pill as well as abortions conducted in clinics?
“Third, as I mentioned before, Catholics who would otherwise vote Democratic are being encouraged/ordered to vote Republican under the excuse that the abortion issue is most important. But as I mentioned, it is not the most important issue for the GOP and never has been.”
Doesn’t this depend on the individual Republican? Some have introduced legislation, particularly in state legislatures, to require informed consent, parental consent, set bans/limits on trimester abortions.
“Finally, the GOP has a women’s rights problem. Only one part of this problem is the abortion issue.”
Would you still say this, given the big swing toward Palin by white women, particularly Catholic women?
“The Church holds now as it generally did in the middle ages (and for purely philosophical, not theological reasons) that a person is present only later in the gestation process. It *does* teach, however, that the little creature present at the (ordinary) union of sperm and egg has the same right to life as the later embryo/fetus has.
“It seems to me that this latter teaching of the Church (that the non-person has a person’s right to life) is highly debatable, and it also seems to me that we could eliminate the stem cell research problem entirely if we could on a consensus about the ontological status of that tiniest of creatures and what its rights, if any, are.”
Ann, can you provide cites for your statement that “the Church holds now … that a person is present only later in the gestation period”? I’m not aware of the church making this distinction between human life in its earlier stages and some later stage in which the human life achieves “personhood”.
My understanding is that the church declines to define magisterially when human life achieves personhood. “Person” is subject to all sorts of proposed definitions; e.g. a person is one who has self-awareness, memory, the ability to reason, and so on – traits that may not be present, e.g., in a biologically-mature human with developmental disabilities, or who has sustained severe injuries.
What the church teaches is that *human life* is entitled to basic human rights (hence the name “human rights”, not “personal rights”), all of which depend on the right to life. This right attaches to at every stage of human development. This teaching is discernible through reason, as evidenced by its acceptance by many reasonable people who don’t accept the Church’s claims of possessing revealed truth.
Jean said: “Maybe we could qualify that statement to say Democratic politicians? I’m a Leftist (but not always a Democrat), and I support legal restrictions on abortion although not outright criminalization of all abortions for all reasons whatever.”
By “Party” I always mean the politicians who make up the central committees and set out policy. I think that most people in the US think the way that you do, despite what the politicians in each party say. One reason that the discussion always moves to either/or is that each party wants to scare/enflame its base.
Jean said: “How else do you appeal to those who don’t believe in God–or who don’t interpret the will of God in a Catholic way–except by appeals to reason and science?”
Well first, I would not equate reason with science. There is no science that says, for example, that we should have a democracy. The arguments for democracy are arguments from reason, not science. In the case of abortion, both science and religion are injected into the debate in order for interested parties to claim authority. Religion and science in our society are seen as occupying different spheres of authority which is another reason why the debate put in terms of these will fail.
We do need, and always need, political discussions on the nature of rights. These I believe are being obscured by appeals to nationalism that are running through our elections. Nationalism is irrational in the formal sense, appealing to the emotions for authority. But that’s another thread.
Jean said: “Not sure I follow. Are you saying that, for example, the Pill might be an abortifacient in that it prevents a fertilized ovum to adhere to the womb, then the GOP is hypocritical in not condemning the Pill as well as abortions conducted in clinics?”
Yes. And they are not being hypocritical. Rather, they are being manipulative.
Jean said: “Doesn’t this depend on the individual Republican? Some have introduced legislation, particularly in state legislatures, to require informed consent, parental consent, set bans/limits on trimester abortions.”
This is true. But remember; Catholics are being asked to consider abortion the MOST IMPORTANT item on the political agenda. Can you imagine what the GOP could have and would have done had they considered it to be the most important item on their agenda as a party, especially in terms of what parts of their agenda they were able to push through at a time when they controlled the government?
Jean said: “Would you still say this, given the big swing toward Palin by white women, particularly Catholic women?”
It could be that one of the reasons that “liberalism” is failing in the United States is that liberalism has achieved almost all of its goals. People are taking them for granted and they become less and less controversial as achievements. When this happens, they tend to drop off as political issues. Nonetheless, when someone is concerned with women’s rights as such as an issue, they don’t run to the Republican Party. If a woman thinks that her personal situation is just fine, then she might.
Jim said: “What the church teaches is that *human life* is entitled to basic human rights (hence the name “human rights”, not “personal rights”), all of which depend on the right to life. This right attaches to at every stage of human development. This teaching is discernible through reason, as evidenced by its acceptance by many reasonable people who don’t accept the Church’s claims of possessing revealed truth.”
To make this true, you have to account for reasonable people who don’t believe this (in this way), unless you are saying that people who don’t believe it are by definition unreasonable.
Unagidon, are you pro-choice or pro-Life?
If I know, than I can determine if you are being reasonable or unreasonable with regard to this issue.
I am pro-life, of course.
However, I don’t think that it is enough to vote for people because of what I think they believe. We need to vote for them on the basis of what they do (and we find this out by what they have done). The GOP has thrown some pro-life bones out to the electorate, but they have not treated the issue as primary in the way that some of our bishops are telling us to. This issue has been debated for decades. Not only has there been no resolution, but the population has shifted to a belief that some abortion rights are probably warranted. To put it in business terms (since I am a businessman) the GOP business model is rotten (like most of their others) and if the GOP were a corporation, I would fire them. Perhaps you should too.
So it may be that we should vote for people who we think have a Catholic position. Or maybe the issue is more subtle since we also want to make some kind of progress and not just vote in a way sounds good but is not productive.
“To make this true, you have to account for reasonable people who don’t believe this (in this way), unless you are saying that people who don’t believe it are by definition unreasonable.”
That’s simple enough – reasonable people disagree all the time. Even here :-)
Cathleen, I agree there are (as you mention) “competing interests.” However, unless I misunderstand you, I disagree with your assertion that “[n]ot killing an unborn baby is…a requirement that its mother provide significant bodily life support to it.” If a mother decides voluntarily to let nature take its course to childbirth, she is not acting under any kind of requirement. I once supported laws to prohibit abortion, but I now realize they would not work. What is needed is, inter alia, a change of heart and — for those cases not involving rape, incest, life/death of mother — parental responsibility, which can include giving baby up for adoption.
For the record, I am not opposed to artificial contraception, and I support the high court’s decision in (if I recall the case) Griswold v Connecticut.
For the woman with a heart problem, I most certainly would support her partner’s use of artificial contraception, e.g., a condom. I do not accept the church’s teaching that sexual intercourse must always be open to procreation. Assuming the sexual act was freely engaged in between partners (e.g., husband andf wife) and absent a hard case of life/death of the mother, I think it would be irresponsible for the mother to procure an abortion. In fact, I think it would be very selfish. Adoption is always an option in such cases.
You ask, “…as a matter of secular law, can you impose the burdens of pregnancy on a woman if what is at stake (for whatever reason) is not a human being yet?”
I don’t want the government to impose anything here! As for your use of the term ‘human being,’ I would prefer use of the term ‘human offspring.’ Apparently too many folks even today still argue over the meaning and use of the former term.
What I’m proposing is a change of heart, not imposition from above.
David Nickol, you ask, “So you are saying there are no ‘hard cases’ except for rape, incest, and the life of the mother?”
Yes. These three situations are generally accepted in modern discourse as the hard cases involving procurement of induced abortion.
You ask, “Isn’t it rather cavalier of you to assume that the rest are ‘easy cases’?
No, it’s not cavalier of me to assume that the rest are easy cases. Why? I’m not assuming anything. I’m fully aware, for example, that many women or couples end up having more children than they can really afford. I realize, likewise, that young women do get pregnant out of wedlock with no prospect of marriage to the biological father. In these cases, I simply suggest that such folks take responsibility for their actions.
I’ve alreada expressed my (deep) dissatisfaction with continuing posts on abortion and polticians at this blog with much repitition, simplificatione, etc…. And so with some reluctance and repetition of my own:
What is the important question the author of this thread is asking?
Is it that it’s phisoophically probative that life begins at conception? Is it that what the Church holds a clear but somewhat developed and hence somewhat questioned view on this? Or is it what does this mean in a pluralistic society and to those in that society who represent that pluralistic group/
I’d like to suggest we’ve heard on all of these points repeatedly – so, why this thread?
I am concerned, obviously, that we continue to buy into the one issue view of what Catholic politics should mean – a view that I’ve argued is divisive in boths ovciety and the Church, that is not going to be resolved by endless argumentation by folks convinced their view is THE view.
Bob, I have the same question about the original post.
But if abortion threads are upsetting or annoying to you, maybe you could avoid them. Sometimes I find interesting insights (thanks, Unagidon, for your further thoughts re my questions).
I find demands to know whether specific individuals are pro-choice or pro-life a bit off-putting and confusing, because I see choice/life as a collection of issues along a continuum, certainly not a black-and-white kind of affair.
But charity demands that I ignore unhelpful remarks (instead of composing witheringly sarcastic retorts and hitting “submit” before cooling off, which is a lot harder to do than it sounds).
Jean,
The abortion issue obviously has special significance for Catholics, for some of the reasons you mention. But one does not have to believe in the Beatitudes or even in God to be prolife; and if one did, then the debate about abortion would have no purchase, and no place, in secular political discourse. Nat Hentoff (to take your example) is no less opposed to abortion than I am. Is it your position that he has no business being opposed to abortion until he becomes a Catholic and so can situate his judgment about this issue within a context of other Catholic teachings? Or that his non-Catholic arguments against abortion are insufficient and require a supplement of theology?
You ask if abortion harms those whom the laws now protect. Well, yes, in the Socratic sense that the primary victim of any injustice is the person (or people) who commit it. But this seems like a strangely circular way to approach the issue. In 1830 one might have asked if slavery harmed anyone whom the laws then protected, and the (non-Socratic) answer would have been no — and irrelevant. Abortion does not upset the general public welfare the way robbing a local bank does; it upsets the general public welfare the way other forms of homicide do, whether or not we notice or care. The general public welfare is more than public order.
This Catholic, at least, is not at all outraged by your mother’s argument, because it is a real argument and not simply the bald assertion of private privilege. She is offering reasons, and where reasons are offered there is a possibility of the sort of conversation that democracy requires. Your mother’s argument is about the prevention of suffering, another subject with special significance for Catholics but not for that reason off limits to atheists. She and I might disagree about whether suffering is the only relevant consideration, but our disagreement would not involve appeals to divine revelation. This is what I meant when I said that abortion is not primarily a theological issue, even if some theologians, like Lisa Fullam, have important things to say about it.
This is what I meant when I said that abortion is not primarily a theological issue, even if some theologians, like Lisa Fullam, have important things to say about it.
It seems to me that the arguments against abortion are primarily religious. I have a great deal of respect for Nat Hentoff, but naming one “Jewish atheist” (as he describes himself) doesn’t prove anything more about the overall debate than naming one pro-choice Catholic does.
One of the other main arguments against abortion strikes me as basically emotional, and that is the grief for the victims of abortion. (This seems to be one of Archbishop Chaput’s main arguments — that aborted babies have been harmed.) It seems to me very difficult to say (particularly from a Catholic point of view, which at least hopes that aborted babies go straight to heaven) that aborted babies are deprived of something valuable that they had a right to. As I have said before, if life begins at conception, it is almost certainly the fate of most human beings not to be born, since the majority of “pregnancies” fail within the first few days after conception. (I put “pregnancies” in quotes because most of the major medical organizations define pregnancy as beginning at implantation, not conception.)
It seems to me the primary argument against abortion is that no one has the right to say when a life is over. It is not that an infant early in pregnancy has been deprived of its rights, or will be worse off for not having been born and lived an earthly life.
To repeat a familiar theme of mine, no one grieves for the millions of human embryos lost naturally due to failure to implant. Granted, there is a limited amount that can be done about it, and it is something we don’t actually see. (Although I have never seen an abortion, either.) But according to the Catholic Church, those are presumed to be real people, dying by the millions, and to the best of my knowledge, there are not even any prayers for them.
I am not sure how to characterize the single-minded focus on abortion as the one and only important life issue that we are supposed to feel passionate about, but I do think that describes the state of affairs.
It seems to me the primary argument against abortion is that no one has the right to say when a life is over.
This makes sense to me — that is, condemning abortion because it involves claiming a right we don’t have, rather than because it violates a right someone else has. It could be wrong for both reasons, of course, but the former feels more persuasive to me, and more consistent with the rest of Church teaching on life and sex issues.
Could you expand that notion, I wonder, and say that no one has the right to say when a life begins, either? We oppose abortion because we don’t know “when life begins,” not because we do know (and not in spite of our ignorance).
Mollie, Here are the logical difficulties with what you just said:
First to say that “no one” has the right to define death or life is utterly inconsistent with the notion that we all have the right to our thoughts and beliefs, whether we call them religion or something else, including our beliefs on when life or separately existing personhood exists.
To say we don’t have the right to judge when a life is over also makes no sense in a context where it cannot be definitively stated that separate life exists. And in fact, we do have the right to say when a life is over. We say it all the time. We define death to mean something and in some cases it’s quite controversial whether death has occurred or not, but someone is given the legal power to be the judge of that.
If you want to expand this to say that, as a legal proposition, no one has the right to say when a life begins, that includes the Catholic Church. If no one has the right to say when life begins, what gives you the right to prevent someone else from, let’s say, ingesting a pill to bring on her next menstrual cycle?
In other words, the less certain the knowledge is of when a new person’s life begins, the less tenable are restraints that impose restrictions on the liberty of others based on those uncertainties, and the more powerful the argument that in such cases of uncertainty, people should have the right to be free of restraint, and to judge for themselves.
You might compare this to how we treat the criminally accused. Their freedom is not contingent on uncertainty — that they might have committed a crime is insufficient to convict them. In our society, liberty of person from actual, physical restraint is given the overwhelming benefit of the doubt. Like it or not, it’s up to you to prove why a physical restraint on someone is justified, not on them to prove why it isn’t. This is why the right of habeas corpus is such a bedrock of Anglo-Saxon jursiprudence.
From the Catechism of The Catholic Church: “From its conception, the child has the right to life.”-(CCC,nos.2322-2323)
For those who profess to be Catholic, denying this statement of God’s Truth, is denying part of The Deposit of Faith.
From the Catechism of The Catholic Church:
“Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.-(CCC,no. 2258)
Here is a link to a differently expressed viewpoint:
Shortcut to: http://www.religiousconsultation.org/NEWS/McCain_and_Obama_on_abortion.htm
David – this link’s writer captures some of your thoughts and analysis. It basically begs for a re-definition of “natural law” especially around the whole issue of life at conception and the can of worms that opens.
Barbara – I don’t think I have the right to prevent anyone from taking a pill to promote (or prevent) menstruation, as it happens… She may be claiming a right she does not have. But by stopping her, I might be claiming a right I don’t have. Anyway, I didn’t intend to propose any basis for a legal restriction of abortion. Just a thought experiment.
According to the Founders of this Great Nation, the heart of liberty is NOT the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life , but rather to, “assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitles them…”
Which is why we must always be, “one Nation, under God, with Liberty and Justice for all.”
Bill DeHaas,
Thanks for the link. It is a fascinating article. There are all kinds of ramifications to nailing down certain definitions or reformulating them as the pro-life movement would like. Particularly stunning is the suggestion that breast-feeding may sometimes have the same “abortifacient” action (prevention of implantation) as some claim the birth-control pill has. I think there are perfectly logical arguments to be made, based on some of the “pro-life” premises, that would call for abstinence to be pretty much the norm even for married couples.
. . . .one Nation, under God, with Liberty and Justice for all.”
Nancy,
What happened to indivisible? You are not a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, are you?
“When life begins?”
I suggest this is the wrong question, one loaded with non-scientific undercurrents.
We do know, however, that life is transmitted with union of sperm and egg. And we know that many of these lives/offspring will not make it to implantation in the womb. And we know that a percentage of such offspring will not make it to live birth for natural or accidental reasons.
Again, absent the hard cases (rape, incest, life/death of mother), why not let life take its natural course?
Again, absent the hard cases, why not encourage biological parents (married, out of wedlock, adultery) to take responsibility for their sexual behaviors? Adoption is an option.
Agree with your first statement but it is the one we are facing. Agree with your clarifications around sperm, egg, etc. because that discussion also leads us to contraception, stem cell research, etc.
But, having a hard time understanding your last statement – let life take its natural course or take responsibility for sexual behavior. That is basically where we are now – only you have those on the extremes whose answer is either no abortion/no contraception or those who would allow any and all choices. The common ground is somewhere in the middle – not sure you can put your statement into a clear, public law – how are you going to mandate responsible sexual behavior?
oops, you are right David, that is, about my leaving out the word indivisible.
Jim P. -
I was apparentlhy wrong. I have not been able to find any official document of the Church which says explicitly that the creature formed at conception is not a person, nor have I found any official document that says explicitly that the initial organism is ensouled (becomes a person) only later in rhw gestation process.. However, a close reading of the most recent Catechism of the Catholic Church shows, it seems to me, that the Church has left the question open as to when there is an “ensouled being”. But the ambiguity of the words “human”, “human being” and “person” in the Catechism are quite maddening to me.. They are not defined, and I must admit that other interpretations might find some justification. What a quagmire of avoidance of clarity!!
The old Catholic Encyclopedia (a non-authoritative document) notes that there was disagreement among the early fathers about the matter, and also that Thomas Aquinas thought that ensoulment was not immediate. It also says that the even the early Church taught that abortion is a grave sin, and I suspect that Rome is still unwilling to abandon those earlier opinions, hence all the ambiguity in the Catechism.
Consider exactly what the Catechism says and does not say. It does not address the question of personhood or “ensoulment” head on. In sections 2270 through 2274 it refers variously to the being at the first moment of conception as “human life” which must “be recognized as having the rights of a person. This is consistent with the views of the early fathers and medievals such as Aquinas. The articles of the Catechism which follow 2270 also do not say explicitly that that the initial being is itself a person, but they reaffirm that the early being has the rights of a person.
i must also say that the reference to “a category of human beings” in sedtion 2272 is quite baffling. What in the world is the Church talking about there? “Human beintgs” which are not persons and “human beings” which are persons? Or what???
Now back to my old chant: what I think needs to be examined in all this is the Church’s at least apparent toleration of the claims that the early organism is not a person and that these non-person can have the right to life of persons. I do not know where the theological or philosophical arguments for the second opinion appear, and I’d be grateful to anyone who could direct me to them.
(Sorry, my highlighting of the relevant phrases below didn’t come through.)
FROMc THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
:
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.
From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.[71]
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.[72]
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.[73]
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.
This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.
Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.[74]
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves.
Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.[75]
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.
The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.
“A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,”[76] “by the very commission of the offense,”[77] and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.[78]
The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy.
Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
“The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority.
These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin.
Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.”[79]
“The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.
When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined….
As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.”[80]
2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, “if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual….
It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence.”[81]
Bill DeHaas, I agree with your observations. I suspect, like you maybe, that a reasonable approach will be found somewhere in the middle. I also believe morality in this area cannot be legislated. I think it helps to remind folks in this debate/discussion that each of us passed through various stages of development — pre- and post-natal — to get to where we are today. And our development (or deterioration, depending:) continues.
Language and its use can be very helpful or otherwise here. It’s interesting, for instance, that we often speak of unborn human offspring as zygotes, embryos, fetuses, etc., all of which, of course, are scientifically accurate designations. Maybe if we’re going to be consistent in our use of language, however, we should begin speaking of our elderly folks as “geriatrics” (or worse!). Ever since Roe v. Wade, the pro-choicers have preferred use of scientific terminology.
I have no problem with use of scientific language — except when it’s used to dehumanize what are obviously human offspring. A culture respectful of human life, however, might be characterized by use of “warm” or “human friendly” language.
(I noticed where some of my earlier comments were abruptly interrupted. Can’t explain, but I wasn’t “on” anything :) Sorry.
I notice that my third paragraph above has been chopped short. It should end with “human-friendly language.”
Is this a software glitch somewhere?