Is Nelson Neutral?
With the announcement that Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) had become the 60th vote in favor of the Senate health care reform bill, analysts on both sides of the abortion issue scrambled to interpret the language that was inserted to win Nelson’s support. Within the pro-life community, the reaction was strongly negative. The U.S. bishops, for their part, issued a more muted statement where they congratulated Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Bob Casey (D-PA) for their efforts, but regretfully concluded that the bill language was still inadequate to win their support.
One can hardly blame the bishops for taking a firm stand, since every other legislator and interest group seems to be taking the same approach to the bill. Nevertheless, if the bishops remain serious in their commitment to the passage of comprehensive health care reform, they might want to consider taking a second look at what we might call, for lack of a better term, the “Nelson Amendment.” While the Stupak Amendment in the House bill is more far reaching in terms of achieving pro-life goals, a closer look at the Nelson Amendment suggests it could meet the USCCB’s stated test that health care reform be “neutral” with respect to current law on abortion.
First of all, pro-life advocates would do well to realize how far they have come on this legislation. Under earlier versions of the House and Senate bills, the federal government could have mandated that all insurers cover abortion services. That is no longer the case, although insurers are not prohibited from offering policies that cover abortion.
The Capps Amendment to the House bill, while stating that abortion could not be included as part of the standard benefits package, weakened this by requiring all of the health exchanges to offer at least one plan that covered abortion. This provision, too, has now been eliminated by the Stupak amendment.
The sticking point is whether there are any circumstances under which individuals who purchase coverage—subsidized or not—through the exchanges would be able to purchase a policy that covered abortion. In the House’s reform legislation, the Stupak amendment would appear to prevent anyone obtaining federal subsidies from purchasing a policy that covered abortion. However, it also appears that individuals who use their own funds to purchase a policy through the exchange would still be able to purchase coverage for abortion.
The Senate bill takes a different approach. For starters, states can now choose to prohibit abortion coverage in any policy purchased through the exchange. I believe this is actually stronger than Stupak’s language, but I welcome other interpretations. In states that do not choose this option, abortion coverage is still treated differently from other benefits. Insurers must bill enrollees separately for the cost of this coverage and the funds from those payments must be segregated from other premium payments and from any subsidies the enrollee may receive under the bill. The legislation contains enforcement provisions for these requirements.
As noted earlier, many pro-life advocates object to the Senate language. They argue that the accounting requirements are a legal fiction and that federal funds—ultimately co-mingled with the insurer’s other funds—will find their way into the pockets of abortion providers. They also object to the fact that all individuals who enroll in a plan that covers abortion services will have to pay the surcharge to cover those services, even if they are morally opposed to abortion.
The argument continues to turn on what constitutes “neutrality” with respect to abortion. Pro-life advocates argue that “neutrality” demands that the principles of Hyde should apply whenever the federal government pays, indirectly or indirectly, for health care services. Defenders of this point to how the Hyde principles have been applied to the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which are both cases where the federal government is subsidizing the purchase of private insurance.
The problem is that health care reform bill will do more than merely pay for insurance. It will also restructure the insurance market. The exchanges are poised to become the de-facto source of insurance coverage for individuals not covered by their employers or other public plans. Pro-choice advocates are concerned that insurers who currently offer abortion coverage in the individual market will no longer do so because the vast majority of those using the exchange will be receiving federal subsidies and thus be unable to purchase abortion coverage. Offering supplemental abortion coverage for the small number of unsubsidized individuals who use the exchange may not be economically viable for many insurers. Thus, what seems neutral in the law may result in changes in insurance practice that tilt in a pro-life direction.
Given that the vast majority of individuals we are talking about are uninsured, however, I’m not sure how large this problem is. These individuals, at least, are not losing any coverage that they currently have. Only individuals who currently purchase policies in the individual market that cover abortion would be at risk of losing any of their current coverage. It would be useful to have an estimate of how many individuals would fall into this category.
One of the objectives of the Senate language is to render it more economically viable for plans that cover abortion to continue to do so once they participate in the exchanges. If you take the pro-choice concerns raised above seriously, this is an effort to remedy a bias in the private insurance market created by the language that prevents federal subsidies from being used to fund plans that cover abortion. If you are on the pro-life side, you probably see this as an effort by the federal government to promote abortion coverage.
For what it’s worth, though, my opinion is that the Nelson Amendment does not violate the principles embodied in the Hyde Amendment, i.e. that federal funds should not be used to pay for—either directly or through insurance—abortion. I believe this for two reasons. First, I see the point of the language allowing individuals who obtain subsidies to purchase abortion coverage with their own funds as pertaining to the federal government’s role in structuring the insurance market rather than subsidizing the purchase of insurance per se. While the principle of neutrality demands that the federal government not subsidize abortion, it also demands that the federal government not structure insurance markets in such a way as to significantly change the business calculations of insurance companies with respect to the provision of abortion coverage for those who currently have it.
A second reason why I don’t feel the Senate bill subsidizes abortion coverage is that I do not agree with those who see the Nelson Amendment’s language requiring the segregation of funds as meaningless. I would suggest that those making this argument have little actual experience with generally accepted accounting principles and how businesses actually respond to federal and state regulations that impact their accounting.
A personal example may help make the point. In my company, my department is funded by a trust fund that was established pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement currently in force. All employees covered by the agreement contribute a small amount from every paycheck to the trust fund, which is jointly governed by a board of union and management representatives. Federal law imposes restrictions on how these funds can be spent and the board reviews fund expenditures to ensure we remain in compliance with that law. I can assure you that we take the restrictions imposed by the law very seriously.
Almost any large organization—governments, businesses, not-for-profit entities—faces situations in which some of the funds coming in the door are restricted for a particular purpose. I can easily imagine insurers setting up a dedicated cost center on the expense side for payments to abortion providers and a similar cost center on the revenue side for the abortion-surcharge payments from enrollees. If the costs on the expense side exceed the funds received on the revenue side, then a subsidy is occurring. If that is not happening, then the subsidy isn’t happening. Anyone who thinks this is only a gimmick has obviously never had to explain to their superiors why there is an overage in one of their cost centers!
I am willing to concede that opponents of Nelson may be able to make an argument as technical as this one in the opposite direction. What that suggests to me, though, is that we have clearly left the realm of general moral principles and entered a place where individual Catholics acting in good conscience can come to different prudential judgments. For this reason, I think it would be advisable for the U.S. bishops to make clear—as they have done on other contested public policy issues—that their negative opinion of the Senate bill reflects their own collective judgment, but is not a statement of Catholic teaching to which individual Catholics necessarily owe assent.
Peter
“I would suggest that those making this argument have little actual experience with generally accepted accounting principles and how businesses actually respond to federal and state regulations that impact their accounting.”
Wrong, Peter. Accounting is not reality, it is simply how you keep track of things. For example, in federal contracting contractors may not include monies spent on lobbying as an allowable charge against overhead, yet a company like Raytheon (that gets all or virtually all its funding through such contracts) spends millions on lobbying firms every year.
You cannot escape the fact that once the federal government gets in the business of managing and adminstering insurance programs like this, any plan it directly touches involves some federal funding. You may be able to argue it’s not much, but it’s there.
First, for as big a re=structuring of the health care market, I think it would be impossible to do it in a way that is “abortion-neutral.” It will impact societal acceptance of abortion in one way or another, likely in ways we don’t anticipate now. Using the Hyde Amendment as a standard isn’t going to work, since it is a tool that is not up for a job of this scale.
Second, if it is, why shouldn’t it be in the pro-life direction. Public opinion may be “pro-choice” but is also deep ambivalent about the procedure itself, and scientific advances and the realities of living a generation with abortion have done this as well. http://nymag.com/news/features/62379/
I have to admit my eyes glazeth over a bit at Peter’s technical description, but if health care reform will inevitable impact society’s treatment of abortion, why shouldn’t it be in the pro-life direction? We would expect government’s involvement in the automotive industry to move it in an eviromentalist direction, given what we know about global warming, correct?
“…but is not a statement of Catholic teaching to which individual Catholics necessarily owe assent.”
Apparently, the Catholic Health Association and the Leadership Conference of Women Relgious have already reached that conclusion, according to this article from the New York Times on 25 December:
Catholic Group Supports Senate on Abortion Aid
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: December 25, 2009
WASHINGTON — In an apparent split with Roman Catholic bishops over the abortion-financing provisions of the proposed health care overhaul, the nation’s Catholic hospitals have signaled that they back the Senate’s compromise on the issue, raising hopes of breaking an impasse in Congress and stirring controversy within the church…
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/health/policy/26abort.html?_r=1
Thanks Peter for taking a second look at the “Nelson Amendment.”
It has seemed to me that what is at stake in this particular discussion, is whether abortion will become a “normal” part of the medical system. Or whether it will be treated as an outlier. When reading the strictures of the Nelson proposal, it struck me that requiring people to write a separate check and requiring insurance companies to segregate those funds was pretty close to making abortion a pariah in the health-care system. Pro-choice people want it to be normalized. Pro-life people want to end all abortions. Neither is going to get what they want.
it seems to me that this seemingly intractable problem is rooted in the philosophical problem of the fungibiloty of money. Put starkly, it is not clear whether or not “my monetary contribution to an exchange” is identical with “what pays for your abortion”. If it is, then my contribution is at least part-payment for your abortion, and therefore, the bishops argue, immoral.
I submit that until the meanng of “money” (as in the definitions of “my monetary contribution” and “what pays for your abortion”) is clarified the meaning of “fungibiloty” will remain unclear and the *referents* of “my monetary contribution” and “what pays for your abortion” will remain so unclear that any meanngful discourse on the abortion- payment issue will remain a metaphysical morass, and it will continue to threaten the passage of the bill.
For starters, we need to explore this question: how can my contribution retain its identity as mine in a fund made up of your money and mine? This assumes, of course, that it does retain its identity *as mine*, an arguable proposition.
It’s a horrid philosophical problem, but we need to find the answers. otherwise this interminable argument cannot even begin to end.
As I have mentioned before, Kurt, who comments on Vox Nova, is actively involved in the House of Representatives, although exactly in what capacity I don’t know. He has been a very strong supporter of the Stupak Amendment, but this is his latest comment regarding the Nelson compromise:
Using the Hyde Amendment as a standard isn’t going to work, since it is a tool that is not up for a job of this scale.
John McG,
But the American Bishops have basically made their case on how health care reform should deal with abortion using the Hyde Amendment as a model:
but if health care reform will inevitable impact society’s treatment of abortion, why shouldn’t it be in the pro-life direction?
Because abortion is a constitutional right?
I think David is right. The Hyde Amendment was originally designed for fee-for-service medicine–I think the extension to benefit plans (whole packages) was a big step. Extending it to a whole health care system–it’s not clear at all what it would mean.
The technical issue of moral theology, as I explained to a reporter recently, is how to evaluate remote material cooperation with abortion–in terms of separating funding streams.
I think it is a mistake for the bishops conference to act like one more lobbying group.
Good post.
I think one of the key problems is that the Hyde amendment clearly does not apply in these circumstances. For here is simply no “funding abortion” in the Exchanges, which will be made up solely of private insurers. People buy health care plans that may or may not cover abortion, and – if their income is low enough – they get subsidies. But this relationship to abortion seems quite remote. Indeed, one can stretch this to argue that a person who receives any transfer from the government, such as unemplyment benefit, may turn around and procure an abortion with these funds. This is why I find it hard to see why the late cardinal Dulles’s argument does not apply here.
The key problem is that private health plans currently cover abortion. If they did not, there would be no problem. Whey then, do we not tackle the problem at its source and campaign to stop the coverage of abortion by private insurers? For the moral argument is identical. Whether you pay out of your pocket for a private insurance plan, or whether you pay indirectly through your taxes, the money is going to an insurance company that somewhere is funding some abortion. That is the issue. I fail to understand why it is verboten for federal funds to be tainted, while state funds are used widely to pay for abortion under medicaid. And given the nature of the insurance market (domination by a small number of large companies), it is extremely likely that we are all (however remotely) paying for some abortion somewhere from our premiums, even if our own plan does not cover abortion.
I think the Nelson amendment does a pretty good job in carving out these protections in uncharted territory. Indeed, many pro-choicers are up in arms, claiming that it will discourage insurance companies from covering abortion in the first place. I hope so. And by shining a light on abortion coverage through two payments, won’t people be more likely to pick a plan that does not cover abortion? I think so. Let’s face it, this is the first time the federal government has ever tried to regulate what private insurers could and could not do when it comes to abortion. That’s pretty remarkable. For those on the right who oppose this bill are typically those very people most inclined to let big business operate unhindered by government. What I find most annoying is that those who trumpet loudest against the abortion provisions in this bill oppose this reform anyway – on laissez-faire grounds. Yet again, they are using the unborn as political tools. How much longer must we let them get away with this?
Why is elective abortion, the intentional destruction of a Human Being, considered “Health Care” or a “Medical Procedure” by some members of the House of Representatives, The Senate, and President Obama, to begin with?
I think it is a mistake for the bishops conference to act like one more lobbying group.
Strangely, the position of the USCCB has them defending the status quo –which they deplore — regarding abortion. It also diverts them from making moral argument about abortion and instead gets them involved in arguing whether the Stupak Amendment or the Nelson compromise better reflects the status quo, or the intent of the Hyde Amendment — issues in which they have no special expertise. Instead of arguing against abortion, they argue that the Stupak Amendment should be acceptable because it allows people to buy abortion coverage with their own money. See the Stupak Amendment Fact Sheet.
Also, drawing the line over the abortion issue while paying little attention to the issue of coverage for illegal aliens once again sends the message that the “pre-born” are more important than the “post-born.”
David, with all due respect, the Bishop’s support for the Stupak Amendment is based upon the fundamental Dignity and Sacredness of every Human Life. Elective abortion is not Health Care because one can not preserve a Human Life while destroying that Human Life, simultaneously.
I don’t think the bishops are defending the status quo; I think the Obama Administration committed to preserving the Hyde Amendment, so they are holding them to that commitment.
Irony of ironies, this kind of accounting mechanism and segregation of funds was rejected by many of the same people who now find it a convenient way to difuse the abortion issue when it came to South African disinvestment in the 1980′s.
Geez – The Senators really dropped the ball. All that we Catholics asked for was that the bill:
1) Not include taxpayer funding of electrive abortions and,
2) That it be universal; that in addition to covering all Americans, that is also cover the some 10 million (mostly Mexican) indocumentados who live here.
The Senate has failed on both counts.
Hopfeully the House version will prevail.
Prof. Kaveny – thanks for your efforts to educate the media and your excellent disticntion between moral theology and, at least, one form of prophetic modeling by the bishops. My guess is that your work on prophetic statements will nuance such that single issue bishops are not really very prophetic and have lost the moral high ground in terms of educating consciences (catholic and otherwise), etc.
Peter, thank you once again for your outstanding analysis. Until I read your piece, I didn’t have a clear idea of what the Nelson Amenment entailed, or how it differed from Stupak.
I’m interested in the politics: what is going to prevail? Given that the Senate has already rejected the Stupak language, does the political question become, Will Stupak and his gang of 40 find the Nelson language acceptable? And willl the Democrats in the House as a whole find the Nelson language acceptable?
Or will it turn on something else?
Irony of ironies, this kind of accounting mechanism and segregation of funds was rejected by many of the same people who now find it a convenient way to difuse the abortion issue when it came to South African disinvestment in the 1980’s.
Sean,
To excerpt a quote from Kurt’s message I reproduced above: “Not one member of Congress (pro-life or pro-choice) would take an oath that he would use the criteria applied in this case to all future questions of what is government funding. It is not objective and beyond a Talmudic debate.”
If you watch Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, which you probably don’t, or if you watch the right-wing equivalent, you can get daily updates on the hypocrisies of Republicans or Democrats who followed one line of reasoning yesterday and oppose it today. The one that pops into my head at the moment is Lieberman opposing the expansion of Medicare to those under 65. He championed it up until quite recently, and he nixed it in the Senate bill. Lieberman has gone on record in the past as opposing the filibuster, but he didn’t hesitate to threaten to filibuster the Senate bill. Republicans who voted to end Medicare are now claiming that there should be no Medicare cuts. I am sure we can both come up with endless lists of issues, arguments, positions, and so on that both Democrats and Republicans have reversed themselves on when it was convenient.
I think there are three points to be made. First, even the most objective of human beings will, at least from time to time, advocate a principle in one case, but when he or she has something at stake, will say, “But this is different.” And they will honestly believe it. Second, getting bills passed in congress is all about compromise, not about adhering to a set of rigid principles. So if indirect federal funding is deemed to be equivalent to direct federal funding in some cases, and looked upon as indirect federal funding, or not federal funding at all, in other cases, it’s for the sake of compromise. Third, I think in this case the Bishops have latched on to the Hyde Amendment as their best political argument because they can’t write to the House or Senate and declare abortion is murder and expect to get serious attention. So it’s a matter on both sides of how far it’s possible to get your own position (pro-choice or pro-life) to prevail.
David, with all due respect, the Bishop’s support for the Stupak Amendment is based upon the fundamental Dignity and Sacredness of every Human Life.
Nancy,
The Stupak Amendment permits abortion in cases of rape, incest, and danger to the life of the mother. If the Bishops believed in the “fundamental Dignity and Sacredness of every Human Life,” they would oppose abortion without exception. In supporting the Stupak Amendment, as opposed to making it clear that Catholic teaching forbids all abortions, they are compromising the message of the Church for the sake of getting a political deal.
In supporting the Stupak Amendment, as opposed to making it clear that Catholic teaching forbids all abortions, they [the American Bishops] are compromising the message of the Church for the sake of getting a political deal.
When the American bishops come face to face in the next life with the victims of abortion in cases of rape, incest, and threat to the life of the mother, how will they justify themselves? Will the bishops say, “”It was necessary to sacrifice you so that others might live?”
You make a reasonable point David: “…The Stupak Amendment permits abortion in cases of rape, incest, and danger to the life of the mother. If the Bishops believed in the “fundamental Dignity and Sacredness of every Human Life,” they would oppose abortion without exception.”
In fact I was surprised at the reaction I got recently, when during lunch with several co-workers, and one piped up about abortion. When asked (I normally do not raise the subject of course), I replied that we Catholics think abortion is murder. Ultimately in the course of the discussion, we arrived at the Protestant- American attempt at compromise; surely all could agree that abortion was wrong except in case of rape. When I answered that we Catholics do not approve of abortion in any case, even in the case of rape, one of the guys almost lost it entirely.
Now this fellow is a decent enough guy; certainly he is not a bad person. He certainly he is not a Catholic; in his words he “is not much a church go-er”. In any case he began bellowing loudly about the horrible rapist and the bastard child; what to do about both of them and what he would do if that happened to his daughter, etc.
I mentioned that since we do not kill the rapist (who is in fact guilty of a serious crime), why should we kill an innocent child? But of course he thinks we should kill both the rapist and the child, and toss the child (which in his view is only the product of the terrible seed of the rapist) into the trash to be forgotten.
Ultimately I figured it was best to remain quiet and let him rant (don’t throw pearls to the swine, and all that), and so after his un-opposed rant, we simply left the discussion there; with him puzzled (to say the least) at the position of this Catholic regarding this.
Prayer is always important and frankly that was how I reacted, privately of course. It sure is difficult to know the best way to engage people who carry that particular worldview.
The other thing I find amazing is how many, seemingly intelligent Americans hate the idea of including indocumentados in the national medical plan. These folks (the indocumentados) usually do not have medical insurance and end up over-burdening the emergency rooms. If they had some basic coverage, that alone would help bring down hospital costs.
I still think the President was mistaken to let Congress develop something this important, and I think he realizes that now. President Obama should have developed a plan, on his own with his own team, presented it to the public so folks would understand, and then guided it through Congress.
To leave such an important matter to the likes of Reid and Pelosi was a mistake.
The other thing I find amazing is how many, seemingly intelligent Americans hate the idea of including indocumentados in the national medical plan. These folks (the indocumentados) usually do not have medical insurance and end up over-burdening the emergency rooms. If they had some basic coverage, that alone would help bring down hospital costs.
Ken,
On this point I agree wholeheartedly. It is bigotry, or racism, or something along those lines. And it makes no economic sense, either. Plus many people who are here illegally have children who are citizens.
By the way, did you see the following?
F.Y.I.:
http://www.usccb.org/healthcare/
Nancy, at 11:34 am, asked: “Why is elective abortion, the intentional destruction of a Human Being, considered “Health Care” or a “Medical Procedure” by some members of the House of Representatives, The Senate, and President Obama, to begin with?”
An October 2007 CBS News poll (http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm) explored under what circumstances Americans believe abortion should be allowed, asking the question, “What is your personal feeling about abortion?” The results were as follows:
Permitted in all cases: 26%
Permitted, but subject to greater restrictions than it is now: 16%
Only in cases as rape, incest or to save the woman’s life: 34%
Only permitted to save the woman’s life: 16%
Never: 4%
Unsure: 4%
I suspect that the greater than 50% of people who favor abortion in some of these categories above agree in whole or in part believe that whether or not abortion should be legal depends on how they answer to the question of whether and at what point a fetus is a person. The concept of personhood is essentially a religious or quasi-religious idea, based on one’s fundamental but empirically unverifiable assumptions about life, what it is and when it begins.
Unless and until the Catholic magisterium makes arguments that are compelling enough to convince those who do not accept the concept that the fetus is a human being prior to birth that they are wrong, then there will not be an appetite within the greater electoral majority for any provision within any healthcare program(s) to totally disallow abortion which is still legal and most likely will remain so for the foreseeable future. As such, the majority wants abortion remain treated as a medical procedure and should be subject to healthcare coverage, and in some cases, at taxpayer expense.
Failure to accept this will only result in continued strum und drang that will get the anti-abortion crowd virtually nowhere in achievement of their goals.
Peter’s larger question is how to work with the mixed moral and factual and legal judgments of the bishops’ conference. The FOCA campaign earlier this year, I think, showed the problem. Suppose one has a different view about FOCA’s likely effects than the NCCB legal analysis claimed. Suppose one had a different prediction about the likelihood of FOCA being a major problem. (I had different views on both counts). There has to be room to differentiate between moral judgments, on the one hand, and factual and legal judgments on the other. But the bishops’ FOCA campaign ran all these judgments together–not wisely, imho.
Thanks for the link David – how sad that politics would prevail in a matter like that. I e-mailed the salvation Army regarding that article and the policy.
Gosh, even little Mexican kids need a Christmas present once a year!
I do not think it right to punish the son for the sins of the father.
What I don’t understand, and maybe it’s because I wasn’t raised a Catholic, is how the Catholic Bishops and many Catholics can think they have the right to impose their beliefs on a whole country’s citizenry, a majority of which is not Catholic. I’ve just been reading about religious liberty, Vatican II, and John Courtney Murray SJ, who … distinguished between the moral aspects of an issue and the feasibility of enacting legislation about that issue.
Had it not been for the FOCA campaign, perhaps we would have believed that the Health Care Bill was “neutral” in regards to abortion.
Crystal, I think we can presume that the best time to address the feasibility of enacting legislation in regards to the Health Care Bill would be before the Health Care Bill is passed. I think someone in our Government owes us an explanation as to why they believe that abortion is “Health Care”.
What I don’t understand, and maybe it’s because I wasn’t raised a Catholic, is how the Catholic Bishops and many Catholics can think they have the right to impose their beliefs on a whole country’s citizenry, a majority of which is not Catholic.
I think most of the bishops would say that their opposition to abortion is not based on any distinctly Catholic belief, but on the natural law, which is a source of moral knowledge available to any rational person, whether believer or unbeliever. So it is no more an imposition of Catholic belief than would be anything else based on the natural law (e.g. just wages for work).
We can debate about natural law and morality but when the day is done it is about insurance companies fighting for their piece of a very big pie. Follow the money and then use logic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/29/health/policy/29lobby.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper
“What I don’t understand, and maybe it’s because I wasn’t raised a Catholic, is how the Catholic Bishops and many Catholics can think they have the right to impose their beliefs on a whole country’s citizenry, a majority of which is not Catholic.”
Isn’t any legislation an example of a majority imposing their beliefs on a minority that opposed it?
What gives 60 senators the right to impose their belief in health care reform on a nation that, according to polls, mostly opposes it?
It’s the way our system is designed. Catholics don’t “impose”. They do what every other interest group does: exhort, persuade and attempt to influence those who have the power and responsibility to make laws and decisions.
Crystal. –
I strongly recommend that you read Alasdair MacIntyre’s “After Virtue”. It is about the Aristotelian conceptions of natural law, whst it is, what it isn’t, and how we get to know it. A thoroughly brilliant work, it is quite clear enough for non-philosophers to understand,while at the same time being an authoritative presentation. It shook up the field of ethics in the English speaking universities and lead to the development of what is now called “virtue ethics”. (Use of the term “natural law” seems to be anathema in many philosophy departments, though virtue ethics is re-introducing some of its concerns.)
Sadly, as many Catholic intellectuals are losing their appreciation of it, it is making headway again i n some non-Catholic schools. Ah, the irony of it all. What is most ironic to me is the fact that the U.S. Constitution has as an underpinning John Locke’s version of it.
It’s the way our system is designed. Catholics don’t “impose”. They do what every other interest group does: exhort, persuade and attempt to influence those who have the power and responsibility to make laws and decisions.
Jim,
There are many issues involved in what the Catholic Church does to try to “impose” its beliefs on those who are not Catholic, and one of them is the fact that the Catholic Church is a tax-exempt organization and it is a matter of controversy just how much lobbying and politicking it is appropriate and legal for it to do.
Another issue, which I have mentioned before, is the extent to which the USCCB blurs its moral message by getting directly involved with specific legislation. The USCCB is lobbying for the Stupak Amendment, which allows government-funded abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. In the course of doing so, they make statements like the following:
Where in all of this does one find the Catholic message that abortion is the unjust taking of a human life and is prohibited absolutely? And with all the focus on abortion, what has happened to the earlier stand on behalf of illegal immigrants?
Ann – thanks for the book recommendation :)
I think most of the bishops would say that their opposition to abortion is not based on any distinctly Catholic belief, but on the natural law, which is a source of moral knowledge available to any rational person, whether believer or unbeliever.
As David N points out, the Bishops would like to do away with abortions for those who have been raped or victims f incest. If this pov were, as you say, not a Catholic view but one from natural law that all human being embrace, why then do those of the Jewish faith disagree? I read an interesting post somewhere – Abortion, Jewish Law, and the US Constitution – which states in part .. if a woman is an observant Jew, her religion has taught for hundreds of years that whenever a fetus threatens her life, it is a religious obligation of the community to save the life of the mother even at the expense of the unborn fetus.
Or take the example of the Bishops lobbying to keep gays from marrying in civil ceremonies ….. their efforts are based on Catholic teaching, and other Christian denominations feel differently, like the Episcopaliens, for instance.
Every religion would like to believe its teachings are based on laws so basic and universla that everyone, regardless of their faith or lack thereof, would agree with them, but I just don’t think that’s so, and there are refutations to the natural law theory.
I think most of the bishops would say that their opposition to abortion is not based on any distinctly Catholic belief, but on the natural law, which is a source of moral knowledge available to any rational person, whether believer or unbeliever.
F. C. Bauerschmidt,
I think one would have to acknowledge that the kind of “natural law” the bishops are promoting is actually a religious theory. From Thomas Aquinas:
Multiple coding errors.
The last paragraph (triple indented) in the blockquote is me, not St. Thomas!
The emphasis in the blockquote should have been on this passage
Crystal,
The existence of moral disagreement on this or that issue does not, in and of itself, disprove natural law. To someone who takes a natural law approach, it simply is an indication that people are not reasoning correctly about the good that is to be done and the evil that is to be avoided.
David,
You are correct that Aquinas’s account of natural law presumes the existence of God. However, when we speak of “belief” we are speaking of our assent to revealed truths. Aquinas thought the existence of God was something that could be known apart from assent to revealed truths, simply be the exercise of our natural reason. Moreover, while God is the source of the natural law, and acknowledging God is an element of the natural law (falling under the virtue of justice), the fact that even an atheist thief doesn’t want to be stolen from indicates that one need not believe in God in order to have some awareness of the natural law.
To stay with the thief example: why is it an “imposition” to tell people they shouldn’t have abortions, but it is not one to tell thieves that they should not steal?
The existence of moral disagreement on this or that issue does not, in and of itself, disprove natural law. To someone who takes a natural law approach, it simply is an indication that people are not reasoning correctly about the good that is to be done and the evil that is to be avoided.
That’s basically the “people disagree with me because they’re wrong” argument :)
About natural law, here’s a little bit from the conclusion of an article by Keith Ward, past Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford – Veritas Splendor ….
“[...] I began by asking whether, without any appeal to revelation, there are universal principles of natural morality. My view is that such universal principles, prohibiting conduct that leads to rationally undesirable states, can be found. But such principles will be very general, and they may not carry the force of obligation – something more is required for that, and the existence of a morally commanding God is one way of providing it.
However the attempt to base such general moral precepts on genetically determined behaviour patterns – on what Aquinas called ‘natural inclinations’ – is largely undermined by Darwinian views of evolution. For such views, nature has no purposes, and the purposes of God in nature are attained through processes of random mutation and natural selection …..
Natural reason would also be unlikely to think that basic moral prohibitions are absolute, in allowing no exceptions under any circumstances. John Paul writes, ‘Only a morality which acknowledges certain norms as valid always and without exception for everyone, can guarantee the ethical foundation of social coexistence’ (97). I have to say that is simply not the case ….. there are conscientious moral differences between rational agents that seem to be rationally unresolvable. The questions of whether human life begins at conception or at some later stage in embryonic development, of whether homosexual activity is intrinsically disordered, and of whether there are absolute moral prohibitions, are such that there is no agreed way of resolving them. That certainly does not mean that all views are equally correct. But among reasonable views there remain unresolvable differences …..
I remain unconvinced that the desire to love and obey God entails commitment to absolute moral prohibitions. One can believe in the unity, integrity and dignity of the human person, without thinking that there exist any specific ‘finalities’ or purposes in the physical and genetic processes of nature, and without thinking that there are no circumstances in which genuine moral dilemmas can arise that may give us reason to make exceptions to general moral prohibitions …
An insistence on inviolable moral precepts and intrinsic evils, in a strong sense, depends not on purely natural reason, nor on seeing morality as a loving response to the supreme goodness of God, but on the teaching of the Pope, guided by the Holy Spirit. I have no philosophical objection to that. My only point has been to try to get clear about what a natural, non-revealed, morality might be, and how far and in what ways Christian revelation may add to such a view of morality …”
“There are many issues involved in what the Catholic Church does to try to “impose” its beliefs on those who are not Catholic, and one of them is the fact that the Catholic Church is a tax-exempt organization and it is a matter of controversy just how much lobbying and politicking it is appropriate and legal for it to do.”
Like PETA, the NRA and Planned Parenthood, the Catholic Church is an organization in our society, and like those other organizations, it has been accorded a legal and tax status and operates within those legal parameters. Presumably the church’s lobbying activities are controversial to those who disagree with it; personally, I see nothing controversial about it. If there is something amiss with the legal structure that controls and constrains the church’s activity, I don’t know of any reason that those who do have the power to impose in our society can’t redesign it.
Btw, unlike those other not-for-profit organizations I mentioned, the Catholic Church as a tax-exempt religious organization is prohibited from endorsing political candidates, working for their election, promoting their candidacy at her gatherings, and contributing money to their campaigns. So in fact there are significant legal hurdles to the church’s ability to “impose” anything on society.
But the larger point is that the church has no power to impose anything, any more than you or I or the NRA has the power. As the Holy Father has said, the church doesn’t impose, she only proposes. The power of imposition is vested in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. If something that the church approves of (like laws against stealing) are imposed on our society, it is not the church but the government that imposes it.
At least the NRA has the power to give and withdraw campaign contributions; yet some government officials still find the courage to buck it. The church has no such financial levers. If she is effective at all in her lobbying activity, it is because many, many voters belong to her. There is nothing nefarious about that.
To stay with the thief example: why is it an “imposition” to tell people they shouldn’t have abortions, but it is not one to tell thieves that they should not steal?
F. C. Bauerschmidt,
It seems to me that the idea that stealing should be prohibited can be arrived at through many different lines of reasoning and is not dependent on natural law theory as interpreted by the Catholic Church. Just because a moral or legal conclusion can be reached through a Catholic application of natural law does not taint it. But it seems to me that a moral or legal conclusion arrived at only through a Catholic application of natural law is not sufficient to base civil laws on in a secular democracy. The belief that life (personhood) begins at conception and that a fertilized egg is a human person with rights seems to me to be a matter of Catholic doctrine. (This is not to say society could not find some other grounds on which to prohibit abortion.) It has never been a part of American law or English common law.
As to stealing, I would say that the legal prohibitions against stealing in American law are not really based on a Catholic understanding of natural law. From the Catechism:
A few days ago an Anglican Priest caused a sensation by stating that it was not always wrong for destitute people to steal. It seems to me his statement was in part ill advised, but I don’t think he was out of line with the Catholic view. The many denunciations of him declaring stealing always to be wrong were, I think, incorrect. Nevertheless, I doubt that the USCCB would dare support what he said, or try to get something written into civil law that would declare it is not a crime for a desperate person to steal.
The civil laws in this secular democracy, a.k.a. The United States of America, are based upon Natural Law, a.k.a., “The Truths that are self-evident”.
Jim,
Here are the restrictions on lobbying:
As the article I quoted above points out, all nonreligious section 501(c)(3) organizations must give an accounting of their expenditures. The Catholic Church (and other religious institutions) are exempt:
Consequently, the laws governing lobbying by religious organizations are vague, and there is no adequate mechanism for government to check if religious organizations are in compliance. The lobbying effort of the Catholic Church regarding abortion may — we just don’t know — have been “insubstantial” according to some vague legal standard, but not by many other definitions of the word.
The fact that Life begins at Conception is consistent with Life beginning at Creation, and the belief that all Men are CREATED equal, is consistent with the inherent ordered Nature of Mankind.
It really would behoove academics to take a hard look at many of their assumptions especially when they spend more time on natural law than the gospels. Cathy defended casuistry as a solid part of Catholic tradition and to a certain extent she has a point. Moral theologians used casuistry to rescue the faithful from absurd theologians who saw sin everywhere and virtually terrorized people. Similarly, with natural law, academics can show that Christians can be no slouches when it comes to philosophical complexities.
Yet the following of Jesus is much more simple than our learned brethren oftentimes make it . And that includes Augustine, Origin and Thomas, among others. Origin used to complain that he tried to explain the finer points of the faith to people but all they were interested in was “Jesus Crucified.”
Archbishop Dolan of New York expressed consternation recently at the Pew study which showed that people were fine with Jesus and God. But did not like or identify with bishops or the clergy. The faithful still teach the hierarchy of today as well as they taught Origin and others who strayed from what was essential to the mission of Jesus.
Crystal and David,
Perhaps we are using “natural law” in different ways. My point is simply that the bishops are not saying to the American polis, “this is Catholic doctrine; believe it.” Rather, they are saying, “this is what reason tells us is the moral order of the universe.” Implicit in that claim is an invitation for those who do not think that this is the moral order of the universe to offer reasons why it isn’t. This is an argument about right and wrong that is open to all reasonable people; it isn’t an imposition of some particularistic Catholic belief.
Interesting that Thomas, the natural law expert cited most, did not think there was a person at conception.
Rather, they are saying, “this is what reason tells us is the moral order of the universe.” Implicit in that claim is an invitation for those who do not think that this is the moral order of the universe to offer reasons why it isn’t.
F. C. Bauerschmidt ,
Actually, the consistent message of the USCCB regarding health care reform has been that the status quo must be maintained by making sure there is no federal funding of abortion. The model they point to is the Hyde Amendment. See my message above of December 28th, 2009 at 11:50 am. One of the things I have been critical of the USCCB for is involving themselves in lobbying congress and shaping legislation instead of taking a moral stand. I certainly wouldn’t object to the USCCB making a rational argument about the moral order. I believe Robert George undertook to do this in his book Embryo: A Defense of Human Life. — that is, attempt to make the case against stem-cell research and abortion in nonreligious terms.
The bishops are taking a political stand, not a moral stand, but their intention is to put as many limitations on the right to an abortion as possible. If they were taking a moral stand, they could not support the Stupak Amendment, because it permits federal funding of abortion in cases of rape, incest, and threat to the life of the mother. And as everyone recalls from the arguments preceding the presidential election, abortion is an “intrinsic evil” and may never be permitted.
David N. –
To say that a woman has a legal right to abortion is not the same thing as saying that someone else hase a legal obligation to pay for it. You also have a legal right to cosmetic surgery. That is not he same thing as an obligation of others to pay for it. Nancy is right — in most cases abortion is not a matter of health care. In most cases pregnancy is not a illness.
Crystal –
“natural law” is actually a very smbiguous phrase. In every case it refers to a collection of ethical principles, some of which are more general than others. However, natural law theorists disagree as to just what those principles are. For instance. The natural law theory of Thomas Hobbes ibcludes a very negative view of human life. He’s the one who said that life is “nasty, rutish and short”. He did not share the typical Aristotelian view of man as a social snimal, so his theory relies heavily on the importance of contractual relations which, of course, are contingent, non/necessary a d therefore non-unversal.
Aristotelians have a more benign view of what people are generally like — that we all desire not onlly the basic necessities (life, food, clothing, education, etc.) we also need to cooperate with others for our own flourishing and theirs. This leads to certain necessary limitations on our particular, individul desires. These limitations restrict our lying, stealing, etc., and further we must keep our promises and do other positive things for the good of others.
Another principle that is common in Aristotelian natural law theeories is that we have certain faculties and each has its purpose which ought not to be contravened. It seems to me that this is the most controversial part of Aristotlea theory. But make no mistake — this is not a matter of religious dogma, it is a matter of pure philosophical theory. It derives from the Greeks, not Moses or what Jesus said. The Church maintains that it is consistent with, and even partially overlapping with Scripture, but their sources are different. Scripturexand Traddition are the sources of
oral theology. Common human experience is (or should be) the source of natural law ethics,
That should be “the sources of MORAL theology”.
To say that a woman has a legal right to abortion is not the same thing as saying that someone else hase a legal obligation to pay for it.
Ann,
I believe the Nelson compromise is sufficient to prevent taxpayer dollars from going to pay for abortions. But even if not, millions upon millions of us (and I am one) have insurance policies that cover abortion. Many of us have employer provided insurance toward which we pay some of the cost. When every pro-lifer who has an insurance policy that covers abortion gets rid of it (even at the cost of foregoing employer provided insurance), then I will take more seriously the demand that no one should have to pay for someone else’s abortion. I would like to see all the people who claim they don’t want to pay for other people’s abortions to put their money where their mouth is and make sure they are not doing through their employer (or through private coverage) what they refuse to do when it comes to a government plan.
Nancy is right — in most cases abortion is not a matter of health care. In most cases pregnancy is not a illness.
Pregnancy is not an illness, and childbirth is a perfectly natural process, and yet the average pregnancy and delivery incurs $12,000 in medical expenses. Menopause is not an illness either. Should there be no medical intervention for women suffering distressing symptoms?
Pregnancy due to rape and incest is no more an illness than any other pregnancy, so why do the Hyde Amendment and the Stupak Amendment allow abortion in those cases?
The argument that pregnancy is not an illness is really just a word game. Most insurance covers abortion, and what health care reform is doing is extending insurance coverage to those who can’t afford it. Why have we suddenly discovered that pregnancy is not an illness and abortion is not health care? If it is true now, it has been true since Roe v Wade. I have never heard the Catholic Church say, “If you are paying premiums toward a health insurance policy that covers abortion, you must stop immediately.” Why?
If they were taking a moral stand, they could not support the Stupak Amendment, because it permits federal funding of abortion in cases of rape, incest, and threat to the life of the mother.
This would presume that natural law and human law are identical. But there are all sorts of reasons why it might be inadvisable to try to have natural law embodied in human law. The famous example from Aquinas is that he thought it inadvisable, given the present constitution of his society, to try to outlaw prostitution. That doesn’t mean that taking steps that restrict some of the worst effects of prostitution short of banning it outright can’t be advocated. One might allow prostitution but not allow minors to be prostitutes, or require various sorts of health restrictions, or restrict it to certain areas of a city.
As to the lobbying issue, I actually agree that bishops need to be wary of weighing in too heavily in favor of specific pieces of legislation, since, as I indicated above, the embodiment of natural law in human law requires a series of prudential discernments that might well go beyond the technical competence of the bishops. But I don’t think that means that they can never weigh in on specifics.
This may well not apply to any person commenting on this thread, but I have in the past found it funny that the same people who were thrilled by the bishops’ letters on the economy and war in the 1980s are quite dismayed by their statements on abortion and gay marriage today. Now if they want to say that they think the bishops were right about the economy and war but are wrong about abortion and gay marriage, that’s fine: let the arguments begin. But if they want to say that in the 80s the bishops were doing something legitimate but today they are not. . . then they need to explain to me the difference. It seems to me that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
This would presume that natural law and human law are identical. But there are all sorts of reasons why it might be inadvisable to try to have natural law embodied in human law.
F. C. Bauerschmidt,
I see this statement as a red herring, since it implies that the American bishops might actually believe there should be legal exceptions to a prohibition on abortion. There is no indication whatsoever that they do, and every indication that they don’t. See, for example, the Resolution on Abortion which says, in part
There are only four countries that ban abortion with no exception, not even to save the life of the mother — Chile, El Salvador, Malta, and Vatican City. What do they have in common?
In Brazil, there was a recent case in which an abortion was performed to end a pregnancy that involved all three conditions — rape, incest, and the life of the mother — and that did not prevent Archbishop Sobrinho from excommunicating the doctor who performed the abortion and the mother of the nine-old girl, four months pregnant with twins resulting from sexual abuse by her step-father.
For best effect, the above message should be read by James Earl Jones with something like O Fortuna from Carmina Burana playing very loudly in the background. :-)
Ann,
Thanks for the explanation. I think I understand what you are talking about with Aristotle’s (and Plato’s?) idea of everything having a purpose (does this have to do with people and objects becoming as much as possible like their Form?).
One of the really interesting parts of Keith Ward’s article was a bit about souls and bodies – I think he thinks that Aquinas sees the soul as a kind of Form for the bodily person which is unique to that person and not divisible. Prof Ward (if I understood him correctly) mentions this idea of Aquinas’ as a purely Catholic idea, and one that can’t be reached through reason (as Aquinas says natural law should be) but only through Catholic teaching. Here’s part of what he wrote ….
“John Paul is especially concerned to say that the body should not be regarded as simply ‘raw material’, something ‘extrinsic to the person’, that can be shaped or dealt with in any way one wishes. The unity of soul and body means that we must respect our bodily structure, since that is part of what we essentially are – ‘body and soul are inseparable’, and the body intrinsically has moral meaning. We might contrast this view with some Hindu views that the body is just a garment that we put on or off. For John Paul, the body is constitutive of what we are, and we would not be the same being without it, without the specific body we have. This is what is intended by the traditional Catholic view that each soul is fitted for a specific body. We might say that each soul is the unique soul of a unique body.
From this two things are said to follow. First, the finality of our bodily tendencies cannot be regarded as purely physical or pre-moral. It is morally relevant, and relates directly to the fulfilment of the total human person, body and soul. Second, each person, as created in the image of God and ordered towards participation in the life of God, has intrinsic dignity and inviolability. Some acts are intrinsically incapable of being ordered to God. They contradict the good of the whole person. These are acts identifiable as hostile to life, to the integrity of the person (torture or bodily mutilation), and to human dignity (slavery, punishment without trial, and degrading work).
The first question that must be posed by the relentlessly critical philosopher is whether this view of the person is knowable by natural reason. It seems not. For philosophical accounts of human personhood range from the reductive physicalism of Alonso Church (who denies that consciousness is important or even existent) to the pure idealism of Timothy Sprigge (who thinks that bodies are illusory appearances of pure mental realities). These are philosophers trying to give a reasoned account of human persons, and they disagree as much as they possibly could. My conclusion is not that the Catholic view is wrong. But it cannot be established with any certainty by reason. It can be reasonably maintained, and of course it can be accepted as true. But it cannot be defended as an account that all reasonable people can see to be true. To that extent, it cannot be the basis of a morality that all can accept with a reasonable degree of certainty. Catholic morality will depend upon a Catholic view of persons. That view of persons may be true, and it should certainly be defended by Catholics. But it will generate a distinctively Catholic view of moral precepts that is unlikely to be shared by all rational agents.”
So interesting :)
David,
The fact that the American Catholic bishops might be mistaken about how natural law might be embodied in human law in no way invalidates the natural law basis of Catholic arguments against abortion.
F. C. Bauerschmidt,
I probably don’t understand this well, but if the arguments from natural law against abortion are not appreciable through reason to all, doesn’t that invalidate them (I mena, doesn’t Aquinas say that such laws are ones that will be recognized by everyone through reason?). One argument against the Churcxh’s stance on abortion might be that an agreement with it can only be reached through acceptance of Catholic teaching, not just through reason, and the fact that there is disagreement would seem to say that?
There are disagreements about many moral issues; that does not mean that those disagreements cannot be resolved through reason. Something that is not immediately self evident can still be subject to reasonable demonstration (e.g. the Pythagorean theorem is not self evident, but it can be made evident through reasonable demonstration).
David N. –
That some people might be insincere in saying that no one should have to pay for another’s abortion is irrelevant to whether or not what they are saying is true or wise. One needn’t be sincere to speak the truth, or falsity.
” Menopause is not an illness either. Should there be no medical intervention for women suffering distressing symptoms?”
But distress at the time of menopause is not universal. Some have no problems at all. Those are the healthy women. That others have distress of varying degrees just means that their bodies’ functioning is not up to what a healthy body experiences.
“Pregnancy due to rape and incest is no more an illness than any other pregnancy, so why do the Hyde Amendment and the Stupak Amendment allow abortion in those cases?
Why? Because political compromise was necessary to get as restrictive a bill as possible. In the case of rape and incest one can argue that since the woman didn’t agree to the act she should not have to bear the consequences of the act. (I happen not to agree, but there is some merit to that argument.)
“Why have we suddenly discovered that pregnancy is not an illness and abortion is not health care?”
It has always been true that the Earth circles the Sun. To have discovered it relatively lately does not affect the fact.
Mr. Bauerschmidt –
About the bishops lobbying –
There is a big difference between a guniversal statement (all men are mortal, 2 plus 2 equals r, etc.) generalization (Many/most quaraterbacks are very smart, swans are white) and particular statements (Huey is cute, Jack loves Jill, House bill NO. 2308 ought to be defeated). The last are about individuals.
It seems to me that the difference between lobbying and non-lobbying is that lobbying is always about a particular bill and taking a stand about it pro or con. Lobbyist do offer general arguments, but they are paid for arguing about particular, individual bills. A lobbyist who just talked philosophy/ethics would not be hired.
Arguing about the principles involved or about empirical generalizations (“Private hospitals handle 30 per cent of the Iran’s poor sick people”) is not to support a paraticular bill, though it might be relevant to the issue. For a bishop to tell a legislator “You ought not to vote for H.R. 2308″ is lobbying. To tell a legislator == or the public at large — “Killing an unborn child is morally unacceptable” is to make a general or universal statement, and not a particular one, and hence is not lobbying.
I fear that some bishops do cross the line and tell legislators to support or not support individual bills. And they should cut it out. Yes, scream loudly about the general/universal princioples if they want to, but do not say “Vote for this one and do not vote for that one”.
Crystal –
Yes, this has to do with the Aristotelian notion that human flourishing is a matter of activating our potentials which have their root in our Form (soul.
I don’t know why Ward gives so much credit to JP II for originality about the body’s being an intrisic part of the person — it is pure Aristotle.
Finally, Ward’s reference to Alonzo Church thinking consciousness is unreal is just amazing to me. I would have to have a solid reference in Church’s work to believe that/ Church was an all time great logician-mathematician (who also knew a lot about medieval logic) and I can’t imagine his holding such a thing. I”ve never ever heard of a logician denying that there are thoughts!
Oops–
Crystal –
Alonzo Church wasn’t a scholar of medieval logic. I was thinking of somebody else. But Church was indeed one of the greatest logicians.
Ann,
I do remember about the Forms from philosophy classes :)
Keith Ward wrote that article for some kind of group Gresham College discussion on “John Paul II as Philosopher” (link). The other speakers were Dr Laurence Hemming, Sir Anthony Kenny FBA, and Professor Wladyslaw Strozewski. Ward’s lecture was Veritas Splendor , about JPII’s encyclical on the Church’s role in moral teaching. You can download the other guys’ lectures at the link. I can’t speak to Ward’s stance on JPII but I do really like Ward and have a couple of his books. I’m pretty lost with all this stuff but I find it very interesting.
Bill M., Thomas Aquinas believed that in order for there to be Life, there must be movement, which is why he believed that Life began at “quickening”. We all know today that there is movement at Conception. Based upon Thomas A.’s first premise, I have no doubt, if he were alive today, he would respectfully acknowledge that he must disagree with himself, and affirm that Life does in fact begin at Conception.