A Conference on Abortion at Princeton
Charlie Camosy asked me to post a “save the date” for a conference on abortion at Princeton that will try to bring pro-life and pro-choice people together. Given the interest of many members of this blog in the topic, I thought you’d be interested. I’m also a speaker. It’s October 15 and 16, 2010.
Save the Date!
Open Hearts, Open Minds and Fair Minded Words
A Conference on Life and Choice in the Abortion Debate
Princeton University – October 15 & 16, 2010
Sponsors:
University Center for Human Values & James Madison Program, Princeton University; Department of Theology, Fordham University; Center for Bioethics, University of Pennsylvania
Organizing Committee:
Charles Camosy, Fordham University, Frances Kissling, University of Pennsylvania
Jennifer Miller, Bioethics International, Peter Singer, Princeton University
Inspired by President Obama’s address at Notre Dame in which he called on those on different sides of the abortion issue not only to work together where we agree, but lso to engage in ‘vigorous debate’ with open hearts, open minds, and fair minded words.
Conference Panels
Plenary: The Moral Status of the Fetus.
Different perspectives on the moral status of the fetus deeply divide those who favor and those who oppose legal abortion. Proponents of different views will present and discuss their perspectives.
• Moderator: Arthur Caplan, Center for Bioethics, University of Pennsylvania
• John Finnis, University of Oxford
• Margaret Little, Georgetown University
• Peter Singer, Princeton University
Plenary: A Woman’s Moral Duty to the Fetus?
This panel will bypass the moral status of the fetus and instead ask the following question: if we were to grant that the fetus has moral status, does it follow that there is a moral obligation on the part of a woman to bring her pregnancy to term?
• Moderator: Jennifer Miller, Bioethics International
• Charles Camosy, Fordham University and Ruth Macklin, Einstein College of Medicine
Plenary: From Morality to Public Policy.
This panel will debate the complex and important public policy questions remaining even after drawing conclusions about the topics of the previous two panels. For instance, if we were to agree that abortion is morally wrong, does this mean that we should prohibit it? Is it legally or practically possible to significantly restrict abortion?
• Helen Alvare, George Mason University
• David Garrow, University of Cambridge
• Cathleen Kaveny, University of Notre Dame
• Dorothy Roberts, Northwestern University
Plenary: Opening Hearts and Minds on Abortion. Is Common Ground Possible?
This panel will explore efforts to increase understanding, reduce conflict and find common ground among those who hold different views on abortion. In addition to analyzing past efforts, it will explore the current efforts of the Obama administration and make suggestions for improving that work.
• Panelists include: David Gushee, Mercer and Rachel Laser, Third Way
Plenary: Abortion in America, Should it be a Constitutional Question?
The United States and South Africa are the only two countries where abortion’s legality has been determined on the basis of a constitutional right. In the US this approach has been applauded and criticized on both legal and ethical grounds. This panel will ask whether it is sound public policy to rely on the courts, rather than the legislatures, to settle abortion policy.
Concurrent Sessions:
Do Some Reasons for Abortion Exacerbate Discrimination against Persons?
Preventing Unintended Pregnancies
When Might a Fetus Feel Pain and What Should We Do about It?
How Far Does the Right of Conscientious Refusal Extend?
Providing Support for Continuing Pregnancy
To receive early notification when registration opens, please contact:
Kim Girman, University Center for Human Values, Princeton University
kgirman@princeton.edu
That’s a remarkable lineup, and alchemy or organizers. Count me in.
David,
It sounds fascinating. Maybe you can do live blogging for the benefit of those of us who cannot attend. Interestingly, Peter Singer is considered a villain by many, but his book The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty attempt to come to grips with the question I have been asking since high school about those of us who have so much living in a world where so many have so little.
Speaking of Obama and abortion, whatever happened to this initiative?
Late summer was a long time ago.
Should we be singing It Seems to Me I’ve Heard That Song Before, or maybe, The Song Is Over, but Melody Lingers On?
Alchemy–my thoughts exactly.
Kathy, thanks! I know that Charlie Comosy worked very hard on this–he asked me to post it.
Frances Kissling, yes? Robert George, no? Hmmmm
How do you know he wasn’t asked? And Don’t you trust John Finnis -he was after all, George’s professor.
But my guess is that nothing will satisfy you!
I would certainly hope he was asked! I would also hope the sponsors would have tried to accommodate his schedule. Yet, he’s not on the program. All the more curious if he declined the invitation. As I said, Hmmmm
I always find Charles Camosy’s comments here to be valuable. It sounds extremrely interesting.
As a non-academic, may I ask: what is a realistic expectation of the outcome of a conference like this? Has a conference ever changed the world, even in some small way? Can it be like the proverbial small snowball that starts rolling downhill and gethering snow and momentum as it goes along?
Is it like musician gatherings where all the best conversations take place in the bar during the evening? :-)
Maybe Robert George is too much of a political activist and not enough of a bioethicist or a philosopher to be a member of such a panel. (He’s a lawyer.) Are any of the other participants heading up the equivalent of The American Principles Project? Yes’ he’s a major “pro-life” voice, but he’s also a major right-wing voice opposing health care reform, same-sex marriage, and backing every other right-wing cause.
Sorry, I’m not familiar with John Finnis. It would not surprise me if there’s a perfectly good reason Mr. George is not on the program. Nevertheless, it’s a bit like having the Masters without Tiger Woods. Still entertaining, but just not the same.
And you don’t have to yell at me.
It’s not supposed to be a game. In a game, if one side wins, the other side has to lose. It’s about finding common ground.
Mark, Cathleen is right: to have Finnis is to have George, and probably then some. Most of George’s philosophical architecture is from Finnis, who in turn got a lot of it from Grisez. So it might be redundant to have more than one ‘new natural lawyer’ on the panel.
It would not be redundant to have a second pro-life person on that panel, or on the Public Policy panel.
Some of Peter Singer’s conclusions horrify me, such as his view that some born children ought to be killed if their lives aren’t worth living. (Compare the view that such children should be killed in utero. I see no difference between the two views, except that the latter is socially acceptable to some liberals but Singer’s isn’t..) However, I have enormous respect for his integrity — he follows his principles to their conclusions and accepts them whether not they are popular. His panel should be fascinating.
As to Finnis, I got his big book on natural law. He does not consider the question of abortion in it. Hmph. I was very disappointed, and didn’t read it.
Mark Proska:
John Finnis IS the Michael Jordan, the Jack Nicklaus, the Joe Montana, etc., of the theories that Prof. George holds. Prof. George is no doubt a major player in the field, but Finnis is one of the most well known legal philosophers of the last thirty years, read both here and in Europe, in both secular and religious institutions (see his “Natural Law and Natural Rights”).
David Nickol:
I would hope Prof. George’s political positions or political activism are not the reasons he was left off the conference, and I hope your post isn’t implying that that would have been okay. Peter Singer, for one, has plenty of left-wing activism on his record, and yet he’s going to be speaking. The politics or the activism, left or right, should not dictate who is on the panel. I’m not saying it’s completely irrelevant, but it should be a secondary or tertiary concern.
Goyo/Matt–
Thanks for the background on Finnis. I thought George was on the Princeton faculty and the James Madison Program (I could be wrong on both counts), so it struck me as odd that he would not be on a panel taking place at Princeton, Sponsored by the James Madison Program. Perhaps he couldn’t make it and recommended Finnis in his stead, which would be encouraging. Though Ann’s observation that Finnis did not address abortion in his big book is intriguing.
Still, Frances Kissling? I can’t help thinking of that Sesame Street song from when I was a kid: One of these things just doesn’t belong here, one of these things just isn’t the same…
By the way, it’s funny that you mentioned Michael Jordon and Joe Montana, because they were the other 2 athletes I was thinking of mentioning. But they’re retired and Tiger Wood is not, he’s just…tired.
Matt,
I have no idea why George isn’t participating. I am just saying the organizers are philosophers/bioethicists, and George is a professor of law and a right-wing activist. Singer is not a player in American politics the way George is. If the choice is between John Finnis and Robert George, it seems to me that Finnis is a better choice.
I’m only one of the participants–I’m not organizing this thing. But still, Mark, give it a shot–or don’t. And I take it from your comments you won’t. Okay, fine, but be fair.
As I read the program, Professor Finnis isn’t speaking with Ms. Kissling–she’s on the steering committee, which also includes a pro-life activist. Professor Finnis is speaking with Professor Singer and Professor Little–on the status of the unborn. Professor Finnis takes the view that equally protectable human personhood begins at fertilization, and Professor Singer takes the view that it begins after birth. Professor Little is writing on abortion.
Professor Finnis has written extensively on abortion elsewhere–and is a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life. He was also a member of the International Theological Commission.
Yes, about Tiger . . . I deliberately excluded him as the point of comparison because, having so much respect for Finnis (and having taken his class at Notre Dame Law School), I simply couldn’t bring myself to make the association.
Let me just add that it seems to me like a very distinguished group representing all points of view, so it seems to be silly of people (including me) to be quarreling about who is there and not there.
David,
Thanks for your response (thinking that Prof. George may read this blog, I wonder if he might be able to jump in and shed light on this discussion). I agree that Prof. George may be considered more “active” than Singer in the public square, but I think your label of “right-wing activist” obscures his legitimate academic contributions and credentials and improperly associates him with someone like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck.
Having said that, wouldn’t we want someone like Prof. George involved? Abortion discussions see the intersection of theology, philosophy, law, and politics. To have a conference on abortion that isolates those academics who are more politically active (or who are lawyers) seems to undervalue the fact that the whole point of all this is to find some common ground, or some common understanding, because of, and not in spite of, the implications for policy. It is a group of nine lawyers, after all, who have contributed significantly to the current mess, and it is an interpretation given to a clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that is the framework for all discussions about the legality of abortion rights.
This conference in particular seems suited for professors who have served more political ends: the conference apparently grows out of the request of America’s most prominent political figure (President Obama) for both sides of the issue to engage in a vigorous debate. Unless that request is meaningless, or unless this conference is designed to be solely an academic exercise without any real-world implications (akin, for example, to an academic conference discussing Aristotle’s criticism of Plato’s theory of the forms), shouldn’t conference organizers try to secure someone like Prof. George (or someone else, left and right) who makes it a priority to worry about how all the theology and philosophy and law and science actually play out in Congress or in the White House?
Maybe Robert George is too much of a political activist and not enough of a bioethicist or a philosopher to be a member of such a panel. (He’s a lawyer.)
He also has a D.Phil. from Oxford and a masters in theology from Harvard.
Matt,
The title of the conference is “Open Hearts, Open Minds and Fair Minded Words,” which was taken from Obama’s address at Notre Dame. George was very vocal in opposing Obama’s election, and if anything, he is even more vocal in criticizing Obama as president, not just on life issues but on all the issue on which conservative Republicans disagree with Obama. He seems very partisan to me. He just seems to be the wrong person for a conference inspired by a line from an Obama speech. I can understand why many in the pro-life side would want him there, because he’s a champion for their cause. But many in the pro-life movement also are contemptuous of Obama’s (or anyone else’s) call to find common ground. It just seems to me it’s better for someone who is as much a political opponent of Obama as George is not to be in the conference.
He also has a D.Phil. from Oxford and a masters in theology from Harvard.
Studebaker,
I didn’t know that. Thanks for the info. I wasn’t trying to denigrate him by saying he was a lawyer, and of course being a professor of law makes him more than a mere lawyer. But the others seem to be either “practicing” philosophers or bioethicists or both.
David–
Do you really want to be arguing that the “Obama-inspired” conference of open hearts and open minds should not be open to a “vocal” critic of Obama? Perhaps only critics who have the decency to remain silent should be invited?
Hello All,
As a professional philosopher with some extensive background in natural law, maybe my opinions would be of group interest.
Among philosophers specializing in the classical natural law tradition (which one might also call the Thomist or the Roman Catholic natural law tradition), I would rate the already mentioned John Finnis (of Notre Dame) and Mark Murphy (of Georgetown) the most important active figures, by a wide margin.
Murphy and Finnis are both primarily philosophers of law, although their work touches upon specific issues in moral philosophy and public policy such as abortion. I would not rate any philosopher who defends the anti-abortion rights view (essentially equivalent to Roman Catholic Church teaching on abortion) more highly than Finnis.
I think Margaret Little (of Georgetown) is one of the foremost philosophers specializing in biomedical ethics today. I would not say she represents the classical natural law tradition but that is because her philosophical background is more varied, not because she does not know her natural law.
Philosophers who argue that abortion is morally permissible [and I am not one of them] fall generally into two schools, which one might call the functionalist and the minimal-duty schools.(*) I think Peter Singer is as good as any active representative of the functionalist school. I would place Arthur Caplan in the functionalist school as well, though I am less familiar with Caplan’s work than I am with Singer’s work. I think the two best representatives of the minimal-duty schools are Judith Thomson (of MIT) and David Boonin (of the University of Colorado). I did not notice any philosopher on the program who I recognized as belonging to the minimal-duty school. (* An important exception is a newer “virtue” school, best represented by Rosalind Hursthouse.)
I happen to specialize in political philosophy and so consider myself an interested bystander in biomedical ethics issues. But I know much of the best known work of a number of philosophers both defending and attacking a supposed right to abortion and I’m quite impressed with the people I see on the program who are professional philosophers. Indeed, if anything I would imagine that some professional philosophers might complain that the pro-abortion rights position could have been better represented since the panel seems to lack philosophers from the minimal-duty and the “virtue” schools. (Of course these schools might be represented by some of the participants from other disciplines.)
Mark,
I don’t really want to argue at all. What I have to say about Robert George is purely a personal opinion, and maybe even a personal prejudice. I might just as well try to convince people to feel the same way I do about beets. (I can’t stand them.) George rubs me the wrong way. I find him to be very partisan. I would rather have someone speaking for the pro-life cause who hasn’t already alienated me and whom I could listen to with an open mind.
From what I know (and from what I have Googled) it’s a very distinguished group of people who will be participating. If there is anything more insignificant than who is not going to be there, it is my opinions about those who are not going to be there.
For a good many people, trying to find common ground on abortion must seem utterly puzzling; why would you bring people together to look for common ground on premeditated murder?
For a good many people on the pro-choice side, the law is acceptable as is, so why would they want to attend, especially if they see opponents largely as partisan Christians, specifically Catholics, who are also against birth control and divorce, and are driven by the Pope o’ Rome’s agenda?
However, the fact that such a conference could be assembled and participants on both sides (if not the participants desired by some here) persuaded to attend perhaps shows some willingness for both sides to do more than draw a line in the sand and scream at each other from either side of it.
Am I a dupe? Naive? Whatever. I find it heartening that this topic could be taken seriously by serious people on both sides. I hope those who attend will report back.
The participants who are firmly on the pro-life side are very limited in number. The voraciously pro-choice speakers, who include contributors to Emily’s List and board members of abortion lobbies, as well as simply aggressivly pro-abortion academics, are more plentiful. Those who want an abortion rights position to be acceptable to religious people, let’s call them the Sudetenland, or let’s call them Neville Chamberlain, are hosting the event.
Taking this isssue seriously? No, that’s not what this is about.
What an unserious thing to say, with Finnis headlining, no less.
Could it be that there are serious scholars?
Gee, Kathy–I guess you won’t be coming—no need to wear my Kevlar vest!
By the way, I’m not an organizer–the steering committee is organizing it.
Sorry, I should have said hosting and/or promoting the event.
I’m happy to promote it, actually. I normally steer clear from conferences on abortion–they do tend to attract unstable people on both sides. But I graduated from Princeton–and decided to become an ethicist when working under Paul Ramsey and Jeff Stout there. I remember sitting as an undergraduate in the religion department lounge with Ramsey, Stout, Victor Preller, and assorted graduate students discussing the headlines from the New York Times.
I still think Princeton is the best undergraduate institution in the country.
I organized a conference on abortion there as an undergrad–Walter Murphy, Paul Ramsey, John Noonan. I remember my friend Dennis Newman driving to the Philadelphia Airport in an ancient jalopy to pick up John Noonan–before he was a a judge. I thought we were going to be peddling on the Turnpike like the Flinstones before the trip was over!
I wonder what happened to Dennis Newman–my guess is that he’s not driving that jalopy anymore!
I can’t help but notice that each and every pro-choice panel member has already been born (to paraphrase a former president).
The answer wouldn’t prove anything definitively, but I wonder if there are reverse Tim Tebow cases on the pro-choice side: those who “should” have been aborted, were not, and yet defend a laissez faire approach to abortion.
I think it looks to be a very well organized conference and I’m glad to see that some good has come from the Obama at ND invite, even though I opposed the invite and protested the day of the event. It also doesn’t surprise me to see that Princeton is leading the charge on discussion and not Fr. Jenkins.
James Madison Program is Robby George. Helen Alvare, I believe, is a fellow there.
With the exception of Helen, who has not really been involved in many years, this is not exactly the pro-life first string. Jennifer Miller is an extremely nice and very young lady. I am surprised that more and better speakers are not there from the prolife side.
Frances kissling? She is saying some very interesting things about the “fetus” as she calls her. She has parted company with the more rabid proaborts on some things. She is either doing a rope-a-dope or she is on a journey. I pray for her every day by name on the Fifth Decade.
Hi, Patrick, there are certainly children who were born into this world who wouldn’t be here if their mothers had not had an earlier abortion. Neither type of case proves a lot, morally speaking, because almost all of us are the product of a mix of random events and deliberate acts. In some cases, tragedy was a strong catalyst without which we wouldn’t be here.
I do have a friend who was a late fourth child whose mother tried to abort him using medical means, who “understands” why she reacted that way and doesn’t view his existence as a reason for making abortion illegal.
I think most people would refrain from telling their children that they considered abortion, although you never know, my father never tired of telling us that he only wanted two children and would have used effective contraception a lot earlier if my mother had been willing. Nonetheless, he was closest to the fourth, the one who would never have been born in his ideal world.
I just don’t think this sort of thing proves a lot morally — it’s quite probable bordering on certainty that my father was correct, that he would have been happier with fewer children notwithstanding the companionship of the “extras.” He didn’t owe it to any hypothetical children he could have had, whatever their individual merits, to have more children than he thought he wanted.
Barbara,
Well, you’ve cited one case (but does he advocate no restrictions at all?) and so that answers my question. And now that I think more about it I’m reminded of individuals one reads about from time to time who sue their parents because their disability, medically foreseeable during pregnancy, was so severe they should never have been born. Perhaps they genuinely feel that way or are just looking for a financial windfall – who knows?
So, I’ll fall back on the point we both seem to agree upon: these cases don’t prove a whole lot. Ingenious people can always bring up seemingly devastating counter-examples to rigid rules.
I am still worried about the conclusions that might be drawn from the observation that “there are certainly children who were born into this world who wouldn’t be here if their mothers had not had an earlier abortion.” Would that justify the most gruesome late-term abortion so that a family might pursue its ideal family size containing only “normal” or “above-normal” individuals? Or a Spartan regime of disposing of severely disabled infants? Some (not you) might say “there are certainly children who were born into this world who wouldn’t be here if their mothers had not earlier abandoned a massively handicapped and way too expensive child.”
Kathy: You said “It would not be redundant to have a second pro-life person on that panel, or on the Public Policy panel.”
My point was that the arguments of Finnis and George would have the same structure. My comment was not about having people who hold the same conclusion (pro-life or pro-choice), but about the redundancy of arguing for or against the personhood of the fetus using the same language, arguments, and form of argument. Because they share the same philosophical architecture, redundancy would be, in effect, the result of having them both present. But surely there are more arguments to appeal to than those of the new natural lawyers–and, I should note, so many people find their arguments so tortured (not just on this issue, but on many issues) that it would be a disservice to have the same types of arguments offered for the pro-life conclusion. Indeed, I think it would be in the best interest of the pro-life movement to be able to appeal to different modes of thinking about life. I for one don’t share much of the philosophical architecture (and epistemological assumptions) of Finnis and George, both of whom take Thomas Aquinas’s thought and shove it into Kantian categorical rigidity. But I’m indefatigably pro-life, for different (philosophical) reasons. If I were there and heard both of them, I’d eventually get bored.
Patrick, it’s certainly the case that there are children who are born because their parents terminated earlier pregnancies, whether for medical or financial reasons. I don’t happen to think this is a good line of argumentation, I just offer it to counter what I see as the equally bad but frequently proffered line of argumentation a la Tim Tebow: that his mother’s joy and his success “proves” something, or even more ridiculous, the tactics I’ve seen with priests who deliberately add extra chairs to confirmation ceremonies to highlight the children who would be there but for abortion. That’s when my thought runs to “well, how does he know that all of the children who are sitting there would be there if their parents had not had an earlier abortion?”
Anyway, it’s not a logical or morally credible form of argument. My mother probably got pregnant with me because the hospital where she had my sister was militant about feeding her formula, thus disrupting my mother’s breastfeeding plans and making her fertile much sooner. My birth is not an argument for the morality of formula feeding over breastfeeding.
It would be nice to see polygraph tests administered to all who express opinions about abotion.
Q.: Have you had an abortion?
Q.: Have you paid for an abortion?
Q.: Have you encouraged someone to have an abortion?
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
“Taking this issue seriously? No, that’s not what this is about.”
I think I share’s Kathy’s concern. There’s a gnawing feeling of imbalance that I find a bit troubling. At the same time, the Holy Spirit works in mysterious ways.
“He didn’t owe it to any hypothetical children he could have had”
This is a fascinating question, the more you think about it. Do we owe anything to (unconceived) children we coulda, shoulda, woulda had, but never did?
Rex,
Why a polygraph test. I have (obviously) never had an abortion. I have never paid for an abortion. I have never encouraged someone to have an abortion.
I have only known one person who had an abortion, and I was not in favor of it. It was so long ago that I don’t remember if I expressed an opinion. It would have been very out of place for me to have tried to discourage the person. She had family in the medical profession, and they had arranged it for her before I even knew about it. She had a husband, so I would obviously have had to try to talk both of them out of it.
As long as we’re all making attempts at rational argument, I don’t see the point in answering these questions. Even if someone is a total hypocrite, what they say here really has to be taken at face value.
I would think certain hypothetical questions would be more revealing. If your mother/sister/daughter were raped, would you approve of emergency contraception? Or if she were raped and already pregnant, would you oppose an abortion no matter how traumatized and distraught she was over the idea of bearing her rapists baby? If you knew your mother/sister/daughter was pregnant and had a child that would be born severely handicapped, would you oppose an abortion? Those are the kinds of questions that would put people to the test.
By the way, the couple I knew who aborted their first conceived child felt they were not ready for a baby financially and were not prepared for the responsibility. After the abortion, they got a dog as a kind of test case for taking care of something as a couple. (It seemed odd to me, too.) They later had one child and wound up getting divorced within about ten years, by which time I had lost touch with them.
I think I share’s Kathy’s concern. There’s a gnawing feeling of imbalance that I find a bit troubling. At the same time, the Holy Spirit works in mysterious ways.
Mark,
Don’t you feel you are insulting Charles Camosy, who planned this event? I do.
From his blog:
Do you think he has stacked the the conference with stronger pro-choice spokespersons so that side will win (whatever that would mean in a conference such as this)?
“It is completely magenta”. I don’t know what this phrase means.
David–
I don’t know Charles Camosy, though I have seen his posts in here before, and he seems like a good guy. My guess is that he’s made of sterner stuff than you suppose, and would not take my comments as an insult. It’s entirely possible there would not be as much pro-life representation on the panel as there is, if not for his diligent efforts. Nevertheless, I have my concerns. I don’t think many Catholics would feel insulted if it is implied that the Holy Spirit may choose to work through them, though. (Mr. Camosy, I apologize if you find that insulting)
Thanks for the post to his website. Don’t know if it’s accurate or not, but that Bound4LIFE video about the apparently racist origins of Planned Parenthood was a real eye opener, don’t’ you think?
Jim,
I’ve never seen this phrase before, but I’m guessing it’s supposedly a perfect blend of red and blue. Which this lineup is not.
Hi, David:
I’ll try to answer some of your questions:
1) “Why a polygraph test.”
Because so many who oppose abortion (at least for others) tell lies. I won’t list them or give examples, because everyone is aware of them.
2) “Even if someone is a total hypocrite, what they say here really has to be taken at face value.”
But the thread is about a conference on abortion. I’d like to see polygraph tests administered to all participants. (As to what is being said here? I’ve noticed terms like “rabid proaborts” and “voraciously”.)
3) “I would think certain hypothetical questions would be more revealing. If your mother/sister/daughter were raped, would you approve of emergency contraception?”
Agree that additional questions would be revealing. Others could be: Should the one in three American women who have had abortions by age 45 be in prison? Should men who abandon pregnant girlfriends be excommunicated? Should the Church offer to support abandoned pregnant women until their “illegitimate” (unclaimed by a father) children are through college?
Please guys–let’s not refight the abortion debate here. My inbox can’t take it. The sole purpose of this post was to notify you of an ACADEMIC conference open to the public. If you think it looks interesting, and want to come, come.
Cathy,
What do you and the conference organizers hope the event achieves? Is the conference designed solely to provide a forum for thoughtful engagement of (un)bridgeable differences, or is it designed to reveal common ground (if any)? Both? Is there any kind of joint statement that will be produced reflecting shared premises (e.g., something akin to Catholics and Lutherans publishing something about Mary or grace)? Is there any way this conference can have ramifications beyond Princeton’s campus and the blogosphere?
Just curious . . . and trying to get a better sense of the motivations and goals of the organizers.
I think we can all find common ground here, at least, in fervently hoping that there is nothing even vaguely approaching a meeting of the minds at Princeton. We might have to alter our positions, and to do that, however slightly, would mean we couldn’t keep repeating the same arguments over and over. Let us instead hope they open up new areas of disagreement.
Iagree with Jean and am befuddled that a confence announcement generated this many posts: -seem to me that without a word yet said at said conference, the perpectives are somewhat skewgie if their intellectual darling is excluded.
Bob, some people are casting aspersions on the conference b/c it doesn’t have their preferred participants on it, and the lack of certain people on the panels is significant in some way that only the True Believers get will only hint at to the rest of us (“hmmmm”).
I am befuddled too–by the word skewgie. Isn’t that something you use to clean your windows?
No, that’s a squeegie. Or, there is the design of Catholic magazines other than Commonweal, i.e. “kludgie”.
Folks, if we want to heal rifts, we need to talk to one another, and although Internet forums like this don’t make it obvious, one effective way to talk about important things is face-to-face. This conference isn’t shaping up to be a pro-life rally or a meeting of Call To Action. That isn’t its purpose. It appears that the purpose is to get folks from different ends of the political-ethical-religious spectrums to talk to one another. If we’re engaged with important moral and public policy issues, we’re not going to agree with everyone invited to present. That would seem to be the point of the exercise.
If we’re engaged with important moral and public policy issues, we’re not going to agree with everyone invited to present.
I think Charles Camosy should be congratulated for putting together such an excellent collection of people and creating such a fascinating agenda. My only complaint is that we have to wait so long. We’ll know how Lost ends before the conference happens!
Goyo –
Finnis and George do not follow Aquinas’”line”. They follow John Paul II’s line. Aquinas did not think that the organism was a person from conception, which should change the debate considerably. However, he did think it had a right to life. (A position I find irrational — how can a non-person have a person’s fundamental right?)
Ann
Finnis and George move beyond Thomas and shove him into Kantian absolutism. That’s what JPII did in VS. So I agree with you.
Let’s be clear: I originated the use of “hmmmm.” No one else should be using it in here without proper attribution.
Hello All,
To add briefly to Ann’s last post, in one of his more recent books Finnis considers Aquinas’ views on fetal development. Finnis argues that if Aquinas had the biological knowledge we have then he would have argued that personhood begins at conception, not (as Ann rightly noted Aquinas did say) sometime after.
Finnis, and his doctorate George, don’t accept every last detail of Aquinas’ moral philosophy. I don’t think any contemporary Thomist could. But I think Finnis and George regard themselves as Thomists.
I think contemporary Thomism has a strong Kantian flavor. But the leading contemporary Thomists like Finnis don’t acknowledge Kant’s moral philosophy much in their work. I don’t know why. I think Kant’s is the most influential moral theory in contemporary philosophy. On the other hand I think most philosophers who don’t work in Roman Catholic institutions ignore Aquinas. Maybe Aquinas would get a little more attention if the connection between Kantianism and Thomism were made more explicit.
Hello Goyo (and All),
To add to your last post, I have noticed a strong Kantian line in the writings of John Paul II that I have studied. I’ve remarked to friends that I think John Paul II was a Kantian though he may not have known it.
I agree that the panel composition is about as balanced as one can get given the dominant pro-choice majority in academia. I realize it’s not my place and it’s too late but I have two suggestions anyway.
1) An Evangelical presence would more prominently raise the issue of the legitimacy of religious motivation and framing of issues in public discourse, as opposed to the limitations imposed by Rawlsian “public reason.” Are religious believers expected to bracket their beliefs on some issues? Are humans created in the image of God and do they have God-given inalienable rights?
2) A review of empirical research from, say, Philip Levine, Jonathan Klick, or Michael New would enlighten the policy discussion and complicate what “everyone knows.”.
Goyo and Peter –
I don’t doubt that JP II shares some very basic ethical principles with Aquinas. But when it comes to the specifics of JP II’s “arguments” against abortions, frankly, i find them unconvincing. So far as i have been able to determine he doesn’t subscribe to a general Aristotelian natural law theory such as Aquinas did.
For Aquinas’ argument about the personhood of pre-embryos, see Thomas A. Shannon and Allan B. Wolter, OFM, “The Moral Status of the Pre-Embryo”, Theological Studies, Dec., 1990, pp. 603-626.
It is true that Aquinas’ biology does not hold up. But his argument includes principles of philosophy of science and of metaphysics which are still relevant. Roughly, his argument goes like this. Good Aristotelian that he was, he held that we know what a thing is by what it does. (Note: this same principle is assumed by the contemporary hard scientists.) This is a key point in identifying *what* the pre-embryo is. He argues that if the organism cannot do specifically human actions, then the pre-embryo is not a person. Expressed in the Aristotelian terminology that is still current in the hard sciences, if the thing does not have certain specifying properties proper to a certain kind, then it is not a member of that kind. That is, if it cannot act rationally, then it is not yet a person. The pre-embryo cannot perform specificqlly human acts until weeks after conception. It follows that the organism is not a person until then.
Note: this is essentially the same basic argument as Singer’s, except that Singer argues that the child does not do specifically human things until much later (3-4 years old?). Shocked?
Prediction: Singer is going to ask how the new natural law philosophers can tell when the little organism is a person. And if Aquinas were there I’m sure Singer would ask him too. (Yes, that does present a problem in Thomas, but not an insuperable one, I think.)
Hello Ann (and All),
I agree with you about John Paul II that the arguments in many of his writings are not persuasive. But I would say the same for the documents of other popes I have studied. Papal documents seem to contain at most what I (and maybe you) would call argument sketches, rather than real arguments.
That said, I think I should add that when I griped about the lack of argumentation in John Paul II’s encyclicals, a wise friend of mine told me that it’s not the job of a pope to defend Church teaching in detail, but rather to state clearly what (he thinks) the Church teaches when (he thinks it is) necessary.
So maybe one should not be disappointed that popes don’t give good arguments in defense of Roman Catholic Church teaching. My frustration is that sometimes I have trouble finding good arguments from anyone in the Roman Catholic Church defending certain RCC teachings. For example, while I respect John Finnis’ courage for being one of the few Roman Catholic philosophers who defend certain controversial and unpopular RCC teachings on human sexuality, I think Finnis’ arguments on these matters are altogether unpersuasive.
Hello All,
To add to Ann’s last post, Professor Singer is not the first philosopher to claim that a human does not become a person till much time (years) after her birth. I think that honor, if “honor” is the right word, should go to Professor Michael Tooley, who presented and defended this claim in a 1971 essay that must be counted as a classic if for no other reason than so many have either adopted Tooley’s view (like Singer) or have felt compelled to respond to it (as have I).
Can we presume that these academics are capable of defining the word “created” as in, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal” and that these academics understand that from the moment of our creation every Human Individual is endowed with the unalienable Right to Life from our Creator, or do they plan on ignoring this fundamental, self-evident Truth?
Peter –
I agree about JP II not presenting persuasive arguments on moral issues. Benedict is not quite so bad. But I think they are unpersuasive because they are sketches. The do not present enough evidence to persuade.
But you raise an interesting question: is it the function of a pope to present persuasive arguments in matters of morality? This might not be necessary for those who simply accept what he says because he speaks with authority. However, I don’t think his obligation is only to the uncurious. As more and more Catholics become educated, we need persuasive arguments. Also, it seems to me that it is the function of the popes and bishops to engage not only Catholic and other Christians in matters of morality but also the non-believers in our democratic societies.
I’m very impressed with the Church document, not an encyclical, about interpretation of the Bible that Fr. Komonchak recently recommended. It actually recommends certain scholars by name, which is a vast improvement over such documents from popes which essentially leave us to guess what the pope himself thinks. The sketchy arguments in JP IIs encyclicals don’t even tell us which theologians supply his missing premises. indeed, there are often differences of opinion among Catholic moral theologians as to just what justifies a conclusion, e.g., abortion is wrong. How are we to know who the correct theologiana are if the pope doesn’t identify the ones who have persuaded *him*?
itNancy –
I don’t think you’ll find that any pope has taught that it is self-evident that all men are created equal.
Peter –
In which work does Finnis consider Thomas’ views? I really need to catch up on somenof this.
“I don’t think you’ll find that any pope has taught that it is self-evident that all men are created equal.’
It is a fundamental Truth of the Catholic Church that God, through The Holy Spirit, is The Lord and Giver of all Human Life from The Beginning, and thus every Human Life has Dignity.
Ann, I’m not Peter, but you can check out Natural Law and Natural Rights, and this book on Aquinas specifically:
http://www.amazon.com/Aquinas-Political-Theory-Founders-Thought/dp/0198780850
Finnis follows Aquinas a lot on matters of the common good, property, and just war, from my impressions.
It’s worth mentioning from all those comments above that Thomas is still sanctioned by the Church as providing a basic theological/philosophical framework–even if adjustments are made on various topics (including abortion). But as I understand it, the Church still thinks its an open question as to when a fetus actually becomes a person–but that our ignorance of this particular moment means that abortion is not a legitimate option for the impregnated person. I may be wrong on this, but last time I checked it was the case.
And Nancy, you assume too much when you start talking about academics and a “Creator” who endows us with inalienable rights etc. They’ll turn around and say why assume we were created by some supernatural being? If anything evolution gives us evidence that our existence is a result of chance and circumstance. Like Ann said, it’ll be a leap to say that any of this is self-evident.
Okay, all, thank you very much. Comments are now closed.