Legal protection for life: "tenets of faith" versus scientific truth
I have been meaning to comment for some time about Senator Kerry's frequent admonition that while he believes certain things as a member of the Catholic Church, he cannot "legislate his morality" or "impose those beliefs" on persons who are not members of that faith. This is the bait-and-switch that is often used by pro-choice Catholic politicians (and probably pro-choice politicians from other faiths as well) as a reason why they do not advance or support legislation to protect unborn children from abortion, human embryos from stem-cell research, or the elderly or sick from euthanasia.
There are any number of gaps in this argument, all of which are large enough to drive a fleet of tanks through. Here are just a few:
1. This is a straw man argument most notably because all law is a reflection of a moral judgment. Something as apparently secular as having red, yellow and green lights at traffic intersections reflects a moral judgment. Not just about the niceties of order or taking turns at intersections. But because lack of such order will result in injury and loss of life - something we decide, morally, is a "bad" thing.
2. This is further demonstrated in that a whole host of other laws, all of which reflect moral judgments, do find support amongst "pro-choice" politicians. Laws against theft, for example. (Unless the government does it in the form of taxation or eminent domain. But that's a topic for another day....) Are politicians and legislators unwilling to create or enforce laws against theft, because they legislate morality?
3. Furthermore, these same politicians and legislators explicitly refer to "morality" when arguing in favor of economic policies. And in so doing, they often cite the very "authorities" (the pope, the Vatican, prominent religious philosophers or Protestant ministers) whose religious beliefs they disdain in matters of personal or sexual morality.
4. But the most important reason that the whole I-can't-impose-my-religious-beliefs-on-others argument regarding abortion turns on the distinction between a statement that is purely a matter of religious belief (or what I have called a tenet of faith), and one which is demonstrably - even scientifically - true, from which certain legal or moral positions can be derived, regardless of one's particular religious faith, or lack thereof. This is an oft-overlooked distinction, but a terribly important one.
Since Kerry is a Roman Catholic, it is instructive here to compare these two types of principles in the context of Catholicism. (Side note: I would welcome information on comparable principles from other faiths!)
A tenet of the Catholic faith - which is to say, a belief unique or distinctive to the Catholic faith - would be something like transubstantiation: the belief that the ordained Roman Catholic priest presides over the transformation of the bread and wine at a Catholic Mass into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. Or the belief in the inherent and eternal sinlessness of Christ's mother Mary, which Catholics refer to as the "Immaculate Conception." Or the related belief that Mary's body, by virtue of having been a vessel of God in the form of Jesus Christ, was incorruptible even after death, and thus did not decay, but was assumed intact into Heaven.
Such beliefs are tenets of the Catholic faith, and as such only Catholics are asked to believe them. Therefore, it would be sensible for a Catholic lawmaker to state that he or she would not draft or support legislation which required all Americans to adhere to such beliefs, any more that he or she would support legislation that required belief in Odin, or the existence of Nirvana (the state of being, not the band), or practices of ancestor worship.
But there is a vast difference between those beliefs, which are matters of faith and scientifically unprovable (at least at this juncture), and principles which have a basis in scientific fact.
The terms "embryo," and "fetus" are simply designations for what are undeniably, scientifically, human beings at a particular stage of development (just as we might say, "baby," "toddler," or "teenager" at later stages of development). So, too, is someone who is chronically or terminally ill, or simply old, still scientifically a human being.
In other words, Catholic Church (to use, again, Senator Kerry's religion) does not ask Catholics to believe that human beings in an embryonic, fetal, diseased or geriatric state are human beings simply because it says so, despite the absence of scientific proof. Quite the contrary, in fact. The Catholic Church recognizes the scientific reality of the human being.
Pro-choice activists have tried to deceive the public on this point, originally referring to unborn children as only "products of conception," or a "cluster of cells," (each one of us is a cluster of cells) or "uterine contents," as if this disproved their humanity. This is scientifically false. And as with all scientifically false statements, was disprovable, and has been disproven. As have the claims that human beings in the fetal stage of development do not have brainwave activity, feel pain, move, smile, sleep, etc. Ultrasound and other medical advances blew a hole through those fallacious claims.
From there, then, pro-abortion activists and their pawns in public office have attempted to make distinctions between types of human beings - those that get legal protection for their lives, and those that don't. They argue as if such distinctions are commonplace in our legal system.
While such distinctions have been and are made, they are the exception to the rule, and have been shameful and/or hotly contested, and I would bet that most pro-abortion activists don't want to be associated with them. Slavery was just such a stain on this country's past. Slaves were not defined as non-humans; just humans that didn't have the same legal protections as other people. Similarly, people convicted of heinous crimes and given the death penalty are deprived of their lives by the law.
Do abortion activists really want to associate themselves with this precedent? Does John Kerry? I doubt it.
But that's the only legal precedent they have to stand on. Because otherwise, in our legal tradition, all human beings, regardless of their state, stage, or condition of life, are entitled to a certain minimum of legal protection.
It is important to note here that law and morality intersect most closely at a level created to ensure minimum standards of behavior. (Some would argue that the Ten Commandments are a good reflection of such an intersection. ) Beyond that rock-bottom level of basic decent conduct, however, the law rarely ventures. There, in the aspirational realm, morality holds more sway.
Thus we view the purpose of the law as to insist upon certain minimum standards of conduct. And while it is true that these standards of conduct do reflect a moral judgment (it is bad to injure others, it is bad to kill, it is bad to steal, it is bad to make promises and break them); they could just as easily be discerned through the application of self-interest. In other words, I don't kill because I don't want to be killed; I don't steal because I don't want anyone stealing from me; I don't stab someone with a knife because I don't want to be stabbed with a knife.
Such promises reflect a social compact as much as they do a moral judgment. We insist upon certain minimum standards of conduct from others that mirror our own desires and fears. The law - at a minimum - enforces that social compact.
The legal protection of all human life is one of the most fundamental principles of American law. Indeed, I would argue that it is the most fundamental principle, since nothing else comes into play without it.
Laws protecting human life, therefore, simply acknowledge the scientific reality of the human being, and impose a corresponding necessary minimum standard of conduct (do not kill) required for a civilized society. There is a fundamental truth present in such laws. And religions whose beliefs match these laws do so by virtue of their commitment to that same truth, not some aspirational morality or unique, obscure religious tenet.
If belief in the basic legal protection for all human life were merely a tenet of Catholicism, you would not expect to see this belief outside the Catholic faith. (Just as you do not find many other Christians who adhere to the Catholic belief in the infallibility of the pope on some matters, in transubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption.)
But the fact of the matter is that belief in the necessity of giving legal protection to all human life is not limited to a particular religious tradition. Or even to people who follow any religious tradition. (Here is a good article in that respect.) This isn't surprising, given the self-interested nature of such laws. (And the fact that one can find religions which or individuals who do not advocate protection for human life does not disprove it. You can find pockets of people who don't believe in all kinds of scientifically demonstrable facts.)
So here's the bottom line: It is specious for John Kerry or other politicians to claim that support for laws which protect all human life is purely a matter of religious faith. It isn't. And they know it. Now you do, too.
There are any number of gaps in this argument, all of which are large enough to drive a fleet of tanks through. Here are just a few:
1. This is a straw man argument most notably because all law is a reflection of a moral judgment. Something as apparently secular as having red, yellow and green lights at traffic intersections reflects a moral judgment. Not just about the niceties of order or taking turns at intersections. But because lack of such order will result in injury and loss of life - something we decide, morally, is a "bad" thing.
2. This is further demonstrated in that a whole host of other laws, all of which reflect moral judgments, do find support amongst "pro-choice" politicians. Laws against theft, for example. (Unless the government does it in the form of taxation or eminent domain. But that's a topic for another day....) Are politicians and legislators unwilling to create or enforce laws against theft, because they legislate morality?
3. Furthermore, these same politicians and legislators explicitly refer to "morality" when arguing in favor of economic policies. And in so doing, they often cite the very "authorities" (the pope, the Vatican, prominent religious philosophers or Protestant ministers) whose religious beliefs they disdain in matters of personal or sexual morality.
4. But the most important reason that the whole I-can't-impose-my-religious-beliefs-on-others argument regarding abortion turns on the distinction between a statement that is purely a matter of religious belief (or what I have called a tenet of faith), and one which is demonstrably - even scientifically - true, from which certain legal or moral positions can be derived, regardless of one's particular religious faith, or lack thereof. This is an oft-overlooked distinction, but a terribly important one.
Since Kerry is a Roman Catholic, it is instructive here to compare these two types of principles in the context of Catholicism. (Side note: I would welcome information on comparable principles from other faiths!)
A tenet of the Catholic faith - which is to say, a belief unique or distinctive to the Catholic faith - would be something like transubstantiation: the belief that the ordained Roman Catholic priest presides over the transformation of the bread and wine at a Catholic Mass into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. Or the belief in the inherent and eternal sinlessness of Christ's mother Mary, which Catholics refer to as the "Immaculate Conception." Or the related belief that Mary's body, by virtue of having been a vessel of God in the form of Jesus Christ, was incorruptible even after death, and thus did not decay, but was assumed intact into Heaven.
Such beliefs are tenets of the Catholic faith, and as such only Catholics are asked to believe them. Therefore, it would be sensible for a Catholic lawmaker to state that he or she would not draft or support legislation which required all Americans to adhere to such beliefs, any more that he or she would support legislation that required belief in Odin, or the existence of Nirvana (the state of being, not the band), or practices of ancestor worship.
But there is a vast difference between those beliefs, which are matters of faith and scientifically unprovable (at least at this juncture), and principles which have a basis in scientific fact.
The terms "embryo," and "fetus" are simply designations for what are undeniably, scientifically, human beings at a particular stage of development (just as we might say, "baby," "toddler," or "teenager" at later stages of development). So, too, is someone who is chronically or terminally ill, or simply old, still scientifically a human being.
In other words, Catholic Church (to use, again, Senator Kerry's religion) does not ask Catholics to believe that human beings in an embryonic, fetal, diseased or geriatric state are human beings simply because it says so, despite the absence of scientific proof. Quite the contrary, in fact. The Catholic Church recognizes the scientific reality of the human being.
Pro-choice activists have tried to deceive the public on this point, originally referring to unborn children as only "products of conception," or a "cluster of cells," (each one of us is a cluster of cells) or "uterine contents," as if this disproved their humanity. This is scientifically false. And as with all scientifically false statements, was disprovable, and has been disproven. As have the claims that human beings in the fetal stage of development do not have brainwave activity, feel pain, move, smile, sleep, etc. Ultrasound and other medical advances blew a hole through those fallacious claims.
From there, then, pro-abortion activists and their pawns in public office have attempted to make distinctions between types of human beings - those that get legal protection for their lives, and those that don't. They argue as if such distinctions are commonplace in our legal system.
While such distinctions have been and are made, they are the exception to the rule, and have been shameful and/or hotly contested, and I would bet that most pro-abortion activists don't want to be associated with them. Slavery was just such a stain on this country's past. Slaves were not defined as non-humans; just humans that didn't have the same legal protections as other people. Similarly, people convicted of heinous crimes and given the death penalty are deprived of their lives by the law.
Do abortion activists really want to associate themselves with this precedent? Does John Kerry? I doubt it.
But that's the only legal precedent they have to stand on. Because otherwise, in our legal tradition, all human beings, regardless of their state, stage, or condition of life, are entitled to a certain minimum of legal protection.
It is important to note here that law and morality intersect most closely at a level created to ensure minimum standards of behavior. (Some would argue that the Ten Commandments are a good reflection of such an intersection. ) Beyond that rock-bottom level of basic decent conduct, however, the law rarely ventures. There, in the aspirational realm, morality holds more sway.
Thus we view the purpose of the law as to insist upon certain minimum standards of conduct. And while it is true that these standards of conduct do reflect a moral judgment (it is bad to injure others, it is bad to kill, it is bad to steal, it is bad to make promises and break them); they could just as easily be discerned through the application of self-interest. In other words, I don't kill because I don't want to be killed; I don't steal because I don't want anyone stealing from me; I don't stab someone with a knife because I don't want to be stabbed with a knife.
Such promises reflect a social compact as much as they do a moral judgment. We insist upon certain minimum standards of conduct from others that mirror our own desires and fears. The law - at a minimum - enforces that social compact.
The legal protection of all human life is one of the most fundamental principles of American law. Indeed, I would argue that it is the most fundamental principle, since nothing else comes into play without it.
Laws protecting human life, therefore, simply acknowledge the scientific reality of the human being, and impose a corresponding necessary minimum standard of conduct (do not kill) required for a civilized society. There is a fundamental truth present in such laws. And religions whose beliefs match these laws do so by virtue of their commitment to that same truth, not some aspirational morality or unique, obscure religious tenet.
If belief in the basic legal protection for all human life were merely a tenet of Catholicism, you would not expect to see this belief outside the Catholic faith. (Just as you do not find many other Christians who adhere to the Catholic belief in the infallibility of the pope on some matters, in transubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption.)
But the fact of the matter is that belief in the necessity of giving legal protection to all human life is not limited to a particular religious tradition. Or even to people who follow any religious tradition. (Here is a good article in that respect.) This isn't surprising, given the self-interested nature of such laws. (And the fact that one can find religions which or individuals who do not advocate protection for human life does not disprove it. You can find pockets of people who don't believe in all kinds of scientifically demonstrable facts.)
So here's the bottom line: It is specious for John Kerry or other politicians to claim that support for laws which protect all human life is purely a matter of religious faith. It isn't. And they know it. Now you do, too.
posted by Portia Sterling | 11:17 AM
1 Comments:
Best written [conservative] blog I have read. Your writing is outstanding. I bet you are an impeccable orator as well! You should get an RSS feed going so we are sure not to miss any of your posts.
Post a Comment
<< Home