Many pro-life Trump supporters will be shocked and angered at such a statement. But I urge them to resist this emotional reaction and dispassionately consider the cold, hard facts. Trump supports preserving access to the abortion pill, which is responsible for the majority of abortions in the United States. Since these pills can be sent by mail into states where abortion is restricted or banned, preserving such access largely undermines recent state-level pro-life measures. Trump also actively opposes those measures in any event, insisting that they are “too tough” and need to be “redone.” He has repeatedly said that, even at the state level, abortion must remain legal beyond six weeks. And he wants the federal government to pay for, or to force insurance companies to pay for, in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments – a practice that results in the destruction of more human embryos than even abortion does. The only threat to the unborn Trump has clearly and consistently opposed is late-term abortion, which accounts for a mere 1% of abortions. In short, the policies Trump favors would prevent very few abortions and encourage the discarding of millions of embryos. True, Trump is much better than Harris in supporting the rights of pro-lifers. But he is now only a little better in upholding the rights of the unborn.
To be sure, the enthusiasm of many pro-lifers for Trump is understandable. The Supreme Court Justices he appointed were crucial to overturning Roe v. Wade. He took other pro-life steps during his first term, such as reinstating the Mexico City Policy, which prevents taxpayer dollars from being used to fund abortions overseas. Pro-lifers are desperate for a champion, and Trump’s grit and victories over pro-choice extremists like Harris and Hillary Clinton can make him seem to fill the bill. But none of that changes the unhappy facts summarized in the previous paragraph. None of it changes the fact that Trump rigged the GOP party platform process so as to exclude pro-lifers and ram through a removal of the pro-life plank. None of it conflicts with the clear evidence that Trump pushed a pro-life agenda during his first term only out of political expediency rather than conviction, and has reverted to the moderate pro-choice position that he held for decades because he judges that that is now the politically more expedient course.When I and
others raised
the alarm about these problems during the campaign, there were many pro-life
Trump supporters who quietly acknowledged them but urged that criticism of
Trump be muted until after the election, lest it help Harris. But the election is now over and Trump won
handily. There is no longer any excuse
for keeping silent. And pro-lifers must not keep silent, because Trump’s
policies on these matters are gravely immoral.
Let’s look more closely at both the IVF issue and Trump’s current stance
on abortion to see just how grave the situation is.
The gravity of the IVF issue
The Catholic
Church is the best-known critic of IVF, but it is crucial to emphasize that the
moral problems with IVF have nothing essentially to do with specifically
Catholic premises, or indeed with religious premises of any other kind. As with abortion, even an atheist could
object to IVF on completely secular moral grounds (even if in fact most atheists
no doubt don’t object to it). There are
many moral problems with IVF, but for present purposes I will focus only on
those that anyone who already agrees that abortion is wrong should be able to
see. This is by no means a trivial
exercise, because in recent months, a number of people often thought of as
staunchly pro-life have endorsed IVF.
Trump himself is an example, as are Ted
Cruz, Marco Rubio,
and other Republican U.S. Senators. It
is important for pro-lifers tempted to accept IVF to see that they cannot do so
consistently with their opposition to abortion.
Now, in
vitro fertilization itself simply involves bringing sperm and egg together
outside the normal context of the womb, so as to yield a new human embryo. While there are moral grounds for objecting
to this practice, this much does not amount to homicide, as abortion does. But it is by no means the end of the
story. For the IVF procedure to yield
the results desired, producing a single embryo is not sufficient. Usually several embryos are generated, even
as many as a dozen. From them, those
considered the best candidates are chosen for implantation in the mother’s
womb. The rest are discarded, used for
research, or frozen for possible future use.
Among those implanted, one is often judged the healthiest and brought to
term, and the others aborted if the mother does not want more than one
child.
Destroying
unused embryos is morally on a par with abortion, and killing unwanted embryos
after implantation just is a kind of
abortion. To speak harshly but
truthfully, the destruction of embryos that is typically involved in IVF is
murder, no less than abortion is. A recent
estimate puts the number of embryos lost in in the IVF process every year in
the United States at over a million and a
half – twice the number of abortions
that occur in the U.S. every year. Nor,
again, is this an evil that can realistically be avoided if IVF is to have the
results desired from it. Experts judge that
“discarding embryos is inherent to the IVF process.”
Freezing
embryos indefinitely is also gravely evil.
Most of those frozen are simply abandoned. But even those that are not are done a grave
injustice. A child has a right to be
provided for by his parents, with food, shelter, instruction, and the
like. Any parent who would deprive a
child of these things would be considered wicked. But how much more does a child have a right
to be nurtured in the womb and brought into the world, which is a precondition
of these other goods? A parent who leaves
an embryo frozen in the expectation that it might eventually be taken by others
is comparable to someone who abandons a child on a doorstep. A parent who allows a frozen embryo to be
abandoned altogether, eventually to die, is comparable to the pagans of old who
would abandon unwanted babies on garbage heaps.
To
characterize a presidential administration that actively promotes IVF as
“pro-life” would be ludicrous, indeed obscene.
Yet Trump intends for his administration to do just this. Again, he wants the federal government either
to pay for all the costs of IVF procedures, or to force insurance companies to
do so. If Catholic institutions are
forced to participate, this would be an assault on religious freedom no less
grave than Obama’s attempted contraception mandate. To be sure, Trump has
indicated that he might be open to a religious exemption. But that is nowhere near good enough. The fundamental problem is not that Catholics
would be forced to participate in the murder of embryos, bad as that would
be. The fundamental problem is the
murder of embryos.
Some might
suggest that Trump’s call for an IVF mandate was just campaign rhetoric that
will quickly be forgotten. But while we
can hope this is true, we cannot
complacently assume that it is, and
in fact the evidence points in the opposite direction. Trump has not merely made a perfunctory
statement or two on the issue. On the
contrary, he repeatedly and enthusiastically promoted the IVF mandate during
the campaign, going
so far as to characterize himself as “the father of IVF” and to
pledge that the GOP will now be “the party for IVF” even more than the
Democrats. Other Republicans with
pro-life reputations have also in recent months taken
positive action to promote IVF.
Even JD Vance, despite his reputation as a faithful pro-life Catholic, has
enthusiastically spoken in favor of it. Elon Musk, a major Trump ally and advisor, is
an especially vigorous proponent of IVF, several of his children having been
conceived via the procedure.
As one
commentator has concluded,
“if Trump makes good on his promise of federally-funded IVF, it will be one of
the most objectively anti-life acts in US government history.” But even this is only the half of the problem.
Trump is now pro-choice
In the years
since Roe was overturned, Trump has
repeatedly said that the abortion issue should now be left to the states rather
than the federal government. Yet he has
during the same period also repeatedly criticized state-level restrictions on
abortion. When the Arizona Supreme Court
ruled in favor of enforcing an abortion ban, Trump
complained that it “went too far.” When Florida governor Ron DeSantis signed a
law banning abortion after six weeks, Trump
condemned the ban as “a terrible thing and a terrible mistake.” The reason, he explained, is
that he thinks “the six week is too short, there has to be more time” – more
time, that is to say, for the mother to decide whether to have an
abortion. And again, he
says that the restrictive measures some state Republicans have
pushed for are “too tough, too tough” and “are going to be redone.”
During the
campaign, Trump repeatedly obfuscated on Florida’s Amendment 4, which would
have expanded abortion access even to late term. At one point, when asked whether he would
vote against it, he
responded that he would “be voting that we need more than six weeks”
– thereby giving the impression that he would vote for the amendment. After an outcry from pro-lifers, Trump then
said that he would vote against it, but reiterated that he still
thought a six week ban was too restrictive.
But then, on Election Day, he
refused to say whether he had in fact voted against the amendment.
At one
point, Trump said
that a fifteen-week ban on abortion at the federal level might be
“reasonable” and reflected “the number of weeks” he was “thinking in terms
of.” He later
changed course and declared that he would veto any federal ban. But when you consider his initial view that a
fifteen-week federal ban would reflect a “reasonable” time frame, together with
his repeated criticism of six-week bans at the state level, the natural
conclusion to draw is that the most Trump would support in defense of the
unborn is a fifteen-week ban on abortion at the state level. In other words, Trump’s position seems to be
that abortion should be legal, even at
the state level, before fifteen weeks.
That is
manifestly an example of what every pro-lifer before twenty minutes ago would
call a pro-choice position. It is what
no pro-lifer would have tolerated in a Republican presidential candidate before
Trump. True, it is not as extreme a pro-choice position as the
one that Kamala Harris and other Democrats now routinely take. But it is still manifestly pro-choice, and
not pro-life.
Now, 93% of
abortions in the U.S. occur
at thirteen weeks or earlier – that is to say, precisely during the
period that Trump apparently wants abortion to be legal even at the state
level. And again, he has also stated
that he “will not block” access to abortion pills, which
account for the majority of abortions and can be mailed across state
lines into states with restrictive abortion laws. In short, Trump’s
current position on abortion would permit well over 90% of abortions even at
the state level. As with his IVF
policy, it would be ludicrous and indeed obscene to characterize this as
remotely close to a “pro-life” position.
Here too it would
be naïve to think that Trump’s recent statements are mere campaign rhetoric
that will be forgotten now that he has been elected. Trump has not merely refrained from
advocating pro-life policy when running for a second term. He has actively
fought against such policies when Republicans have pushed them even at the
state level, and took positive action to
remove from the GOP platform its commitment to defending the lives of the
unborn. He has
emphasized that his new administration “will be great for women and
their reproductive rights,” standard code for pro-choice policies. Late in his campaign, Trump’s wife Melania
released a memoir which was loudly
marketed as, of all things, an expression of her commitment to
abortion rights. It would be absurd to
suppose that the Trump campaign would permit this if it were not trying to send
a reassuring message to those worried that Trump would return to pro-life
advocacy once elected. And far from
distancing himself from this message, Trump has effusively praised
the book (and at the Catholic Al Smith dinner, of all places). He has also now surrounded himself with
pro-choice advisors like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard, and gotten
even the once staunchly pro-life Vance to temporize on the issue.
Some
pro-life Trump supporters might suggest that while Trump’s current position is
regrettable, it is irrelevant. By
helping to overturn Roe, they might
say, he has opened the door to fighting abortion at the state level, and
pro-lifers can now do this as effectively without Trump’s support as they could
with it. But this too is naïve. Trump is clearly convinced that the pro-life
cause is now a liability for him and for the GOP in general. That is the best explanation for why he has
fought even state-level restrictions rather than staying neutral. With only thin majorities in Congress and
worries about how the midterms might go, he is likely to continue to try to discourage
Republican governors and lawmakers from pressing for restrictions on
abortion. Presidents can exert
considerable pressure, especially when they are popular with the party base and
have won decisive electoral victories. And
as I have argued in a
previous article, Trump’s record shows that he is likely to be
vindictive against those who resist him on this matter. Pro-lifers will have their work cut out for
them.
Some common responses
I’ve found
that while some pro-life Trump supporters are clear-eyed about these problems, others
are extremely reluctant to face up to them.
There are several stock responses I’ve seen over and over, not only
throughout the campaign but even after Trump won. It is worthwhile to explain why, though emotionally
attractive to some, these responses completely miss the point or otherwise have
no force:
1. “How can you say Trump is
pro-choice? He got Roe overturned! Have you no
gratitude?”
Yes, Trump
was instrumental in overturning Roe and
deserves thanks for that. But getting
rid of Roe does not by itself save
any unborn lives. It merely removes a
certain obstacle to saving them. One has
to take further positive steps in order actually to protect the unborn. And the trouble is that Trump has both
opposed such steps (insofar as he has actively opposed both federal action
against abortion and the state-level measures Republicans have pushed for), and
also proposed a new policy that positively threatens the unborn (the IVF
mandate).
Suppose
someone bought you a car but also both made it difficult or impossible for you
to get any gasoline, and encouraged others to steal the car. Obviously, it would be silly for someone to
defend him by saying “Don’t be ungrateful!
After all, he bought you the car!” Buying someone a car is hardly much of a gift
if you also make it impossible for the person to use or keep it. The point of having a car, after all, is to
drive it. Similarly, for pro-lifers, the
point of overturning Roe was to open
the door to protecting the unborn. For
Trump to help overturn Roe but then
go on to oppose federal and state-level restrictions and promote IVF defeats
this purpose. Trump is taking back with
his left hand what he gave with his right.
2. “But it would be politically unrealistic
to push for a national ban on abortion or IVF!”
This is no
doubt true, but it is beside the point, because no one is criticizing Trump for
failing to do that. His critics realize
that current political circumstances make such bans politically
unfeasible. But it is one thing simply
to refrain from pushing for a federal
abortion ban. It is quite another thing actively to oppose such a ban, and actively to remove the pro-life plank
from the GOP platform. It is one thing
simply not to oppose IVF. It is quite another actively to promote IVF and to push for federal funding of it. Moreover, the problem is not just that Trump
actively opposes any federal action in this area. It is that he has also actively opposed the
steps pro-lifers have been taking even at the state level to restrict abortion.
3. “After Dobbs, abortion is a state-level issue anyway, so Trump’s current views are
irrelevant”
There are
three problems with this response.
First, while Trump and his supporters often speak as if Dobbs permits the states alone to restrict abortion, that is not
true. After Dobbs, either the states or
the federal government may put restrictions on abortion. It may currently be politically unfeasible to
push for federal restrictions, but it is dishonest to insinuate that the Dobbs decision somehow rules out such
restrictions.
Second, even
where state-level restrictions are concerned, Trump’s current views are not irrelevant. Again, though out of one side of his mouth he
says that the states can do what they like, out of the other side he has been
actively opposing recent state-level restrictions. He clearly thinks these restrictions are
politically harmful to him and the GOP, and wants to discourage Republicans
even at the state level from pushing for them.
A president has tremendous influence on what happens in his party at all
levels, especially when he has tight control over the party apparatus and has
won a decisive electoral victory. Republican
politicians down-ballot who want the support of the president and the party are
bound to feel strong pressure not to resist him on the abortion issue.
Third, whatever
one says about abortion, Trump’s proposed IVF mandate would itself be a federal initiative. It is he, not his critics, who is making of
IVF’s threat to the unborn a federal issue rather than a state issue.
(Some
Catholic Trump supporters have argued that the natural law principle of
subsidiarity requires dealing with abortion only at the state level rather than
the federal level. But this is not true,
as I have shown in another
article.)
4. “No political candidate is going
to fit some imagined ideal. By
criticizing Trump, you are self-righteously making the perfect the enemy of the
good and encouraging a purity spiral that will only damage the pro-life cause!”
This is a
straw man. Trump’s pro-life critics are
not demanding perfection. And again,
they aren’t criticizing him for simply refraining from pushing a pro-life
agenda in a hostile political climate.
Rather, they are criticizing him for doing things that are positively gravely damaging to the
pro-life cause. As we have seen, Trump’s
current position on abortion would effectively permit over 90% of abortions, and his IVF proposal would actively promote
a procedure that entails even more
killing of the unborn than abortion does.
That is not merely imperfect or less than ideal. It not only permits but positively
facilitates the vast majority of killings of the unborn. It does not merely fail to promote the
pro-life cause, but is directly contrary
to it.
5. “But Harris is worse! It would have been insane for pro-lifers to
help her defeat Trump!”
Yes, Harris
is even worse than Trump, which is why I consistently said for months that it
would be better for her to lose and that it was justifiable for pro-lifers in
swing states to vote for Trump in order to ensure that she lost. But as
I also argued during the campaign, in no way did this entail that
Trump’s current position was not seriously problematic, or that pro-lifers
could be excused from criticizing his betrayal of the unborn. In any event, that is now moot. Harris has lost, Trump has won, and there is
no longer any excuse (if there ever was one) for pro-lifers to remain
silent.
6. “This is all just Trump
Derangement Syndrome (TDS)! You’re just
a NeverTrumper!”
This is the
most brain-dead response, and not really worthy of comment. But because it is extremely common, I’ll
offer a reply.
First, I am
neither a “NeverTrumper” nor “deranged” in my criticisms of him. Though I have always had serious reservations
about Trump, I did vote for him in 2016 and 2020 because the alternatives were
worse. To be sure, his behavior after
his 2020 defeat, and especially what he tried to pressure Mike Pence to do,
were in my opinion disgraceful and a grave
assault on the rule of law.
That alone should have prevented Republicans from ever nominating him
again. All the same, had I lived in a
swing state, I would have voted for him even in this election, just to keep
Harris out. I have also many times
explicitly acknowledged that Trump has real strengths and has done some good
things, and that many of the things his critics say about him are false. My article “Trump:
A buyer’s guide,” while very critical of him, also defends him
against these excessive and unfair criticisms.
No reasonable person who reads that article could accuse me of “TDS.”
If I really
were suffering from “TDS,” I would have been writing critical things about
Trump for years. In fact, in the years
since he took center stage in American politics, I have written very little
about him. The reason is that I find it
very unpleasant to do so, given that so many of his biggest critics and biggest
fans alike are unable to discuss the subject in a reasonable and civil
way. Whenever I have said positive
things about Trump, I have been accused of being part of the “MAGA cult” or the
like. Whenever I have said critical
things about him, I have been accused of “TDS” etc. So many people on both sides are so shrill
and irrational on the subject of Trump that for a long time I judged it better
to avoid saying much about him. Anyone
who has been paying attention will know that I started frequently commenting on
Trump only after he began to sell out the pro-life cause. The reason, as should be blindingly obvious
to any rational person, is not that I have an animus against Trump, but because
I have an animus against abortion.
In any
event, even if I did have an animus against Trump, that would be completely
irrelevant to the cogency of the arguments I have given here and in earlier
articles. The arguments stand or fall on
their own merits, whatever my motivations.
To suppose otherwise is to commit a blatant ad hominem fallacy.
But while
we’re on the subject of motivation, it’s worth noting that the issue cuts both
ways. Pro-life Trump voters are often
accused of putting politics ahead of their pro-life principles. The accusation is usually unfair, but not
always. Any pro-life Trump voter who,
even after he has been safely elected, would still refuse to criticize him for his betrayal of the unborn
thereby proves the critics right.
Related
posts:
There is so much you get 100% right here Professor and a few things I think you get wrong.
ReplyDeleteBut I am gonna let the "wrong" things slide cause I am just so Jazzed Trump is back!!!
Also it will be better to be prolife under him then under Harris. We will be free to promote Life and oppose abortion without FBI jerks arresting Grandmas saying Rosaries in front of death clinics.
But yeh now that Trump is elected oppose him on IVF and similar stuff....
Cheer boss.
PS it is me Son of Yachov.
I am on my home linux computer and it won't post my google profile. Still cannae figure that out.
Cheers boss.
I agree with this post. Can it be the last on the subject, though? You've covered it exhaustively. Half or more of the responses will ignore your argument and just accuse you of the same stuff they always do. At this point, you're casting your pearls before swine.
ReplyDeleteBelieve me, I would much prefer never to write about it. The venom and irrationality such articles invite is depressing. I write on it only when it seems to me that something needs to be said that too few others are saying, or are not approaching it in the way I think it needs to be approached. Anyway, I don't plan on writing much more about it. But it will depend on how events go.
DeleteI for one have appreciated your continuing to write on this. I think it has generated fruitful discourse and that your posts on the topic have been stated each time with greater nuance. Along with this, I think it is a temptation for folks like myself who admire and appreciate Trump and also oppose abortion to let that admiration and appreciation trump (it was intended) one's duty to speak on behalf of the unborn. Your posts are helping readers to not give into that temptation. So I am grateful even though there have been points that I think should be stated with more nuance or where I simply disagree.
DeleteOne point where I think that the pro life approach to Trump and his advisors can be more effective is to lead with appreciation for the remarkable good that Trump and his team have done for our country and continue to propose to do. I also think people should approach President Trump as a person of fundamentally good will. He wants to do what is right even to the point of risking jail time and his life. How many folks in the political realm would be willing to continue to press forward in the face of such remarkable evil? It is hard for me to imagine any.
I think that the most important question on IVF was noted elsewhere by Tony and that is the question of what constitutes murder. Few people take the time to define terms and to think about the implications of taking the time to actually get at the nature of some evil/injustice. Once this is done, it provides the reference point for moral reasoning that is no longer ad hoc.
As murder is the taking of an innocent human life, it is everywhere and always wrong. As an embryo is an innocent human life, it would be murder to deliberately end that life. Once this is clear, moral reasoning on abortion and on the gravest evils associated with IVF become clear. I think continuing to press these points in the public sphere is extremely important. Until these basic points are clear, more subtle points won't have even a semblance of a hearing.
Now that the election has ended with a Trump victory, I hope to make peace with Dr. Feser.
ReplyDeleteReligious institutions will NOT be forced to pay for IVF. Trump has no incentive be an absolutist. Trump supports funding IVF, but so does practically every voter and politician. It's unfair to single out Trump for criticism over something every American is guilty of.
I think many pro lifers hurt their credibility with Trump by countersignalling him so much during the campaign. Ed points out that Trump is transactionally pro life... the obvious implication is the pro life movement should help Trump so he sees the benefit of helping us. We could have had a pro life equivalent to RFK or Vivek, but our side decided nitpick Trump over his rhetoric.
The pro life movement needs to be more comfortable with politicians that mouth pro choice rhetoric when doing so advances pro life goals. Pro life Republicans can do a lot of good at the state level, but only if pro choice Democrats lose elections.
"We could have had a pro life equivalent to RFK or Vivek, but our side decided nitpick Trump over his rhetoric."
DeleteThere is no evidence that pro-lifers prompted this. Trump threw them overboard at the earliest opportunity, unprovoked.
Religious institutions will NOT be forced to pay for IVF.
DeleteI think you mean that religious institutions will not be forced to have IVF covered by their health plans.
What about non-religious employers who just believe abortion is wrong, including when done in IVF?
And what about everyone paying taxes that get used to pay for IVF? For a long time the Hyde amendment recognized the moral affront to people opposed to abortion having their tax money pay for abortion.
"the obvious implication is the pro life movement should help Trump so he sees the benefit of helping us"
DeleteHow pathetic. Trump isn't on your side anymore, but instead of rejecting Trump, you think maybe if you grovel enough and try harder to please, he'll change his mind and come back to you. This is an abusive relationship you're describing. Leave it before it destroys you.
As Neophyte suggested, if nearly every politician and most voters support IVF, then the problem is not principally a single politician (Trump), the problem is that Catholics have been ineffective in making the case in the public sphere. This is where cultural influence is important and is modelled in various ways and on various topics by the Daily Wire, Bishop Robert Barron, Matt Fradd, Dr. Feser's writing, etc. More progress as a society requires more Catholics and other people of goodwill to make efforts to make a difference for the good.
Delete"Nor, again, is this an evil that can realistically be avoided if IVF is to have the results desired from it. Experts judge that “discarding embryos is inherent to the IVF process.”
ReplyDeleteAlthough the standard IVF approach, which creates extra embryos, is the most effective way to produce babies without genetic abnormalities, it's not clear why this is absolutely required. As an alternative, the IVF clinic could create only a couple of embryos at a time and implant all embryos they create. This would potentially take longer, have a higher overall risk of failure, and sometimes produce babies with conditions like Downs Syndrome. I'm not an expert, but I don't see why embryo destruction is inherent in IVF by its nature, rather than simply the normal practice.
The Church objects to in vitro fertilization as such, even apart from the destruction of the embryo, because it separates reproduction from the conjugal act.
DeleteRight, the Church objects to the separation of fertilization from the sexual act, but (many people would argue) this position is a religious tenet, or at least not obviously something required by the natural law, and so wouldn't be something one could readily demand the GOP and the country make laws to reflect.
DeleteI would like the laws reflect the Church's teaching on this truth, as I DO believe it belongs to the natural law. But I recognize that is a harder argument to make, and given that (in this arena) it is already hard for most people to accept the sheer abortion-is-killing a child thesis, we aren't likely to get many people to see the conception issue as belonging to the natural law - not any time soon. So...I would stick to the killing part for purposes of political action at this time, and leave the other for a later development.
If IVF doesn’t inherently require the destruction of embryos, and if the destruction of embryos were the only objectional aspect of IVF as commonly practiced, then the objection should be raised against the destruction of embryos specifically and not against IVF generally.
DeleteBecause the Catholic Church does forbid IVF for reasons other than embryo destruction, advocating for an IVF ban without acknowledging this opens one up to accusations of sleight of hand. The Church’s argument against IVF *per se* is actually the “separation of unitive and procreative” argument. It opposes embryo destruction insofar as that occurs, but opposes IVF even apart from that.
Tony,
DeleteWell said. In addition to what you have said, there is the question of what to do with the already frozen embryos. They never should have been frozen in the first place. However, now that they have been frozen, there is the question of the most humane thing to do. I don't see any moral reason why the already frozen embryos might not be placed in utero in hopes of implantation and growth. More than this, it seems to me the only right thing to do in such a situation.
After commenting above, I found the following article from the National Catholic Register:
Deletehttps://www.ncregister.com/news/frozen-in-time-catholic-ethicists-discuss-the-fate-of-the-estimated-1-million-human-embryos-on-ice#:~:text=clinic%20in%20Cleveland.-,The%20Catholic%20Church%20has%20long%20condemned%20the%20IVF%20process%20and,and%20result%20in%20their%20destruction.%E2%80%9D
Pretty good article, Michael.
DeleteI was aware of the Church's relatively sharp pull back on the reins of the idea of prenatal adoption (to volunteer to give birth to frozen embryos not wanted). While I laud the Church's caution, and I strongly support measures meant to make sure we don't indirectly support or cooperate with IVF, I don't think the current cautious "no" to the adoption idea by the Church will ultimately prevail as a formal moral stance. If we had, for example completely stopped by law all new IVF, and completely eradicated any benefit to the doctors and scientists and investors who profited from it, and improved the thawing process so survival rates are better, and only allowed as adopting parents those who were fertile and already had children, so that ALL tangential connections to improper IVF benefits were severed, I think (eventually) the Church will have to approve it.
The crux of the theoretical argument against is the idea (as offered in the article)
it requires the wife in the adopting couple to receive into her womb an embryonic child who was not conceived through her bodily union with her husband.
The argument assumes, but does not say explicitly, "and accepting this baby in her womb is inherently immoral", relying entirely on an unstated idea of the gestational process as a morally integral whole with the conceptional act. The flaw in the argument is that we now know that the essential nature of reproduction is not of a process that takes 9 months: gestation is distinct from conception. The child is FULLY a human being after conception, and only needs nutrition and a proper environment to mature and be born healthy. Just as a baby needs nutrition and a proper environment to grow to being a toddler, and then a youngster, and then a teen, and then an adult: these are merely stages of growth, they are not the completion of producing a human person - the human person is already wholly present in all of those stages. We have no moral problem with adopting a baby, who STILL needs constant feeding and care by a family just to survive, much less thrive, even though that adopted baby is not conceived and gestated in the adoptive mother's womb. We rightly say "so what" about that. Sure, it's not ideal, but it's the best we can do for a baby whose birth parents are dead. Similarly: it is normal for a mother to breastfeed her baby, that is part of the normal, healthy, and ideal way of providing both nutrition and important emotional care for the baby. But if the mother dies, we morally approve of another mother taking over and breastfeeding - using her breast (designed to feed her OWN children, children of her and her husband's own union) to feed another in need.
First off, we could note that a cesarean section delivery is already an accepted invasion of the normal gestational process: cutting the baby out to save his life (and the mother's). It is still permissible even if the baby is not full term, e.g. at 8 months, if medically necessary. The theoretical argument’s flaws based on a supposed moral unity of conception and gestation will be manifest when we get artificial wombs capable of (reliable) temporary service: Consider a situation where the pregnant mother MUST have grave surgery to survive, but the surgery will certainly kill the fetus if left in the womb. So we propose to move the fetus temporarily into the artificial womb for a short time, and then replace the baby in the mother's womb after surgery when it is safe to do so. The fact of the baby - temporarily - being cared for outside of the mother's womb in an artificial environment being for the child's welfare, will demonstrate that making an intrusion into the gestational process against the NORMAL gestational pattern, for the sake of the child, is not a violation of the reproductive integrity of the child, even though in normal conditions we wouldn't be justified in using an artificial womb. It would be idiotic to insist that we must let the child die in his mother's womb for the sake of his reproductive integrity: he’s already wholly a human being, and staying in the womb during the process is what will kill him. No more is it intrinsically immoral to make use of an adopting mother's womb for the purpose (or her breasts for feeding an adopted baby, after birth).
DeleteAnother flaw is this: it is a metaphysical oxymoron that both doing X and NOT doing X is morally wrong. But this is precisely what has been urged: that keeping the embryo frozen is a moral affront to the child, (who cannot EVER carry out a life nor die a natural death), and also that not keeping it frozen is immoral as well. (Well, the latter really consist of either thawing and letting it die, or thawing and implanting, but the proposed position is that implanting is wrong, and that thawing to intentionally let it die is effectively outright murder.)
There is a type of IVF called "natural cycle" in which only one embryo is created. It avoids the murderous aspect of standard IVF, but any IVF is morally questionable.
DeleteActually, IVF is morally wrong, not just questionable.
DeleteFor others who write about a human being "after conception," here we must also be more precise. A human being begins his/her life at the moment of conception.
Tony,
DeleteYour comments here are insightful and the analysis is extremely helpful. If you have any inclination to write articles/essays for broader readership, I think what you have said here could move discussion on this forward in a productive way.
As Tony states, the suggestion that the scenario of frozen embryos allows for no morally licit course of action is problematic. Doctrinally, such a position seems to conflict with the Council of Trent which states that we can always do good and avoid evil. If leaving the embryos frozen were a sin of omission, then there must be some moral act that is required to avoid this sin. In fact, there is. Some could adopt these embryos and seek to have them implanted as an act of charity. That is a theological version of the argument against the suggestion that there is no morally licit course of action in the wake of freezing the embryos.
DeleteTo leave these embryos frozen and without the care of an adoptive parent would be a societal sin of omission. It would be a sin much like leaving orphans to fend for themselves without care when we have the means as a society to care for them. Not only is it licit to care for them, it is a moral requirement to do so.
Thanks, Michael. I used to write for WhatsWrongWIththeWorld.net, but that has gone inactive. I have a couple books I would like to write, but time and resources are in limited supply. I imagine I will continue commenting here as long as the Prof lets me. :-)
DeleteHi, Tony. I miss WhatsWrongWIththeWorld.net a lot. I learned a lot from it and I miss the analysis of the authors (including yourself). I haven't had much of an online presence, recently, so the world has been spared my drivel. I hope you are well.
DeleteThe Chicken
Great Post Prof, I completely agree.
ReplyDeleteOn the question of abortion pills though, could you please explain the actions that you would like to see being taken.
One Federal Action I have seen Dr Budziszewski suggest, is that, it should be prevented from being sold across interstate lines.
Besides that though what are the actions, you suggest that could be taken.
If you could be a little more specific there it would be helpful!
Yes, preventing them being sold across state lines is one thing that should be done. But unfortunately, it is also something Trump has indicated he will not do. He's said he would not enforce the Comstock act (which would ban mailing abortion bills) or in general take any federal action: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/20/trump-comstock-enforcement-00175068
DeleteIt's not often that I read a long post, covering a variety of issues, with which I entirely agree. But you did it. Well done, Professor Feser. So far, I haven't read a better analysis of the pro-life situation, and I don't think I'll find a better one out there.
ReplyDeleteThank you for this. I suspect that the issues around IVF are often unfamiliar even to those who are otherwise generally informed. They were to me and I am grateful for your book recommendation on X and for this post.
ReplyDeleteI think one problem is that despite everything you say being true, Trump is probably still the most pro-life president we have had in decades. People forget that most of the Roe v. Wade court was appointed by Republican presidents. As you said, Ted Cruz is pro-IVF. I think Trump is the best we can do right now. We want to criticize him without creating too much division in the GOP. God-willing we can steadily make progress and have Ron DeSantis as president in 2028.
ReplyDeleteBut the poster boy successor is now Vance, who compromised himself pretty thoroughly.
DeleteI haven't followed all of Vance's statements on abortion, but let's just wait to condemn him. I've heard him speak quite a bit on everything else and I think it would be premature to say he has convictionally abandoned the pro-life position (that abortion should be illegal).
DeleteHe has shown too much virtue AND intellect for that. I think he knew that being a part of the Trump campaign would mean that life would take a back seat. Even knowing that, I don't think it was immoral for him to join the campaign.
Also, did Vance know that Trump would be pushing IVF when he joined as VP?
I think Vance is perhaps still working through how he can be a part of the Trump Administration, defend its policies, AND keep his principles. I'm cautiously optimistic that Vance hasn't sold his soul. He could do better, I think. He is in a tough spot, which I don't envy.
Kyle,
DeleteThat is well said. Those that occasionally post an anonymous comment here and there on political matters don't have a clue the difficulty of acting according to principles and getting elected in an environment like ours. Politicians can and should act according to principles, but it requires more thought and moral virtue than is required of most of us in the amount of decisions they face, the complexity of those decisions, and the external pressures involved as one is trying to think through those decisions.
Although it appears that Trump hasn't been very interested in religion most of his life, the churches he's attended have been liberal Protestant that seem to have the same views on abortion as he does.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the liberal Protestant churches changed their view, so would the majority of the country (Trump or no). It seems that Randall Balmer attributes cynical calculations by Jerry Falwell and company to make Evangelicals pro-life where they were indifferent before: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/10/abortion-history-right-white-evangelical-1970s-00031480. This quote stood out to me:
During the midterm elections of 1978, however, antiabortion activists — Roman Catholics — leafleted church parking lots in four Senate races during the final weekend of the campaign: New Hampshire, Iowa and two races in Minnesota, one for the unexpired term of Walter Mondale, Carter’s vice president. Two days later, in an election with a very low turnout, anti-abortion Republicans defeated the favored Democratic candidates.
It's worth noting that Dobbs happened during a pro-abortion presidency due to the (perhaps cynically motivated) previous actions of a liberal Protestant. Catholic pro-lifers make a difference by their actions regardless of who is president. Why not try to win back the liberal Protestants to the traditional Christian view and see what follows? Maybe the low information "Catholics" will come along too.
Catholics and evangelics have both done heroic work for the unborn. I genuinely wish you the best convincing liberal Protestants of anything. I don't think it's going to happen.
DeleteMaybe the problem is approaching the issue from a political perspective rather than from a theological perspective.
DeleteI believe all mainline Protestant denominations profess the Nicene Creed and so Jesus Christ, the person, is fully human and fully God. But when did that happen?
26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”...
39 At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, 40 where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43 But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45 Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her!”...
56 Mary stayed with Elizabeth for about three months and then returned home.
The Annunciation occurred in the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy. Elizabeth and John acknowledged that Mary was already the mother of the Lord, Jesus Christ second person of the Trinity. This must have occurred immediately after the Annunciation since Mary stayed 3 months until John was born.
Therefore the second person of the Trinity was present as fully human at conception meaning that, theologically speaking, human personhood must begin at that point for all of us. Abortion kills a human person, a person we are supposed to see Christ in. Indeed, theologians who allow abortion as morally acceptable implicitly affirm that abortion would have been morally acceptable for Jesus Christ. Maybe the pastors are financially captive to opposing their denomination's policies, but maybe the congregants can be persuaded.
@bmiller
Deletei remember noticing this and being persuated that Our Lord was truly present bodilly when this dialogue happened, seeing the implications on personhood you saw as well. But i have a worry: did any of the Fathers or medievals noticed it?
If not, my confidence is a bit weaker, you know.
Talmid,
DeleteAquinas noticed it and commented on it. If I remember correctly, he agreed that Jesus Christ, the person, was truly and completely present at the moment of the Annunciation but had to square that with the accepted biology of the day. That being Aristotle's idea that the act of conception did not reach completion until about 30 days. So he speculated that God performed a miracle in this one case.
We now know that sperm and egg form a unique individual almost instantly rather than blood and menses slowly forming a new individual over the course of a month so the person is immediately present in all conceptions, not just Christ's.
The lack of this correct biological knowledge was most likely the reason the passages were not seen for supporting the personhood immediately after the conjugal act. Abortion was considered a mortal sin regardless and so there was probably no one making a "personhood" argument for abortion at that time either.
@bmiller
DeleteI see. I remembered St. Thomas being stuck with this biological view, so i assume that the argument truly was not used back them thanks to it.
As you noticed, it was not necessary, after all, so i can see why this way was not pursued.
To lead with an assertion that Trump--and not blue state governments, Planned Parenthood and similar organizations, or the cultural forces that lead many women to insist on the "right" to kill their young, i.e. consequence-free sexual indulgence, as a condition of a fulfilling life--is the greatest threat to the pro-life cause after Harris is so far-fetched that readers can hardly be blamed for not continuing. Too bad, because the point that pro-life Trump supporters should be willing to call him out for this stuff is a sound one.
ReplyDeleteEd was careful to note that he was speaking of threats "in American politics." So organizations like PP (or whatever really) don't fit except indirectly. Even with respect to blue-state governments, while they are more radical than Trump, part of the point of the post is that given the influence Trump experts on the Republican party on a national level, his reach is greater than whatever individual state governments might push for.
DeleteLet's face it, if Trump can (more or less single-handedly) turn the pro-life party into a pro-choice party and can push for IVF at a robust level, then yes, the charge that he is the second-greatest threat is at the very least plausible, if not outright apparent.
"(More or less single-handedly) turn the pro-life party into a pro-choice party."
DeleteTry thinking this through. No one had a plan at the federal level for what came after Roe ended--which I doubt many expected to happen at all. Trump is reactive--in this case, to the manifest (shameful, sure, but no less manifest) lack of wide electoral support for further federal action, not to mention in many cases further state action. He only looks like a consensus-shaper to those who mistake their small circles for the broader electorate--those who, often, were vigorously insisting a year ago that Trump could never again win an election. You don't need to be a populist to have some situational awareness.
We live in a pro-abortion culture. We're lucky the GOP culture still has as much room for anti-abortion advocacy as it does--the issue is a dead letter in Europe. Though it may help here to remind people that late-term abortion is banned throughout Europe. But that hardly hits at the nub of the issue.
Chiming in to say that Anonymous has nailed it. It's a bad read of the social temperature to think that Trump is proactively moving republicans in the pro-choice direction, rather than being reactive to the views of the populace.
DeleteHe could certainly do better on the issue, but the margin is slim. If he were too much more pro-life, his electoral chances would have completely diminished.
It was a huge failure of the pro-life movement to make such a deal out of overturning Roe v. Wade without a plan for what would happen next. A good amount really do think making it a state issue was the end goal.
Now we have to be more strategic and cunning, prudent and shrewd in the fight for life. But I wouldn't blame Trump for that.
It's important to draw the line at where the current admin will likely fall. I generally hope people in the pro-life camp resisted counter-signaling Trump since the Democratic party would have given no concessions to state or national rights for the unborn. Now we go to work.
ReplyDeletePut concisely: You can't always get what you want; you don't always want what you get. Trump is opportunistic and an irrational powder keg. Oops, I insulted the powder keg.
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary: Trump is opportunistic. As to being irrational: he may seem irrational to many (including the media) because his goals are not their goals, and they can't conceive of someone successfully playing with their perceptions to further his own goals. It is more likely that he likes to run his mouth off on all sorts of contradictory momentary blurbs, to push the chattering class to focus on meaningless noise, and then pursue his agenda while their attention is on fluff. That also satisfies his immense ego - to have the chattering class all TALKING about him - and at least for the moment, all of their outrage harms him not a bit.
DeleteUnfortunately, many people don't seem to understand what IVF actually entails. And then there's those who push for embryo selection, which is even worse because multiple embryos are fertilized precisely so that one can be chosen and the rest destroyed.
ReplyDeleteThis inhuman ideology that Nature is just there for us to manipulate, that it's all just arbitrary is what we have to get past.
And despite what the would-be societal engineers think, if we follow this path, it's going to destroy us. We're not going to have an inhuman techno-dystopia (even though they'd call it a utopia) for centuries; it's just not going to happen.
Critique people for taking acne medicine. Acne is what our bodies have a natural tendency towards.
Delete#Anon: Nope. Aesthetics are an important part of human flourishing. People at ease with themselves tend to be happier. There's nothing immoral about acne treatments.
DeleteSocieties that promo reckless sexual behavior and murder as a method of 'birth' control, are not. Being slaves to our base animal instincts is not conductive to human flourishing.
Sorry if you thought you had a killer argument.
Now go watch Whoopi.
Our nature is what we tend towards, not what we want or like
DeleteI do agree that taking care of one’s children is an important moral responsibility though. Not because ‘nature tends towards reproduction “ though
DeleteIf many trans teens went with "the natural tendency" of their bodies instead of taking puberty blockers, they'd end up killing themselves. Experiencing puberty towards a body that does'nt fit with your mind has been described as "torture" and "body horror" by trans people. That's why puberty blockers exist and those under 18 often need them to survive. But the church's stance is that these blockers should be banned and trans teens submit to their fate.
Delete#Anon: but suicide is what suicidal people tend to do. It's perfectly 'natural', therefore according to you, we should not intervene (to remain consistent with our position).
DeleteSee the problem?
If many trans teens went with "the natural tendency" of their bodies instead of taking puberty blockers, they'd end up killing themselves.
DeleteAre you conflating their deranged ideas and desires with "their natural tendencies"? Because a desire to "be" female when you have all the physiological, hormonal, neurodevelopment, and cellular equipment to be a male, can hardly be called a "natural" tendency. Just like a desire, on the part of someone suffering from anorexia, to be 50 lbs instead of 130 is hardly natural.
If by natural you mean "commonplace among the species" then they are unnatural, but that does'nt make it OK to say "Shut up and submit to your fate" to trans people. If by natural you mean "Not man made" then they technically are natural. But natural and good are'nt the same thing.
Delete#Anon November 17, at 10:05 h:
DeleteOur bodies tend to naturally accumulate a lot of dirt (and I mean a lot, lol). Should we avoid taking showers then?
Also, our wantings and needs are the result of our brain chemistry, therefore --> they are perfectly 'natural'.
I never said that. I was just describing what Feser seems to imply with his “morality is based on what’s natural” arguments.
Delete"I never said that. I was just describing what Feser seems to imply with his “morality is based on what’s natural” arguments."
DeleteYou are only describing the figments of your imagination, because by "natural" Prof. Feser does not mean what you think it means -- e. g. "Not man made".
Its also worth noting that Trump can change his mind even with respect to a view he strongly held.
ReplyDeleteHe often bragged about his Operation Warp Speed, but not so much now. In fact he's now partnered with RFK Jr who recently said:
“Well, he’s not in jail because — because Joe Biden is president and because, you know, unfortunately Donald Trump colluded with, or was run over by him,”
Seems like a remarkable 180.
Thankfully, most American people do not share the anti choice and anti IVF views expressed here. As I said here a while back, the Left has won the culture war on gay marriage, reproductive freedom, easy divorce, contraception, access to erotica,( virtual sex will become a reality eventually), etc. The election changed none of that.
ReplyDeleteMaybe so, except all those things are destroying us. And it doesn't matter that people will blame anything else; those people don't know what they're talking about.
DeleteWhat does your fallacious appeal to the majority have to do with Dr. Feser's points?
DeleteSo, if the majority of Americans supported slavery, you would be a happy individual, because majorities dictate what's 'good'. Am I right?
As a tiny aside, vicious human sacrifice inside a womb doesn't count as a 'right'. Neither reproductive nor of any kind. It's just a gross, backwards practice. Essentially, it's nothing but another variety of the old plain murder that we humans have been practicing since the dawn of our species.
Also, you conspicuously avoided to mention how the Left has lost the transgender issue, which has propelled the Right to its victory (and by a landslide). But since the majority has rejected said nonsense, then you probably are a happy boy/girl/whatever.
Your intellectual capacities make me suspect that you probably enjoy watching 'The View'. Nah, not suspect. I'm sure.
Yes because lives have totally been destroyed by gay marriage. Riiiiiight
DeleteNo kid has ever been relieved that his parents got divorced, and people’s lives have been ruined by condones. Riiiiiight.
Delete#Anon: What about kids that have not been 'relieved' at all? I know several who are bitter as hell because their parents got divorced. And many children need psychological help after the fact.
Delete#Anon: the problem is not two homosexuals getting legally together. The problem has to do with the redefinition of terms.
DeleteIf a millenary tradition like marriage can be redefined, it opens the door to other millenary terms like 'women' and 'man' to be redefined.
And look where this had led us to. The slippery slope has been proven real.
And the funniest thing is that, by redefining womanhood and manhood, homosexuality has become trivial. That's why an increasing number of homosexuals want to distance the LGB from the 'T'.
They're antithetical.
It's not their decision to make. They should get therapy. Banning divorce is not the solution.
Delete#Anon: we were not discussing banning divorce. You just made it look as if it were consequence-free, which I challenged.
DeleteThere's relief, but there's also suffering involved.
@Anonymous: Maybe it's not the children's decision to make. Right now, it is the state's choice. But the state's obligation is to make the choice on behalf of the best interest of society as a whole and the specific parties involved, including the children. Since it is the state's decision, that implies that "no divorce" is theoretically possible in a given case. It ought to be possible for the state to tell parents in some cases: a divorce is contrary to the best interests of all concerned, sorry. Suck it up and figure out how to get along, or we'll put one of you in jail for intentionally damaging the family.
DeleteProfessor, let's set aside abstract arguments and game out your advice.
ReplyDeleteCongress introduces an IVF bill. Due to the narrow margins and the willingness of GOP legislators to "cross the aisle", it will pass because it will be overwhelmingly popular.
During this time, the media will once again frame Right to Life as extreme, anti-woman and out of touch. Catholics themselves have not been well educated on this and will be divided.
The result of your advice: the law is passed, and the Church is further diminished.
As for Catholic voters, our brief moment of electoral power will have been uselessly destroyed.
A pragmatic alternative would be to push for IVF to be removed from federal jurisdiction. There, out of the glare of national media, each state can fight it out.
But the most important part of this is that the focus should be on shifting public opinion, not trying to influence politicians. Politicians go where the votes are. Right now, we don't have the votes.
When that changes, things will be different. But until then, we have to bide our time. This is a spiritual war, and no commander should accept battle on such unfavorable terms.
You would do far more for the movement by developing an educational strategy geared to young women than trying to strong-arm Trump into a suicidal stand.
This is precisely what the Right to Life movement has been doing for the past two years, defending untenable positions and getting routed. I am reliably informed that a bill to weaken Michigan's abortion ban was already written when Roe fell, but Right to Life refused to back it. What is more, it went into the fall campaign having endorsed candidates who endorsed total abortion bans. Statistically speaking cases of rape or incest are vanishingly rare, and abortions to save the life of the mother are arguably nonexistent. This is easy ground to surrender, but instead a blue waved washed over Michigan in 2022 and we now have a far more extreme abortion regimen than under Roe.
Is this good fruit? Is the result pleasing to God? We must do what is right, but we must also be prudent.
The Right to Life movement needs to pause and reflect before lurching into the next catastrophe. Push it to the states and start small-scale bills, bills supported by majorities we create.
This is not a purity contest. The goal is to save souls. In the current environment, we simply lack the strength to engage the enemy head-on. We must regroup and make limited counterattacks, pushing to roll back the most extreme, elements of these laws bit by bit.
We are reeling from defeats and must choose our battles carefully. Your advice will result in yet another righteous defeat, and more souls will perish because of it.
it will pass because it will be overwhelmingly popular.
DeleteActually, there is plenty of room for it NOT to be "overwhelmingly popular". The reason is that views about IVF most definitely are not stable and fixed. It is true that the polls show decided majority in favor of IVF. But they show wildly DIFFERENT numbers in favor, from 60% to 80%, depending on how the issue is framed.
That's probably because of 2 factors more than anything else: (1) most people have no skin in the game . Most couples are fertile, and that's that. Only 2% of couples use IVF, and that's just NOT a base that's big enough to drive a solid, stable platform on.
(2) Most people don't know the details of what is actually involved in IVF. Most don't know that scads of fertilized embryos are destroyed (and that a lot of deformed / defective embryos are generated). Nor do they know how much IVF actually costs - averaging 30K or more.
These two facts mean that there is vast room for a change in support for various aspects of IVF: either as to the killing, or as to putting it under health insurance (or worse, forcing the people to pay for it via taxes). A good education campaign could change the numbers by 20% within a short time. A simple message that IVF "shouldn't be covered under health insurance because it doesn't try to repair infertility" could sway people. (In a sense, it's tantamount putting adoption under health insurance, which is soundly rejected.)
Nevertheless, I don't think IVF if a hill to die on right now. There are more critical problems that need to be given prime attention.
Well said AH Lloyd. I have also been concerned about the strong arm approach---which I don't think will be effective in the short term or fruitful in the long term---and the need to focus on educating the public on what abortion is. This is where I think Trump's work on the department of education will do far more good on this issue than a quick "win" that won't stick. Logic needs to be reintroduced into secondary education and this needs to include the application of logic to practical moral reasoning. Do this for a generation and the polls will shift because people will have the tools to adjudicate these questions rather than operating out of raw emotion. Along with principles and sound/valid arguments, we need political prudence and a long term strategy and reshaping public education would be the most strategic approach to this.
DeleteThe gravest evil in IVF is the disposing of embryos as though human life could be discarded like the remains of a sandwich. Regarding particular laws, the National Catholic Register article I mention above makes reference to “ 'damage-control' laws, like those in Germany and Italy, that 'restrict the number of embryos that may be produced during a cycle of IVF to a maximum of three, none of which may be frozen, and all of which are implanted into the mother.' " Such laws in the US would help eliminate the most gravely immoral dimension of IVF.
ReplyDeleteThe clown show begins in January, or has it already started? Trump is already picking his nutjob cabinet.
ReplyDeleteYou can always count on insight from those that lack the courage to attach their names to their comments. Contrast this with someone who is willing to take bullet for his country and then ask: where is the real clown show? It seems to me that it is hiding behind a key board under the name "anonymous".
DeleteCalling Trump's cabinet picks nutjobs with a straight face, following the Biden administration with its cast of Bozo characters, is some of the most impressive mental gymnastics I've ever seen. Or it's just anonymous trolling.
DeleteRFK, Jr. as head of Health and Human Services. Matt Gaetz as AG. Yes, it will be a nutjob cabinet.
Delete#Anon: not nutty enough if it doesn't admit you as a member.
DeleteTrump's victory by a landslide is making you feel like someone is putting salt in your wounds? Not even those crappy celebrities helped the leftist cause, LMAO.
Going to be real interesting what the USCCB does about this issue. Archbishop Gregory took the clear stance last administration that he thought denying communion to Biden was “bringing a gun to the table.”
ReplyDeleteIs he going to hold the same line with VP Vance? Are the bishops who were in favor of denying communion to pro choice politicians going to push for the same now that the teams are reversed?
This is absolutely correct. Trump was the better of the two pres. candidates, but he is still wrong on life issues. In my opinion, J. D. Vance is the one who should be targeted by emails by the anti-abortion community, letting him know that we believe there is nothing wrong with banning abortion at the federal level and the state level and prohibiting the sale and distribution of abortifacients regardless of who wants them. The fight will continue.
ReplyDeleteIt's a hopeless cause trying to keep Conservatism to any absolute apart from society and its evolving conventions. Until Christians can liberate themselves from this ideology, they will never be able to consistently defend universal, absolute values in society. In Anglo countries, Christianity and Conservatism must be disentangled. This two-hundred-year confusion must end. Whether Conservatism or liberalism or socialism is the worst ideology is neither here nor there. It's hard to see how there can be any progress until all are distinguished from Christianity. It's important not to forget that Mit Brennender Sorge, Non Abbiamo Bisogno and the condemnation of Action Francaise, effectively condemn Conservatism for its fixation with civil society, along with those movements which provoked these texts.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteDo you think Vance is a "pro choice" politician?
RFK Jr was directly responsible for the deaths of 83 actual people through spreading his anti-vax nonsense. https://www.yahoo.com/news/kids-died-story-rfk-jr-202739296.html Trump's mishandling of the Covid pandemic led to hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2021/02/11/trumps-policies-resulted-in-the-unnecessary-deaths-of-hundreds-of-thousands-of-americans-lancet-report/ But sure, that's the party of life.
ReplyDeleteLmao. 'Pro-life' stands for anti-abortion (and euthanasia).
DeleteNothing to do with vaccines or with managing an unknown pandemic.
Definitions are there for a reason. Nice try, though.
"Unknown pandemic?" No. It was Covid 19 and it almost took Trump out. Nice try, though. Now as for RFK,jr, he's prochoice, so he will remind Trump not to cave in to the Religious Right because most Americans are pro choice. They really are, Woke.Got Rekt
Delete#Anon: The agent was Covid-19, but no modern politic had faced a pandemic in such a massive scale. That's why I meant by 'unknown'. Unknown in how to properly manage it.
DeleteCommitting mistakes while managing sensitive issues is not the same as intentionally snuffing a life out, which is the sole purpose of abortion.
Most Americans were pro-slavery three hundred years ago, and yet it ended up being defeated. Both slavery and abortion have in common the dehumanization of their targets. Evil is evil, and all societies are guilty of one sin or another.
Funny thing is that, most people who vocally oppose slavery, support abortion.
DeleteIn the end, both movements claim ownership of other people's bodies. One to profit from their labor, the other to profit from said bodies being eliminated (because they are an 'inconvenience')
So slavery is still alive and well. It has just morphed into a more subtle, hard to discern form.
One deprives of liberty due to selfish reasons.
The other deprives of life due to selfish reasons.
Yes, the politic at the time of Covid, the Trump Administration, did not know how to manage the pandemic, which is why he wasn't re-elected. As for slavery some conservatives are trying to be "anti-woke by making excuses for it or trying to minimize the harm it caused.
DeleteBut you cannot compare slavery to abortion. That is a woman's body and no matter how many centuries pass, women will control their own bodies.
#Anon:
Delete1) False narrative. The child's body is not the mother's body. If it was, women would end up dead when choosing to abort (because they would be obliterating themselves).
Women are claiming ownership of bodies that aren't theirs. Like slave owners did.
2) Prove that Trump wasn't re-elected due to Covid-19 (and not other factors.)
3) You can't predict the future. So, please, stop talking about 'centuries to come'. Or are you some sort of secular prophet?
Woke
Delete2/ I will give you a few links that Covid was largely the reason Trump wasn't re-elected
https://theconversation.com/how-covid-19-led-to-donald-trumps-defeat-150110
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8242570/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poor-handling-of-virus-cost-trump-his-reelection-campaign-autopsy-finds/2021/02/01/92d60002-650b-11eb-886d-5264d4ceb46d_story.html
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/01/trump-campaign-autopsy-paints-damning-picture-of-defeat-464636
I could go on, but that should suffice.
1. The child's body is not the mother's body,
but it is inside her body, and the fetus not supersede her right to autonomy. If abortion is truly the murder of innocent human life, then women who have an abortion should be subject to criminal prosecution and punishment. That is the logical corollary.
3. It should obvious that slavery cannot be compared to the abortion of fetuses. Slaves were adults, not fetuses.
It wasn't until 1900 that women could own property in their own name. Women are continuing to become more empowered and that evolution will continue. It doesn't take a "secular prophet" to see that.
#Anon:
Delete1) By which criteria? Why does physiological dependency warrant losing the right to bodily autonomy, especially when the mother has had consensual sex, which leads to the creation of the fetus? The fetus didn't maliciously attach itself to the womb.
Of course it's the taking of an innocent life. Innocent because it has committed no fault of its own. That's why, prior to being legalized, women and 'doctors' were prosecuted. The logical corollary is correct.
2) My point has nothing to do with age, but with people claiming legal ownership of another body, so they can benefit from using/ harming it. If your body is legally mine, I can do whatever I want with it.
3) Murder is not a form of 'empowerment'. It's legalizing evil. Also, your statement of 'progressive empowerment' clashes with the hysterical democrat narrative of women 'losing rights under Trump'. Which one is it then ? It's imparable or is it not?
I'll read the links tomorrow.
Bodily privacy invasion has been called "so much worse than even slavery". An unborn child just conceived moments ago has no brain, experiences no fear of death, and has no feelings about being aborted or awareness when it happens.
Delete#Michael F: Women in state of coma have been r*p#d. They didn't experience anything. Is it morally right?
DeleteAbortion is not the taking of innocent human life. Being genetically human is not the same as being a person. Prior to the overturn of Roe, doctors could be prosecuted for murder, but contrary to your assertion, women were not prosecuted, even though that is indeed the logical corollary.
Deletehttps://aul.org/2010/04/23/why-the-states-did-not-prosecute-women-for-abortion-before-roe-v-wade/
A woman being able to have control over her own body is empowerment, which is why in most states where the right to have an abortion was placed on the ballot, the measure passed. It passed even in the deep red, staunchly Republican state of Missouri, which is represented by Sen. Josh Hawley, whose wife unsuccessfully tried to convince the Supreme Court to ban mifepristone. Many of the women who voted to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution considered themselves prolife, but they did not want to take away a woman's reproductive rights. They did not think they were "legalizing evil." That is "imparable."
You were going to read the Trump links "tomorrow." I don't think so.
Agreed. I was strongly opposed to your comments on Trump prior to the election, not so much for pragmatic as for ideological reasons (too neo-con-ish). Now, it is imperative that all conservatives, nationalists / isolationists included, attack Trump for his policies and appointments that are in any way pro abortion and pro sodomy. Nationalists will also, unfortunately but not with complete surprise, need to attack him for his appointment of various neocons to positions of power. But defense of natural marriage and childbearing, as directly implicated in what it means to be human, as made in the image and likeness of God and called live in communion with others,, comes first.
ReplyDeleteLooking at social media, it is evident that MAGA types now roundly perceive any strident defense of marriage and children as an attack on Trump. Ironically, losing this battle has greatly aided the Left in winning their war against God and godly society. Feser, I think that you have been right all along on the main issue, whatever objection I might continue to have on the level of subtext, which in any case is as easy to read.
Correction to final sentence: “… *not* as easy to read.”
ReplyDelete"Too neo-con-ish"
DeleteExcept that I've never been a "neo-con" and none of my criticisms of Trump have had anything remotely to do with neo-conservatism.
True, you never referred to the opposition between Trump and neo-cons, not even when presenting the best case for supporting Trump despite his egregious modifications to the party platform and overt pro choice positions. That is why I took neo-conversativism, particularly with reference to foreign policy, as subtext. For surely you know that opposition to American involvement in foreign wars is a major reason why a certain type of conservative is liable to strongly support Trump, not as perfect in this regard either, but as superior to other Republican candidates. Nor is it a minor issue. It is a grave one. Overlooking this aspect of his candidacy was, in my opinion, a lacunae that needed to be accounted for. But like I said, subtext is hard to read.
Delete"But like I said, subtext is hard to read."
DeleteEspecially when there is no subtext
Prof
DeletePerhaps you should write a post clarifying your views on the foreign wars.
I would say at the moment the current orthodoxy to not be a neocon on the right would be
Ending all weapons aid to Ukraine and forcing a negotiation which would obviously involve some concession from Ukraine because it is clear at this point that Ukraine cannot win.
On the middle east conflict, it tends to vary from person to person, I would say however the minimum criteria (to avoid being called a neoncon) is making clear to Israel that the USA while providing material support to Israel will not directly intervene to fight their war for them especially if they provoke Iran.
Personally, I was quite concerned about many actions that Israel undertook in the war, in my estimation many actions of Israel qualified as what Father Ford would called "Bringing a Hammer to kill an ant on someone's head".
Examples include the ones where populated encampments
were bombed to neutralise all of
two terrorists. I wasn't too comfortable with the exploding phone strategy also. There was a chance that it could severely hurt kids and babies in the vicinity also.
Many defenders of Israel retort by saying Israel doesn't have to put soldiers on the line which is precisely the kind of thinking that led to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Overall I would include some caveats to Israel about following Just War principles in order to receive aid.
I am sure you too must have been concerned with atleast some of Israel's actions.
I think if you write up a post on this just outlining your stance on some of these issues. Something more concrete preferably because you have already outlined principles elsewhere, You could have something to point to and just tell them to read, like you always do.
I share your concerns and echo your calls about RFK jr.
I guess maybe you could have avoided drawing comparisons to Rubio overall on twitter.
Someone could be worried about Rubio and RFK jr at the same time for good reason imo.
Given Rubio's prior stances, he could inadvertently trigger a nuclear war something you expressed concern about even when the war had just begun.
Okay. So when objecting to Trump’s position on abortion, which is a life or death matter, you did not purposefully refrain from raising the grave issue of American military interventionism, and the millions of lives destroyed as a direct or indirect result of neoconservative policy and procedure. You were not concerned that raising this grave matter would be ideologically inconvenient for you. So there is no subtext. But there is still the elephant in the room: Relative to more consistently anti abortion Republicans, Trump is significantly less of a warmonger. In this regard, support for Trump is support for human life over death. Addressing this would have helped your argument, insofar as the purpose of your argument was to underscore the value of human life.
ReplyDeleteAndrew
DeleteTo a certain extent, The question of foreign intervention and the like is largely in the realm of prudential reasoning.
Ofcourse there are certain do's and don'ts that are laid out by just war principles.
But I would not go as far as to fault the good professor for not commenting on those issues.
It's important for the sake of clarity, to keep those issues distinct and Prof Feser has done nothing wrong in that regard.
In fact my only qualm with the recent discourse is that I think Prof unfairly targetted people who were concerned with Rubio's selection.
He should have instead made the point that both Rubio and RFK jr are manifestly unfit for the job.
Er, the essay was about Trump's positions on abortion and IVF, not foreign intervention. How long are you wanting Dr Feser's pieces to be?
DeleteNorm, Scott:
DeleteTo wage an unjust war is a grave offense. The nature and scale of the offense is clearly in the same ballpark as abortion. If the posts and comments under consideration were about abortion as such, then the point about war might be tangential. But the posts and comments were not about abortion as such, they were about Donald Trump’s fitness for office, with specific reference to his position(s) on abortion. In that regard, it is entirely germane to talk about Trump’s policies on grave, life and death matters other than abortion, as speaking to his (relative) fitness to hold high office.
Its pretty easy to see the relevance here, with the value of human life being the common ground, or ballpark, where the issues meet. But in case not, here is a thought experiment: Suppose Trump were emperor, and he adopted the policy of making all abortions illegal in England, while also adopting the policy of nuking or carpet bombing English cities. Would an informed person of goodwill be justified in voting for Trump, because of his consistently “pro life” policy? Of course not.
As for how long Feser’s posts and comments are, as a reader of this blog from its inception, I can only say that I am grateful for and astounded by the output and have no wish appear otherwise.
Does anyone else wonder whether liberal democracy causes part of the trouble Dr. Feser describes? Consider Pope St. Pius who didn't want to be the Pope partly because he knew he could fail. But he still agreed to rule the Church because he knew Christ wanted him to do that. How many American presidents govern the country because they feel morally obligated to do what's objectively best for it and the common good. I can't name even one who did that.
ReplyDeleteBill McEnaney
Ed, Let's change the topic. Talk about philosophy and theology again. You might like this article by Russell Moore in Christianity Today. He was once dean of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. It's not anti-Trump article.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.christianitytoday.com/2024/11/next-four-years-donald-trump-russell-moore-election-2024/
How conceited can you be? Prof will change topic as he sees fit. The current discussions are vitally important, as well as interesting. If you are bored with them, do not engage - simple.
DeleteIsn't politics philosophy, applied to the governance of people?
DeleteI made my comment. Ed thought enough of it to publish it. If you don't like it, "do not engage-simple."
DeleteWell put, anon. I am not interested in condemning or supporting a position on this, but I suppose the timing is favorable to all sides. What I don't know is when did transgender break on the scene? Or, put differently, did interests, motives and preferences drive science, or, was it the other way 'round? Does anyone know?
ReplyDeleteBoth sides are rotten and corrupt. Birds of a feather flock together.
ReplyDeletehttps://youtube.com/shorts/l_Sd7mU5HoU?feature=shared
ReplyDeleteI came across this video of Charlie Kirk on IVF, he seems to espouse the view that if IVF were to be allowed it should only be one egg. He doesn't think it's wrong per se but ofcourse IVF IS morally wrong. Children are supposed to be God's gift to the couple as a fruit of marital love However his pro life sensibilities seems to be in line with what Prof Feser mentioned in so far as he wouldn't tolerate the formation of multiple embryos. He would only permit making one. Again as I mentioned above it is wrong for a vide variety of reasons that can be deduced from Natural Law.
I have seen Dr J Budziszewski in one of his posts also notes that there is an effort to regulate IVF by limiting it to one.
Charlie Kirk himself is at the moment highly influential within the hierarchy and the base, and he also frequently interviews Don Jr.
If there are any pro lifers reading this including Dr Feser, if ya'll could try and reach out to Charlie to make the consistent pro life position clear to the administration given his influence and that ot would be wrong to mandate federal funding for ivf. I think there's lots of scope for successfully protecting human life.
We could also ask to Charlie to petition the govt to stop the mailing of abortion pills.
Anyone Pro Life person here who might be able to get in contact with Charlie, should give it a go.
Contacting Charlie, won’t change anything. Trump got what he wanted( cases dissmised and he won’t go to prison). Trump only listens to himself. At his age, he won’t change.
DeleteAnon
DeleteThis assumes that Trump is some sort of consistent ideologue who is not amendable to change.
If anything Trump has been willing to change whenever it suits him.
So one can always hope to convince him.
Charlie went directly into the lion's den (universities), which I have baptized as the 'madrassas of the Left'.
ReplyDeleteAll my respect to the guy.
Meanwhile:
ReplyDeletehttps://x.com/realdonparody/status/1858361662274781670?s=61
That literally has parody in the account name.
DeleteAn article on Assisted Reproductive Technology published by both NT Lyons and Matt Crawford might be a good place to start getting outside the the strictly moral issue that I imagine reflexively turns many moderates off.
ReplyDeleteIt is a (somewhat) utilitarian perspective that the destruction if the traditional family (as well as IVF and other reproductive technologies) are dehumanizing and leading us a place where the State will be the arbiter of all family relationships.
The pro-life movement needs to be bringing this sort of agnostic argument into the fold as a compliment to the strictly moral ones.