Patrick Allen+ posted about the following debate on the morality of ending “early human life.” While the positions of Harman and Singer are disheartening, I find it encouraging that they are at least honest about what abortion is: the ending of a human life. At least we can move beyond the silly and unhelpful debate about whether a child in the womb is a life. (Hopefully anyway).
Thursday, May 1, 2008
2:30 – 6:00 p.m., Friend 101
Is It Wrong to End Early Human Life?
Moderator: Harold T. Shapiro, Princeton University
Panelists: Robert P. George, Princeton University; John Haldane, University of St. Andrews; Elizabeth Harman, Princeton University; Patrick Lee, Franciscan University of Steubenville; Don Marquis, Princeton University & University of Kansas; Jeff McMahan, Rutgers University; Peter Singer, Princeton University;
A Public Conference co-sponsored by the University Center for Human Values
Watch the video here:
“Is It Wrong to End Early Human Life?” (350K)
or here (56K)
Patrick also posted the following reflections from Ryan Anderson in the Wall Street Journal:
â€œLook, when we think about ending an early human life, this is something that is really bad for the embryo or early fetus that dies, itâ€™s losing out tremendouslyâ€”I agree with that as I already said. And then you said that itâ€™s one of the things that we should care about. And, um, I think that I should have said before that I think itâ€™s really dangerous to slide from noticing that something is bad for something, to thinking that that gives us a moral reason. And just to prove that that doesnâ€™t follow, think about plants. So lots of things are bad for trees, and plants, and flowers, and often that gives us no reasons whatsoever, certainly no moral reasons. In my view, fetuses that die before theyâ€™re ever conscious really are a lot like plants: Theyâ€™re living things, but thereâ€™s nothing about them that would make us think that they count morally in the way that people do.â€
That came from Princeton philosophy professor Elizabeth Harman during the question-and-answer period of last weekâ€™s star-studded symposium at Princeton titled â€œIs It Wrong to End Early Human Life?â€ The participants included Harman and her Princeton colleagues Robert George and Peter Singer, along with Don Marquis (Kansas), Patrick Lee (Franciscan), Jeff McMahan (Rutgers), and John Haldane (St. Andrews). Moderating the discussion was Harold Shapiro, Princetonâ€™s president emeritus and the chair of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission under President Clinton. On any measure, these are among the most prominent voices in contemporary philosophy and bioethics, and to have them together on one three-and-a-half-hour panel was an intellectual treat. (Disclosure: George, Lee, and Haldane are affiliated with the Witherspoon Institute, as am I.)
Many, no doubt, will find Harmanâ€™s comparison of human fetuses to plantsâ€”not to mention Singerâ€™s moral defense of infanticideâ€”deeply repugnant. I certainly do. But these are merely the conclusions of a chain of (gravely mistaken) moral reasoning, and such intellectually honest reflection is to be preferred, in fact welcomed, over the unprincipled rationalization that often takes its place. When people like Harman and Singer speak openly and follow their premises to their logical conclusions, the audience realizes what is at stake when a commitment to intrinsic human dignity and equality is rejectedâ€”and that realization is a very good thing.
Though ethical disagreement about such important matters as killing human beings, restricting womenâ€™s liberty, and forestalling scientific research often generate more heat than light, one of this panelâ€™s many virtues was its consistent civility. The participants themselves stressed that intelligent and reflective people of goodwill can and do disagree. Eschewing ad hominem attacks, they opted to offer arguments and rebuttals, a mutual exchange whose currency is reason. This brought to mind Fr. John Courtney Murrayâ€™s famous remark that â€œdisagreement is a rare achievement, and most of what is called disagreement is simply confusion.â€ So it is a credit to the panelists that the discussion was marked by a lack of confusion, albeit much disagreement.