By Thaddeus M. Baklinski
PRINCETON, May 13, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – “Look, when we think about ending an early human life, this is something that is really bad for the embryo or early fetus that dies, it’s losing out tremendously-I agree with that as I already said. And then you said that it’s one of the things that we should care about. And, um, I think that I should have said before that I think it’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 doesn’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 they’re ever conscious really are a lot like plants: They’re living things, but there’s nothing about them that would make us think that they count morally in the way that people do.”
So argued Princeton philosophy professor Elizabeth Harman at last week’s symposium at Princeton University titled “Is It Wrong to End Early Human Life?” that included well respected philosophers and bioethicists who represented both sides of the abortion and embryo- destruction debate.
In an essay about the symposium published in First Things, Ryan T. Anderson summarized the arguments presented and praised the civility and dignity with which the participants offered their arguments and rebuttals.
“It has been through exchanges such as this one, for example, that the pro-life side has refined its argument to the intellectually persuasive position that it is today. And championing this developed argument has its effects-on the young, who are consistently polled as being more pro-life than their parents’ generation, and even on older converts, like NARAL cofounder Bernard Nathanson,” Mr. Anderson observed.
The rational high ground was achieved by the pro-life participants, as Mr. Anderson commented that “… the pro-life argument was every bit as intellectually sophisticated as the pro-choice alternatives- indeed, from my perspective it is more coherent and more plausible, since it did not entail bizarre premises (“I was never an embryo” – a postulation presented by Jeff McMahan of Rutgers who argued that some threshold has to be crossed in human development before we exist, which drew noticeable (and decidedly skeptical) chuckles from the audience) or repulsive conclusions (such as the moral legitimacy of infanticide).”
“None of the panelists announced a change of heart under the pressure of criticism. Each stuck to his or her guns while probing for weaknesses in the alternative positions. Still, it must be said that the internal inconsistencies among the various pro-choice views was telling: Whereas the pro-choice panelists all agreed that there was nothing wrong with killing an unborn baby, they couldn’t agree on why. And their internal disagreements actually undermined aspects of their competing pro-choice views. Some of the pro-choicers resisted the utilitarianism of Peter Singer, some of them resisted the dualism of Jeff McMahan, all of them seemed to resist the “actual future” theory of Elizabeth Harman.”
Mr. Anderson commented that the intellectually honest reflection offered at the discussion was a rare achievement.
“Though ethical disagreement about such important matters as killing human beings, restricting women’s liberty, and forestalling scientific research often generate more heat than light, one of this panel’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 Murray’s famous remark that “disagreement is a rare achievement, and most of what is called disagreement is simply confusion.” So it is a credit to the panelists that the discussion was marked by a lack of confusion, albeit much disagreement.”
Ryan T. Anderson’s essay “The Rare Achievement of Disagreement” is available here:
https://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1065