Questions and answers
Have a question or doubts regarding a pro-life issue? The following are the questions most commonly asked in regards to life issues. If you would like more information on a topic, send a question to dcarollo@archindy.org.
Abortion
Why is abortion wrong?
Abortion is deliberately intending the termination of pregnancy via death of the unborn, whether as an end or a means to an end. Any act that deliberately intends the death of an innocent human being, who has been created in the image of God, is intrinsically evil.
Is the unborn human?
There is no question that the unborn is a unique human with an entire lifetime's worth of potential ahead of himself or herself. Dr. Dianne Irving writes; "Scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It is an actual human being - with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities." (Dr. Dianne Irving, "When does Life Begin? Scientific Myths and Scientific Facts", International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 1999) p. 6
Is the unborn human a "person"?
Absolutely. To use the classical definition; a person is "an individual substance of a rational nature". The unborn certainly qualifies as this. Other defintions of personhood that rely on some form of functionality are both arbitrary and often applicable to others already commonly recognized as persons. This "depersonification" of humans is an old evil trick humans have used as a pretense to eliminate other innocent "unwanted" humans. The Nazi treatment of the Jew as "life unworthy of life" is a good example.
I have a right to do whatever I want with my body!
The issue here regarding abortion is the harm a woman does to another body - the body of an innocent child. The innocent child is not the mother's body, if he or she were the mother would have four arms, four legs, two genetic codes, two brains, and in the case of a male child, male genitalia! Whether or not a woman has the right to do whatever she wants to her body is in itself highly questionable (i.e. illegal drugs, prostitution, etc.) but it is another innocent body that is the issue here. To place focus on the body of the mother is a red herring, a changing of the subject to something other than the true topic of debate. No one has a right to do something to their body when that action directly tramples on the rights of another.
What if the mother has been raped?
Some of the horrors and evils of rape lie in its brutality, its violation of another, viewing another as an object to be abused, lack of concern for their life and flourishing, etc. These things should never be done to another human being, and this includes doing it to the unborn. Interestingly enough, the above evils of rape apply to abortion. As in rape, abortion also devalues the unborn to the level of an object, shows a lack of concern for the unborn's well-being, and is very brutal. The appropriate response to such a horrfic act is not another horrific act, but rather love for both the innocent mother and the innocent child. Secondly, the question must be asked; does an innocent person who has been horribly violated then have the right to go and brutally violate another? Clearly not. An innocent third party ( the unborn child) should not have to suffer for the crimes of his or her parent. The appropriate response to rape involves loving and caring for the victims, not granting them a right to brutalize another innocent person.
What if the life of the mother is in danger?
Loss of a pregnancy, when the loss is not intended as a means to an end but is subsequent to a medical procedure that is necessary to protect the life of the mother, otherwise known as "indirect abortion", is morally justifiable by following the "principle of double effect". This moral principle recognizes that both good and bad results may arise from a good or neutral action. As long as; there is a true dilemma, the act itself is good or at least neutral, the good effect is not the result of the evil effect, and the good effect is reasonably propotioned to the bad, such an act is permissable. Direct abortion however, the deliberate termination of pregnancy via death of the unborn, whether as an end or a means to an end, is never morally licit.
What is the moral logic of the Pro-Life position?
Intentional killing of innocent human beings is wrong. Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being.
Therefore abortion is wrong.
This is a valid argument with a moral first premise and a factual second premise. The sound conclusion demonstrates that the pro-life position is in accord with right reason.
Personally, I'm against abortion, but I can't say someone else shouldn't do it.
This is the common "fence-sitter" or "politician" response. The desire here seems to be to make both sides happy by trying to find a common ground of compromise. Upon examination, it does not support a middle ground at all but instead only slights the pro-life side of the issue. The pro-life argument is that abortion kills an innocent human being. Why shouldn't we as a society be able to tell others they cannot kill innocent human beings? Would the objector here be so bold as to say "Personally, I'm against the lynching of African-Americans, but I can't say someone else shouldn't do it"?
The fetus, until it can live on its own, is a parasite. As a free and autonomous human being I should not be forced to play host to a parasite with whom I do not wish to share my body.
This objection illustrates the immense degree of selfishness and distorted view of freedom that permeates our society today. Calling other humans "parasites" dehumanizes them in precisely the same way Nazi propaganda did to the Jewish poulation in the 1930's. No one in our society lives completely on their own. We are often forced to rely on the aid of others, most especially do the sick, the elderly, and the handicapped. Human dignity is not based on a Darwinistic ability to survive independently but rather is founded upon human nature.
If I have a child with a kidney disease that will kill her unless she has a transplant, and if I were a perfect match, no court in the land could force me to violate the autonomy of my person and force me to give that child one of my kidneys against my will even if it meant certain death for that child. I don't see a difference between that and being forced to be life support for another person.
This objection misunderstands the moral difference between omission from an extraordinary act vs. comission of an act. To say that refusal to donate a vital organ (omission of an extraordinary act) is the same thing as the direct killing of another (comission of an evil act), is an egregiously confused moral outlook. The failure to draw distinctions between means and ends in moral situations results in absurdity and would be tantamount to saying that allowing someone to die (by not resorting to extraordinary means to save them) is morally equivalent to killing them. When the necessary distinction between omission and comission is made the analogy fails.
Additionally, a mother should be forced to provide ordinary means of "life-support" for her child. Every "court in the land" enforces this sort of "violation of the parent's autonomy". No parent should have a right to refuse ordinary means of sustenance to her child. It's hard to imagine something more ordinary than food, medicine and shelter. These are precisely the things that are provided by a mother's womb.
Suppose there is a burning research lab that contains human embryos. You hear in the back room a baby crying and only have enough time to save either the baby or the embryos from the fire. If you choose to save the baby, then this proves that you pro-lifers don't really believe your own rhetoric about the humanity of the embryos and that the pro-life position is wrong.
This is a dilemma alleging an inconsistency on the part of pro-lifer advocates. However, such an appeal is a non-sequitur and hence fails to make the pro-abortion case. Suppose for example the pro-life advocate were indeed to choose to save the baby instead of the embryos, what does that prove? It may prove he or she is inconsistent in putting his or her pro life beliefs into practice, but it does not refute the philosophical and scientific pro-life arguments themselves. The truth or falsehood of the pro-life arguments do not rest on how consistent a pro-life advocate is in practice. To conclude that because a pro-life advocate is inconsistent in their practice that therefore their arguments are flawed does not follow. They are two entirely separate issues. The scientific and philosophical arguments are not disproven by an appeal to inconsistent behavior. Because one's rhetoric may not match one's behavior, it does not follow that therefore one's arguments are bad .
dditionally, while all human beings have intrinsic value, there is a relative and instrumental value in addition to their intrinsic worth. For example, if one were faced with the decision of saving the life of a friend or a complete stranger, most would choose the friend because of their instrumental value to them. However, that does nothing to prove that the unsaved stranger was not a human person is his own right and should not have been saved if the circumstances permitted. Take another example of two people drowning in a lake. One is a complete stranger, the other your child. Saving the child does not mean the rescuer denies the value and right to life of the one he is unable to save.
Why should an unwanted child be brought into the world?
At conception, a child is already "in the world" and so this objection fails. What an abortion advocate should ask is why shouldn't an unwanted child be taken out of the world by killing him or her? This would be more pertinent to the issue and the answer is obvious.
But shouldn't every child be a wanted child?
Of course, all children should be wanted by their parents. However, if they are not this does not give the parent adequate grounds for killing the unwanted child. A system of Human rights based upon capricious "wants" would be worthless, a fragile thing indeed. A right to life is not something that can be arbitrarily accorded by men but is a natural, self-evident right inherent in mankind. In short, natural human rights are recognized by mankind but man is not the source of them.
You pro-lifers are going to force women into doing "back alley abortions" with coat hangers!
First, historically speaking this is simply false. Before abortion became legal with Roe v. Wade there was not a widespread epidemic of "back alley abortions". Secondly the language of this objection is itself objectionable; no one is forcing women to do anything of the kind, rather a woman may choose to do such an action in spite of a pro-lifers intention. Thirdly, this is a poor argument for abortion. To appeal to the safety of the perpetrators of a moral crime as grounds for the legalization of that crime is absurd. This is tantamount to saying that bank robbery should be legalized, because if it were illegal, the bank robbers might become hurt or injured in the process of robbing a bank.
If you don't like abortion, then don't have one, but its wrong for you to make that decision for somebody else!
The underlying problem with this objection is that it assumes moral relativism (i.e. all moral laws are based on the individual) by confusing moral laws with matters of personal preference or "taste". The objector here assumes the pro-lifer doesn't "like" abortion in the same sense as they may not like chocolate. On the contrary, the pro-life claim is that abortion is objectively wrong, independent of what one may think about it. Objective moral values are not subject to individual, subjective whims. One may think slavery is permissible, and then say to those who oppose slavery: "If you dont like slavery, don't own one!", but this would miss the mark, as the anti-slavery claim is that slavery is objectively wrong and not a matter of personal taste.
Secondly, given the previous, the latter part of the objection assumes objective moral values, by appealing to a universal standard of right and wrong (what the pro-lifer ought not, or would be wrong to do), and so contradicts itself.
Euthanasia
Why is euthanasia wrong?
Euthanasia is a direct killing of an innocent person and reduces the value of human life from being absolute to only a conditional status. From the pro-euthanasia point of view, human life is only valuable if it is "productive", "painless", or some other condition that is wrongly valued higher than life itself.
Doesn't euthanasia promote human dignity?
Ironically, contrary to the pro-euthanasia slogan of "death with dignity", euthanasia reduces human dignity. In euthanasia, human value is not seen as an absolute in itself but only when it is accompanied by other extrinsic factors such as mental health, the absence of pain, etc. It is because euthanasia places conditions of the value of human life that it inevitably reduces the value of human life. Pope John Paul II spoke of this lowering of human dignity when he said, "The criterion of personal dignity--which demands respect, generosity and service--is replaced by the criterion of efficiency, functionality and usefulness: others are considered not for what they "are", but for what they "have, do and produce" (Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, XXIII).
Capital Punishment
Why is capital punishment wrong?
Capital punishment is not intrinsically evil, but can be situationally so. In the context of legitimate self-defense, the taking of the life of an unjust aggressor can be morally permissable, either on a personal or governmental level. The moral permissiveness of such an action hinges on its necessity. Is the taking of life necessary or not? Considering our modern society of improved penal systems, the necessity of governmental reliance on the execution of dangerous criminals in order to protect its citizens is becoming rare if not non-existent.
Contraception
Why is contraception wrong?
Contraception acts directly against the basic human goods that should accompany the sexual act. By hindering the procreative and unitive aspects of the act, contraception is a direct action against these goods which are fundamental to human perfection. Acts that attack the foundation of something disrupt the whole; contraception therefore, inherently disrupts human perfection.
But isn't Natural Family Planning the same as contraception? Both are for the prevention of babies.
Natural Family Planning (NFP) and Contraception have the same end but differ in their means. It is this difference in means that makes them morally distinct. Generally speaking, any end that may be good in itself, can be acquired by proper or improper means. For example, suppose two men want a new car; one works and saves his money to buy the car while the other goes out and steals it. Both are working at the same end by different means. Regarding contraception and NFP, the prevention of offspring is not wrong per se, it is the means that one goes about it that determines its moral value. Contraception works against the natural law by taking direct action against the goods of the marital act, violating those aspects which are good and foundational to human flourishing; the procreative and bonding aspects of the sexual act. NFP violates neither of these because it acts in accord with human nature and not against it. With NFP, every marital act is open to both goods. Because no positive steps are taken to prevent procreation and bonding, couples who practice NFP respect these goods. Because these goods are respected, such a practice is in accord with the natural law.
What is the Natural Law?
The Natural Law is human participation in God's Eternal Law. We, as humans endowed with reason, have the ability to see in to God's creative purpose by means of recognizing "natures", most importantly human nature. God has normed creation and this norm is reflected in the nature of things. God's creation is good and so when we see human nature we witness God's built-in purposes. Since this nature created by God is good, we should utilize our freedom and act in accord with this nature and not against it. Acting in accord with nature, that is directing actions towards the good, is our way of participating in the Eternal Law, and this participation is known as the Natural Law .
If the Natural Law is allowing nature to take its course, then why isn't brushing my teeth or shaving a violation of the Natural Law?
The Natural Law is not simply "allowing nature to take its course". Humans are endowed with reason, and this reason is our highest faculty. It is through our reason that natural inclinations and processes can be directed towards human perfection. By acting according to reason, we can determine that some actions are conducive or harmful to human perfection. In the case of your examples, not brushing your teeth would be harmful to their purpose of being able to help us eat. So far from violating the natural law, brushing teeth is in accord with the natural law. The act of shaving is neutral towards human perfection and so does not apply.
For more information on Natural Family Planning visit the following links: