Wednesday, 14 August 2013

Help! I have a pre-born brainwashed soldier in my uterus!

This is interesting, not so much for the theology, but for the author's view of the necessity of the argument.

A Catholic theologian, Charles Camosy, whom LifeShite tars as the guy who invited 'pro-abortion' ethicist, Peter Singer, to speak, first refers to the case in Phoenix in which a nun got excommunicated for saving a life. Specifically, the life of a pregnant woman. And more specifically, by approving a 'direct abortion'.

He says, rightly, that the Church was characterized (again) as 'anti-woman'.

The Church can do better.

And we must do better.  The new moment in the abortion debate demands it. Our culture is clearly moving in a pro-life direction, but we must also honestly face the fact that huge majorities–including many hardcore pro-lifers–support direct abortion to save the life of the mother.  If the Church’s position can once again be marginalized as “anti-woman” because it will not permit direct abortion to save the life of the mother, it will have the effect of the aftermath of the Phoenix case–and we will be sitting on the sidelines of the debate. Our ability to participate in an American political debate is not, of course, a good reason to change or reject certain tenants of Catholic moral theology.  It is, however, a good reason for American Catholics to revisit some ideas that have been largely unexplored, and perhaps prematurely shut down.
What a radical idea! If Catholics don't want to be left in the dust of history, they might have to *gasp* rethink their medieval ways.

But of course, they're going to go about it in medieval ways.
Both Catholic moral theology, and moral philosophy in general, has invoked (for some time now) the concept of the “Innocent Aggressor.”  There are at least three kinds of innocent aggressors:

1.  Those who, through no fault of their own, are violent because of insanity or other mental condition.  Suppose someone puts drugs in another’s coffee which makes them temporarily and violently insane.

2.  Those who, through no fault of their own, are using violence in a way that they mistakenly believe to be just. Someone attacking the wrong person in a just war, for instance.

3.  Those children who cannot be said to be guilty of anything because they are not yet fully rational.  Think about brainwashed, eight-year-old child soldiers as an example.
Some further mental gymnastics allow him to pose the question: might a fetus that is harming its incubator unto death be considered an Innocent Aggressor and thus permit direct abortion?

Because, remember, Catholics believe that 'direct' abortion is NEVER medically necessary. 'Indirect' abortion, whatever the hell that is, MAY be acceptable in some circumstances.

Catholic thinking is pretzelly as hell, but if it allows them to move even a smidgeon towards the 20th century, we should applaud.

*Slow clap.*


Anonymous said...

A religious nutter actually told me that 'intent' never matters, only 'results'. I pointed out that the fucking catholic church will remove a woman's fallopian tubes in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, and that the 'result' is a 'dead embryo'.

He never did reply.

Pseudz said...

I love the phrase in your first 'deck': "tenants of Catholic moral theology" Who's the landlord? Did they sign the lease? Is the rent up-to-date?

It's a renter's market now in the moral philosophy market - might be time put down some roots and have your own thoughts.

fern hill said...

@Pseudz: Missed that. You sure you're not a proofreader? :)

Post a Comment