The logic of modernity

At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State. ~Planned Parenthood v Casey

I believe that I've written explicitly enough that the killing of George Tiller was murder, and that it was both evil and foolish for Roeder to do so. That being said, let us reason together.

The quote above is, as stated, from the decision in the Supreme Court case Planned Parenthood v Casey. That means, at least insofar as the present day workings of the legal system of these United States goes, that the quoted position is to be taken as a basic principle contained in and protected by the Constitution of the United States. Now assume the following: Roeder defines human life in such a way that abortionists are not included under it, or at least under the category of human life whereby one is protected by a right to not be killed. Or assume Roeder defines the universe in such a way that it is a moral imperative for abortionists to be killed because of what they do. Or assume both, or any similar type of position, or every similar type of position.

Under such an assumption, how can Roeder be prosecuted for murder? He has a basic Constitutional right to define these things for himself, and to do so without any compulsion from the State. That compulsion obviously includes using laws against his position to punish him. This is the same logic that says abortion must be legal, else we would we using "compulsion" to define things like life for people and thus denying them their liberty. If Roeder holds any position similar to the ones given above, then he should be immune from prosecution under the Constitution of the United States as authoritatively interpreted by the United States' Supreme Court.

In other words, the logic of modernity and basic consistency demand that Roeder be free from prosecution by the State. If they were truly consistent, then pro-aborts would be decrying Tiller's murder, but at the same time they would be decrying any attempt to prosecute Roeder. They would admit that they do not like the murder of abortionists. But the answer to that is simple: if you don't like abortionists being murdered, then don't murder one. They would reach across the aisle, extending hands of peace and cooperation, so that both pro-lifers and pro-aborts could work together to make the murder of abortionists safe, legal and rare.

This is what logic would demand. Moderns love to claim the mantle of logic and reason. Let us see if any actually follow their first principles were logic leads.

Contraception, abortion, euthanasia and the slippery slope

(N.B. This is a slightly modified form of an argument I first wrote in one of Mark Shea's comment boxes. The original is available here.)

There are a number of people who have pointed out that the acceptance of contraception will lead to the acceptance of abortion and euthanasia. Think, for example, of the prophetic words of Pope Paul VI in Humanae vitae. Yet there are many who argue that such a stance is an example of the fallacious slippery slope form of argument.

The argument that the acceptance of contraception logically leads to the acceptance of abortion and euthanasia is not a slippery slope. It entails necessary conclusions drawn from what the acts of contraception, abortion and euthanasia are, and from the principles that must be accepted to view these acts as morally acceptable.

Sex causes babies. This is what sex does. To say that there is a right to contraception entails holding that one has a right to the cause of babies - sex - without the result that naturally follows - the babies themselves.

Principle 1: a right to sex without babies.

There is, however, a problem: no form of contraception is 100% reliable. Barrier methods fail, pills fail &c. But we already necessarily hold that there is a right to sex without babies. Thus there must be an all purpose backup that will eliminate babies in the cases were contraception fails. This is abortion. This is how abortion was historically argued for by a number of people, i.e. as a necessary backup to contraception.

Moreover, it is still how abortion is argued for today. Please see this HuffPo article that Mark Shea links to here: "Others find that their dignity depends on being able to end the pregnancy." Human dignity depends on Principle 1, on the right to sex without babies. Thus human dignity depends on abortion.

There is, however, a problem. From the moment of conception there is a genetically unique, self-contained, self-directed, genetically human life. This is a fact that science - today's great god-king of all that is knowable - confirms. There is no logical way to say that this life is anything other than a human being. But Principle 1 necessarily demands that this innocent human being can be killed if it is not desired. Thus it must follow that human life only has worth dependent on circumstances. It has no inherent worth in itself.

Principle 2: Human life has no inherent worth.

Now, the chronically sick and the elderly can be difficult to care for. Caring for them can be just as difficult, if not more difficult, than raising children. But we have already posited a right to sex without children. How can we have a right to be free of the latter "burden," but not the former? We cannot, and Principle 2 gives us the way out.

The chronically sick and the elderly live lives that are of a lesser quality than others do. They live with pain. They suffer a loss of qualities such as speed, strength, agility, beauty &c. They are a "burden" on those who have to take care of them and are usually without a means giving much of anything back as compensation for being such a "burden."

We would certainly appraise the value of anything else that had so many detriments with so few benefits as being of little worth. And since Principle 2 holds that human life has no inherent worth, we can appraise the value of a human life the same way we would appraise the value of anything else. Thus we can appraise the life of the chronically ill and the elderly as being worthless and eliminate them is we so choose.

Contraception necessarily requires abortion because the principle behind the acceptance of contraception is that we have a right to sex without babies, and the only way to fully guaranty sex without babies is to have abortion as a backup for the failure of ontraception. The acceptance of abortion necessarily requires that some innocent human life is worth less than others and can thus be taken if it is undesirable. It thus becomes a necessary principle that human life has no inherent worth. And if human life has no inherent worth, then there is no reason why the life of the chronically ill and elderly cannot be appraised as having little worth and eliminated so as to relieve the burden that would otherwise be imposed on those who would have to care for them.

In proof form:

If you accept a right to contraception, then you accept Principle 1.

If you accept Principle 1, then you accept that abortion is a right.

Therefore, if you accept a right to contraception, then you accept that abortion is a right.

That is a valid hypothetical syllogism.

If you accept that abortion is a right, then you accept Principle 2.

If you accept Principle 2, then you accept euthanasia.

Therefore, if you accept that abortion is a right, then you accept euthanasia.

That is another valid hypothetical syllogism.

If you accept a right to contraception, then you accept that abortion is a right.

If you accept that abortion is a right, then you accept euthanasia.

Therefore, if you accept a right to contraception, then you accept euthanasia.

This is yet another valid hypothetical syllogism.

The conclusion is thus proved: If you accept contraception, logical adherence to principles demands that you accept abortion and euthanasia.

On the murder of George Tiller

I have seen a number of Catholics question whether the killing of the child-murderer George Tiller was actually an act of murder. In more than one place I have seen an analogy drawn between the act of the killer and the assassination of Hitler planned and attempted by Colonel Claus Philipp Maria Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg. The thinking seems to be that, since both Hitler and Tiller were mass murderers, if killing one can be justified, so can killing the other. The analogy not only fails, but it does dishonor to the memory of Colonel Stauffenberg by associating him with a murderer. I will take the time to spell out why and in what ways the analogy fails for the sake of honoring a true German patriot and hopefully shedding some light on some bad moral philosophy and theology.

First, the analogy fails because Stauffenberg did not attempt to assassinate Hitler simply qua mass murderer, but qua tyrant. And even this can be argued as potentially suspect, since tradition has generally held that a tyrant by usurpation can be justly killed but a tyrant by oppression must be deposed by legal, not extra-legal, means. Indeed, the Syllabus of Pius IX condemned the proposition that, "It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, and even to rebel" (prop. 63). See the article from the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia for more information.

Now, it can be argued that a tyrant by oppression can become a tyrant by usurpation when they extend their power in a manner that is contrary to the law and constitution of their nation. As far as I can see, such an argument appears sound. Thus Hitler would have been a tyrant by usurpation after illegally taking the presidential power for himself following the death of President Paul von Hindenburg, if for no other reason - and I'm sure that at least a few more, if not many, could be found. But even given this, the analogy fails.

The second reason the analogy fails as follows: even if one is acting against a tyrant, one is only justified in acting if doing so will do less harm to the tyrant's subjects than the tyrant's continued rule (Summa Theologia (hereafter ST), II-II, q. 42 ad 3). Even if Tiller where somehow analogous with a tyrant qua tyrant, this does not hold. The potential lives saved - and they are only potential, since we neither have evidence that anyone who was signed up for an abortion with him would have gone through with it, nor that he would not have eventually been stopped by legal means due to performing abortions after it was legal to do so, nor that the grace of God would not have moved him to repentance, nor that some other doctor will not now willingly step in and take his place due to the fact that the pro-abortion crowd can now treat him as their own twisted version of a martyr - these potential lives saved do not seem to outweigh the potential lives lost due to the marginalization of the pro-life message that will be attempted following the act, a marginalization that will further set back the legal battle against abortion.

But even if the lives saved do potentially outweigh the lives lost, the analogy still fails for a third reason. Tiller was not a tyrant. He did not have any special authority over the abortion laws of his state or of the union. Indeed, he willingly violated those laws that did exist. He was an evil man, but no private individual has the right to take the life of an evil man of his own volition. This authority rests with those people who have responsibility for maintaining the common welfare of society, and here only through those means as set out by the law (ST II-II, q. 62, a. 3c).

Finally, some have offered a hypothetical situation: suppose we find out that the man who killed Tiller was acting in the defense of a child or grandchild who was scheduled to be aborted by Tiller later that week? Even if this hypothetical is true, the act would still be murder for at least two reasons.

First, because self-defense must be proportionate to the threat (ST II-II, q. 62, a. 7c). Since the hypothetical child we are speaking of was not immediately under Tiller's knife, the violence used was not proportional to the immediate threat to the hypothetical child's life. Tiller's attacker could have first attempted to convince the mother of the hypothetical child not to go through with the abortion. Failing that, he could have restrained her until she gave birth. Such an act would have been illegal, but the attacker apparently had no qualms in breaking the law, and such an act would have been proportional to the threat at the time.

Second, even if the physical force used would have been proportional to the threat, a private individual still cannot intend to kill an attacker, only to repulse the attack with the force necessary for doing so (ibidem). To intend otherwise would be to violate the aforementioned rule forbidding private individuals from taking the life of an evildoer of their own volition.

There is no analogy between Tiller's killer and Colonel Stauffenberg. The tradition of Catholic moral philosophy and theology clearly appear to condemn the killing of Tiller as an evil act of murder. We may not do evil that good may come of it. And of those who say we can, I offer only the words of St. Paul: damnatio iusta est, "their damnation is just" (Romans iii.viii).

As for the fall-out of this act, my opinions have already been written. They once again boil down to this: "Unfurl the black banner. Quarter neither asked for nor given. No Surrender, no retreat."

I know that, given the ludicrous, hysterical and void of documentation Homeland Security Report we found out about not two months ago, I may be suspect as a "domestic terrorist" simply because I called a spade a space and said that Tiller was a murderer and evil, even though I did it while condemning his own murder. But I already had a Ron Paul bumper sticker on my car, so I was suspect long before writing this. I plan to become even more suspect by eventually adding a Gadsden flag bumper sticker, a Bonnie Blue flag bumper sticker, a 1st National flag bumper sticker, and maybe even a Jolly Roger bumper sticker. So color me not all that frightened.

Indeed, given that same report, and the fact that the last such murder or attempted murder was over ten years ago, I am not yet certain that this whole thing is not simply a false flag. But I take heart in the fact that today is the memorial of St. Justin Martyr. To quote the saint: "For as for us, we reckon that no evil can be done us, unless we be convicted as evil-doers or be proved to be wicked men; and you, you can kill, but not hurt us" (First Apology, Chapter 2). "You can kill, but not hurt us." Words to remember when things seem darkest.

A Day of Mourning

Today is the 34th anniversary of the travesty and abomination that is Roe v. Wade. Please remember in your prayers the countless lives lost.

Please pray for an end to abortion in the United States and the world.

Prayer to End Abortion

Lord God, I thank you today for the gift of my life,
And for the lives of all my brothers and sisters.
I know there is nothing that destroys more life than abortion,
Yet I rejoice that you have conquered death
by the Resurrection of Your Son.
I am ready to do my part in ending abortion.
Today I commit myself
Never to be silent,
Never to be passive,
Never to be forgetful of the unborn.
I commit myself to be active in the pro-life movement,
And never to stop defending life
Until all my brothers and sisters are protected,
And our nation once again becomes
A nation with liberty and justice
Not just for some, but for all,
Through Christ our Lord. Amen!

Written by Priests for Life

Rosary Novena

Someone at my parish was passing out this information. I thought I'd pass it on. I've already started, since it began today.

If you are apposed to abortion then there is bad news on the horizon. For those of you who do not know, the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is set to be signed if congress passes it on January 21-22 of 2009. The FOCA is the next sick chapter in the book of abortion. If made a law then all limitations on abortion will be lifted which will result in the following:

1) All hospitals, including Catholic hospitals will be required to perform abortions upon request. If this happens Bishops vow to close down all Catholic hospitals, more then 30% of all hospitals in the United States .
2) Partial birth abortions would be legal and have no limitations.
3) All U.S. tax payers would be funding abortions.
4) Parental notification will no longer be required.
5) The number of abortions will increase by a minimum of 100,000 annually.

Perhaps most importantly the government will now have control in the issue of abortion. This could result in a future amendment that would force women by law to have abortions in certain situations (rape, down syndrome babies, etc) and could even regulate how many children women are allowed to have.

Needless to say this information is disturbing, but sadly true. As Catholics, as Christians, as anyone who is against the needless killing of innocent children, we must stand as one. We must stop this horrific act before it becomes a law.

The Plan :

To say a novena ( 9 days of prayer ) along with fasting starting on January 11th. The prayer of choice will be the rosary with intentions to stop the FOCA. The hope is that this will branch and blossom as to become a global effort with maximum impact. We have very little time so we all must act fast. Just do three things:

1) Pass this letter to 5 or more people
2) Do it in three days or less
3) Start the novena on January 11th and pray for nine consecutive days. (please also fast for at least two days during the novena)

Remember that with God all things are possible and the power of prayer is undeniable. If you are against the senseless killing of defenseless children then the time is now to do something about it!

Please join in if you can.

On St. Thomas Aquinas, the soul and conception

A distinction between human life and the presence of a human soul is not philosophically tenable. Or at least not insofar as many who put it forward attempt to use St. Thomas Aquinas as support for their position.

It is true that St. Thomas, following the received embryology of his day, did not believe that the ensoulment of an immortal, rational soul happened until some few months after conception. What is never mentioned is that, given St. Thomas' understanding of the relationship between body and soul, this means that there was no human life until after the ensoulment of an immortal, rational soul.

The soul is the substantial form of the body. This means that the soul makes the body be the kind of being that it is and grants to it all the powers that it possesses. Now, a human being is a rational animal. This means that it possesses a rational soul, from which stem its powers of intellect and will. But, since the soul is the substantial form of the body, this rational soul is also the origin of a man's vegetative and animal powers, i.e. the powers of life, reproduction, growth, nutrition, sensation and local motion.

Now, in the received embryology of the day, the being in the womb after conception first possessed only a vegetative soul. Thus it possessed only the powers of vegetative life, nutrition, growth. After some development this vegetative soul was replaced by an animal soul. Thus the being no longer had simply vegetative life, but animal life. Thus, in addition to the powers of nutrition and growth it now began to develop the powers of sensation and local motion, as seen through the development of sense organs and limbs. Finally, when this animal development had reached a fitting stage, God would infuse the being with an immortal, rational soul. Animal life would now be replaced by human life, and the rational soul would be the origin not only of the powers of nutrition, growth, sensation and local motion, but also of the powers of intellect and will.

As this brief sketch hopefully makes clear, there was no human life before the infusion of an immortal, rational, human soul. For to have a human life is to be a human being, to be a human being is to be a rational animal, and to be a rational animal is have an immortal, rational soul.

Thus those who would use St. Thomas as cover for their pro-abortion positions demonstrate only that they know nothing of St. Thomas. For in St. Thomas there can only be human life were matter is informed by an immortal, rational soul. If it can be demonstrated that human life begins at conception, then, for St. Thomas, it would be demonstrated that a human soul is infused by God and present at the moment of conception. To say otherwise would be to imply a duality between body and soul that is entirely foreign to the thought of St. Thomas.

An interesting note: The Council of Vienna formally declared that "whoever shall obstinately presume in turn to assert, define, or hold that the rational or intellective soul is not the form of the human body in itself and essentially must be regarded as a heretic" (Denzinger, 30th ed., no. 481). The conclusion that can be drawn from this pronouncement and the brief philosophical sketch given above I will leave to the reader.

Abortion and government

There are those who feel that it is acceptable to vote for a pro-abortion politician if their other positions appear to benefit the common good and help reduce the number of abortions. The problem with this position is that reducing the number of abortions, as important as this is, is not enough. If abortion could be completely eliminated in fact but was still legal, then the task is not finished. This is because the legality of abortion is itself an attack on the very foundations of the rule of law and the common good.

As Blessed Pope John XXIII taught in Mater et Magistra, "individual human beings are the foundation, the cause and the end of every social institution" (219). The legality of abortion is a direct assault on the foundation and purpose of the political community itself. The rule of law and the common good are meaningless concepts if innocent human beings are allowed to be legally murdered.

This teaching is reaffirmed and made even more explicit in Servant of God Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae: "Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good" (72). One cannot truly work towards the common good by ignoring the legality of abortion. The legality of abortion necessarily undermines the common good.

A candidate who runs on a pro-abortion platform essentially states that he will not work towards the purpose of government, i.e. the common good. He renders his administration incapable of benefiting the common good in any way except accidentally. This is because the very nature his administration's position attacks the common good by enabling the legal attack on the lives of the unborn.

Any attempt to put forward a pro-abortion politician as an acceptable candidate fails. A candidate who promises to attack the very foundation and purpose of government, the good of life on which all the rest of the common good depends, can never be acceptable.

A letter to Senator Biden

I just came across this interview with Delaware Senator and Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden. (Hat tip: Mark Shea)

The interview ended thus: "To sum it up, as a Catholic, I'm a John XXIII guy, I'm not a Pope John Paul guy."

What follows is my letter to Senator Biden.

Dear Senator Biden,

I just read your interview with reporter Nicole Gaudiano, an interview apparently conducted on April 27, 2007, on delawareonline.com. The interview was posted on October 19, 2008, and the information given with it said that the second half of the interview, the half concerning the question of abortion, was being printed for the first time.

I noticed that you ended the interview by saying that you were "a John XXIII guy," so I thought I'd share the following two paragraphs from Blessed Pope John XXIII's encyclical letter "Mater et Magistra," which was concerned with Christianity and social progress:

"193. We must solemnly proclaim that human life is transmitted by means of the family, and the family is based upon a marriage which is one and indissoluble and, with respect to Christians, raised to the dignity of a sacrament. The transmission of human life is the result of a personal and conscious act, and, as such, is subject to the all-holy, inviolable and immutable laws of God, which no man may ignore or disobey. He is not therefore permitted to use certain ways and means which are allowable in the propagation of plant and animal life.

"194. Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact. From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God. Those who violate His laws not only offend the divine majesty and degrade themselves and humanity, they also sap the vitality of the political community of which they are members."

I hope your deep respect for Blessed Pope John XXIII leads you to listen to his words and draw the obvious conclusions, conclusions reinforced by Servant of God Pope John Paul II in his encyclical letter "Evangelium Vitae."

In Christ,

Brendon

Edited to add: In the hopes of getting Senator Biden to actually read my letter, I have expanded upon it and mailed a copy to each of his three offices. After telling the Senator a bit about my own experience growing up as a Roman Catholic in Pennsylvania, I continued with the following:

I am telling you all this [about my background] so as to give you a better idea of the perspective behind this letter. I also hope to demonstrate that, however great the differences in our backgrounds, we also share at least a few commonalities.

I am writing to you because I just read your interview with reporter Nicole Gaudiano on delawareonline.com. This interview was apparently conducted on April 27, 2007. The interview was posted on October 19, 2008, and the information given with it said that the second half of the interview, the half concerning the question of abortion, was being printed for the first time.

I noticed that you ended the interview by saying that you were "a John XXIII guy." There is, of course, nothing necessarily wrong with this. People have different temperaments and different styles, and so it makes sense that we will all have different appreciations of certain Popes based upon how they present themselves. This is no more wrong than having a preference to devotion to St. Dominic over St. Francis of Assisi or vice versa.

The interview, however, did not leave me thinking that this was all you meant by your final comment. I fear that I received the impression that you were trying to play Blessed Pope John XXIII and Servant of God Pope John Paul II against each other so as to excuse your voting record on the question of abortion. This strikes me as an erroneous use of the thought of Blessed Pope John XXIII. To demonstrate why I believe this to be so, I thought that I would share the following two paragraphs from Blessed Pope John XXIII's encyclical letter Mater et Magistra, which was concerned with Christianity and social progress:

193. We must solemnly proclaim that human life is transmitted by means of the family, and the family is based upon a marriage which is one and indissoluble and, with respect to Christians, raised to the dignity of a sacrament. The transmission of human life is the result of a personal and conscious act, and, as such, is subject to the all-holy, inviolable and immutable laws of God, which no man may ignore or disobey. He is not therefore permitted to use certain ways and means which are allowable in the propagation of plant and animal life.

194. Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact. From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God. Those who violate His laws not only offend the divine majesty and degrade themselves and humanity, they also sap the vitality of the political community of which they are members.

I hope your deep respect for Blessed Pope John XXIII leads you to listen to his words and draw the obvious conclusions, the same conclusions reinforced by Servant of God Pope John Paul II in his encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae.

There is a good chance that you will soon be the Vice President-elect of the United States of America. This would make you the second most influential political leader in our country. Such a position of authority is a heavy responsibility. Please remember the words of our Lord: "And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more."

I will also be sending a copy of this letter to your offices in Wilmington and Milford in the hopes that this will increase the chances of you reading it personally. Thank you for your time. Know that I will endeavor to keep you in my prayers.

In Christ,

Brendon

Some notes on abortion, phil. of nature, logic, &c.

A soul is the form of a living being. A form is that which causes a particular being to be the type of being it is. A particular being is a being that is whole in itself and distinct from all other particular beings.

Is the being that comes into existence at conception a particular being? Yes. It is a distinct being that is whole in itself, not a part of another being. If this were false, then any and every part of the being that comes into existence at conception would be a part of the pregnant woman. Thus, pregnant woman would eventually be two headed, four armed, four legged &c. Some of them would even be hermaphrodites. This is absurd. Thus, the being that comes into existence at conception is a particular being.

What type of being is this particular being? It is human. It is a being that posses a full human genome. Science can tell us that.

If what exists after conception is a particular human being, then it has a human form. And since human beings are living things, this is the same as saying that it has a human soul.

----

The "being" in "human being" means being per se, i.e. being that is whole and distinct in itself. A thumb does not posses this type of being. It is not whole and distinct in itself. Rather, it is a part that belongs to another being, a being that is whole and distinct in itself.

----

Form and matter are the two concomitant principles of physical beings. Form is that which makes a being be this type of being. Matter is what makes a being be this particular being. If you agree that there are individual beings, but that individual being share common types or natures, then you have all you need to hold the existence of form and matter. And since a soul is simply the form of a living being, you have all you need to hold the existence of soul.

There is nothing in this definition that requires any theological belief. There is nothing that requires a person to hold that any soul is spiritual and will survive the death of the form/matter composite being whose existence it informs. Indeed, Aristotle is not always clear on where he stands in this regard. Many believe that the textural evidence shows that Aristotle himself did not believe in the immortality of the human soul.

Nothing here requires faith. All that is required is the ability to recognize that many individual physical beings share the same type or nature. Biology does this whenever it divides living beings into Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species.

----

taxonomy: Biology. the science dealing with the description, identification, naming, and classification of organisms.

Just in case

Just in case its removed for being "offensive," I thought I would share my comment (EDIT: posted on the Washington Post's site) on this opinion piece :

"All Beliefs Welcome, Unless They are Forced on Others"

I hope the good Professor Doninger will join my continuing campaign to overturn any laws that make it illegal for me to kill those who annoy me. After all, what right does anyone have to force a belief about the immorality of "murder" on me? And besides, "Though shalt not kill," is one of those "Ten Commandments." Thus, not allowing me to kill those who annoy me is equivalent to imposing religion upon me.

Such laws also violate my constitutional rights. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States of America states, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that I have, "the right to define [my] own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." I do not believe that those who annoy me are human. Nor do they, it follows, possess human life. To keep me from killing them is to impose upon me a view of "the mystery of human life" that is contrary to my own, which is a grievous violation of my constitutional liberties.

I hope all who read this article are convinced by the sound argument presented and join me in my campaign for my moral and Constitutional right to kill all those who annoy me.

Have I "reducio"-ed enough to make the "absurdum" obvious?

Q&A I

Q: Why do you oppose abortion?

A: I can think of neither a legal nor a moral reason to allow the direct and intentional taking of an innocent human life.

Q: Do you oppose abortion even in cases of rape?

A: Yes. I oppose the direct and intentional taking of an innocent human life.

Q: Do you oppose abortion even in cases of incest?

A: Yes. I oppose the direct and intentional taking of an innocent human life.

Q: Do you oppose abortion even in cases where the life of the mother is or may be in danger?

A: Yes. I oppose the direct and intentional taking of an innocent human life.

Q: What would you say to those who argue that a fetus is not innocent?

A: Guilt and culpability require freedom of choice. No child has any choice whether or not to be conceived. Thus it is fallacious to impute any kind of moral culpability to an unborn child.

Q: What would you say to those who argue that the life of a fetus is not a human life?

A: What else would one call a unique and individual living being that possesses a complete human genetic code? Can anyone give me a name that is more accurate rather than an attempt at obfuscation?

Q: What would you say to those who argue that a fetus is not a unique and individual living being that possesses a complete human genetic code, and thus that a fetus is not a human life?

A: Perhaps they should purchase a simple introduction to embryology. (See here and here for some pertinent quotes from assorted text books.)

Obtectively evil acts and gravity

I want to briefly discuss something I've touched on before. To say an act is objectively evil is to say that an act is evil by its very nature. An objectively evil act cannot be changed to a good act by our intentions or the circumstances surrounding its being committed.

But to say an act is objectively evil is not to say anything about the seriousness or gravity of the act. An act can be objectively evil without being grave, or grave without being objectively evil. Allow me to demonstrate.

Stealing is objectively evil. It is never permissible to take property that does not belong to you and that you have no right to. It would be an objectively evil act to steal ten dollars a dollar from the petty cash at your place of employment. (EDIT: changed the example a little to more clearly illustrate the point.) Yet it might not be gravely evil to do so. This is because stealing this ten dollars dollar, especially if you work for a multi-million dollar, multi-national corporation, does not do very much harm to the business at all. It is the kind of thing that might even be overlooked or ignored as a minor bookkeeping error. So while you have done something objectively evil, you have not done something that is necessarily gravely evil. Some older catechisms and moral manuals might even have considered this example to be only a venial sin, since its gravity is greatly diminished. (I wish my few old moral theology manuals weren't packed away in a storage box somewhere in the house, so I could check on this to be sure.)

Going to war is not objectively evil. If the condition of just war theory are met, the war is an act of justice and is not evil to enter into. But if a country enters into an unjust war, this would be gravely evil. This is because wars, even small ones, cause great suffering, death and destruction. That is of course why the rulers of a nation must be especially careful in examining whether or not the criteria for a just war have been met before committing themselves to such a course of action.

I think the confusion that sometimes arises over the distinction between whether or not an act is objectively evil and whether or not an act is gravely evil arises because of the issue of abortion. Abortion is both objectively evil--it is an act that can never legitimately be done--and gravely evil--because it is the killing of an innocent human being. People understand both of these facts, but since they are so used to referring to abortion as objectively evil, they begin to associate the grave matter of a sin with the formal category of objectively evil actions.

It is important to remember the distinction between the formal nature of the act and the matter of the act. Abortion is an act that is both formally evil and materially grave, but acts can also be neither formally evil nor materially grave, formally evil but not materially grave, and not formally evil but materially grave. Drawing proper distinctions in this fashion does nothing to lesson the evils of abortion, but it does allow us to properly judge other actions based upon both formal and material considerations.

On abortion and "extremism"

There is no moderate position on abortion. The questions involve do not admit to it. They are binary questions, and as such they must be answered in either the affirmative or the negative.

Does a new human being come into existence at the moment of conception? The answer can only be yes or no. Any attempt to speak of acquiring humanity over a period of time is bunkum. Substance does not admit to degrees. There can be no almost-human or kinda-human. There is only human and non-human.

If it is a human life then it is either innocent or it isn't. There can be no hemming and hawing about this. Either the new life is culpably guilty of crimes that justify executing it or it isn't. But if you think it is, then you had better explain what crimes it is guilty of and how it possesses culpability.

This is what it comes down to: Human or non-human. Guilty or innocent. Refusing to choose isn't being "moderate" or "conciliatory." It's simply ignoring the principle of non-contradiction.

Why being in favor of the capital punishment is not in opposition to being pro-life

It would seem that: No one who is in favor of capital punishment can be called pro-life, for "pro-life" means that one is in favor of protecting the life of all men, but being in favor of the use of capital punishment means that one is in favor of the death of some men. But the premises "no man should be killed" and "some men should be killed" are in contradictory opposition to each other, and thus if one is true, the other must be false; and conversely, if one is false, the other must be true. Therefore it is impossible to be both pro-life and in favor of the use of capital punishment.

Sed contra: The relationship between contradictory opposites follows from the principle of non-contradiction, for if both premises in a contradictory relationship were either true or false, then something would both be and not-be at the same time and in the same respect. But from this it must also be admitted that two premises are only in contradictory opposition if holding both would violate the principle of non-contradiction. And this is not necessarily the case with regards to those who are both pro-life and in favor the use of capital punishment. To wit, the premises are not held to both be true in the same respect.

For this to be properly understood, one must first consider the difference between the antecedent and the consequent will. As the Angelic Doctor explains when discussing how the divine will is always fulfilled against the objection that Scripture teaches that God wills all to be saved, yet Scripture and the holy Fathers also teach that not all will be saved (Summa theologiae, I, q. 19, a. 6 ad 1), their is a difference between the antecedent will and the consequent will. This difference is not in the will itself, but in respect to the things willed. That is, a thing may we good or evil in its primary sense and when considered absolutely, and yet after some additional qualities or attributes are consequently considered it may be that the contrary is true.

Absolutely speaking, antecedent to any circumstances, that a man live is good and that he be killed is evil. But consequently to certain qualities or attributes it may be good that some man be executed insofar as it is necessary for the preservation of the commonweal. Thus it may be said that it is possible to have a general willingness that all men live insofar as they are men, and yet will simply that particular men be executed, when this is a just and necessary punishment, and that capital punishment thus be kept legal for this purpose.

Thus it is obvious how one can be both pro-life and in favor of the use of capital punishment. To be pro-life is to have a general willingness that all men live and to will simply opposition to those act or species of acts that unjustly take human life. But to be in favor in favor of capital punishment is to will simply in favor of those acts that justly take human life. And insofar as this is done for the purpose of the protection of the commonweal it is consonant with the general willingness that all men live, since those guilty of capital crimes and justly executed are those who are a danger to the commonweal because they are, by their own choice, a danger to the lives of other citizens.

On objectively evil acts

"Objectively evil" does not mean "really extra super bad." "Objectively evil" is a category distinction. The object of an action is what gives it its species, since the object defines an act as the form of a thing defines its species. Objectively evil acts are acts that can never be good because their species renders them incapable of it.

Acts that are not objectively evil can be rendered evil by the ends intended by the agent and the circumstances surrounding the action. A prudential judgment is involved in deciding whether or not particular circumstances render a particular action--one that is neither objectively evil nor done with the intention of achieving evil means--good or evil.

The point being that a person who is not in favor of some objectively evil act is not immediately morally better than a person who is in favor of some objectively evil act if they are in favor of some particular evil act or acts. It would depend upon how grave the objectively evil act was in comparison to the particular evil act or acts, as well as how prevalent the particular occurrences of the objectively evil act are.

This is not to say that one can vote for, say, a pro-abortion candidate because they are against an unjust war. But it is to say that arguing against this position is more complicated than saying, "abortion is objectively evil; war isn't." It depends on the gravity of abortion versus the gravity of the unjust war or wars. And this is without factoring in other important issues, like calling sodomy a basis for "marriage", torture &c.

The point is that "prudential judgment" is not a "get out of evil free" card. There is a prudential judgment involved in deciding whether or not executing certain criminals is necessary for the defense of the common good. This does not mean a regime can indiscriminately execute people and hide behind the idea of "prudential judgment" as a shield. The fact that a certain action is not evil in species does not render it acceptable to commit a number of particularly evil actions of this type.

On the kind of being possessed by the "product of conception"

As I have previously discussed here, a substance is a particular being, something that exists in and through itself. It must be a being that is whole in itself and distinct from all other particular beings. Let us then ask ourselves the following question: Is the being that comes into existence at conception a particular being?

Yes. It is a distinct being that is whole in itself, not a part of another being. If this were false, then any and every part of the being that comes into existence at conception would be a part of the pregnant woman. Thus, pregnant woman would eventually be two headed, four armed, four legged &c. Some of them would even be hermaphrodites. This is absurd. Thus, the being that comes into existence at conception is a particular being.

If this is so, the question that arises next is: What type of being is this particular being? It is human. It is a being that posses a full human genome. Science can tell us that.

The next question we must ask is: Is this newly existing human being a person? A person is an individual substance of a intellectual nature. We have already demonstrated that this being must be taken as a substance rather than as an accident or as something that is solely a part of another being. And since we are talking about a particular being rather than the nature of a particular type of being taken as a genus, we must admit that it is an individual substance.

Now we are left to ask whether of not this being has a intellectual nature. This being has been shown to be human. A human being by definition possesses human nature.

So what is human nature? How do we come to know the essence of humanity? Well, how do we come to know the essence of anything? We observe its acts and properties. These show us its powers, which in turn lead us to understand its essence.

So what powers to humans have. There are the basic powers of bodily life: the powers of nutrition and growth which preserve the individual, and the power of generation which preserved the species. There are the sensitive powers of sight, touch &c, which gives a being perception of individual things. And there is the power of intellect, which gives a being perception not just of individuals but also of universal natures. Now, if it is part of human nature to possess an intellect, it follows that human nature is an intellectual nature.

Human beings are persons, since every particular human being is an individual substance of an intellectual nature. The being that comes into existence at conception is a being that possesses a human nature. It follows necessarily then that the being that comes into existence at conception is a person.

Ending abortion in the United States

I had previously argued--in the first note in this post--that we do not need to appoint judges to bring about a legal end to abortion in the United States. Rather, we would only need the Congress to strip all Federal courts of their jurisdiction over the issue. Then the battle could be fought on a state by state basis without worrying about any Federal courts overturning laws that eliminate abortion. But, on having rethought the issue, believe that there is an easier way to end abortion in the United States.

Amendment XIV, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States makes it the law of the land that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Now, the problem with this is that the term "person" is never defined within the amendment itself. Thus, we have the many and varied arguments over what constitutes a person, especially over what the legal definition of person should be with regard to Amendment XIV.

But Amendment XIV, section 5 states that "Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." It is obvious that if we are going to attempt to enforce the quoted part of Amendment XIV, section 1, we need a legal definition of "person" so we know who the quoted text in section 1 is referring to. But since it is Congress who has the authority to enforce Amendment XIV via legislation, it falls to Congress to so define the term necessary for said enforcement. Thus, Congress can simply pass a law defining all pre-born human beings as persons from the moment of conception and then outlaw abortion insofar as abortion deprives persons of life without due process.

If a Federal court were to strike down such a law, then the judges who rule as such should be impeached. This would be just because any judge who ruled the law unconstitutional would be setting themselves above the Constitution, since the manifest truth is that Congress has the authority to pass this law based upon Amendment XIV, section 5.

There is no need to fight out the abortion issue in the Federal courts, in the individual states, or with a constitutional amendment. The legislature has the authority to end abortion at any time they wish. All the people need to do is elect pro-life Congressmen and Senators who have the moral courage and strength of conviction to act on this authority.

See also: George W. Carey, In Defense of the Constitution and the review of the same by Edward B. McLean in the fall 1995 issue of the Intercollegiate Review.

On the Necessity of Voting for the Candidate Who is the "Lesser of Two Evils"

Edits: A few small edits for clarity and the addition of two paragraphs before the concluding one. (And an edit to this disclaimer so I could clarify which two paragraphs were the ones I added.)

In the current race for the next President of the United States it is almost certain that John McCain will be the Republican candidate, while it is certain that either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic candidate. I will not vote for any of these candidates. I do not believe that any of them will do what is necessary to protect the unborn. (McCain supports some forms of embryonic stem cell research and I do not trust him to appoint the kind of judges necessary.¹ The problems with both Democratic candidates are, I trust, obvious.) I think all three candidates will use their influence and authority over foreign policy in imprudent and unjust ways. I think all three candidates will use their influence and authority over domestic policy in imprudent and unjust ways.

Now, some would argue that I have a duty to vote for McCain because he is the "lesser of two evils." I think this is false. I think it would be false even if we could adequately agree on a way to quantify the evil of the positions of all three candidates--and I am not at all certain that this is possible. To examine this, let us examine how my vote can effect the outcome of the election

1) Not voting for McCain is not the same thing as voting for the Democrat. If I vote for McCain, I add one vote to his total. If I vote for the Democrat I add one vote to his total. If I vote for neither candidate, I do not add a vote to either candidate's total. Thus, if I do not vote, then neither McCain nor the Democrat's lead or lack thereof is effected in any way. This is not the same outcome as my voting for the Democrat. If I voted for the Democrat, then I would lessen McCain's lead or increase McCain's trailing by one vote.

2) If my vote is the vote that costs McCain the election, then it is impossible for my vote to have been the one to give him the election. If my vote were the single vote that cost McCain the election, then it would be necessary for McCain to have the lost by only one vote. If this is so, then voting for McCain would not give him victory but would only give him a tie with the Democrat. In the same way, if my vote would have won the election for McCain, then my not voting for him will not result in a Democratic victory. It will instead result in a tie. In either case the tie would have to be broken in accordance with the law, something that may or may not be in McCain's favor for any number of reasons. Moreover, the likelihood of such a situation is extremely improbable. It is extremely improbable that my vote will be either the one that failed to give McCain victory or the one that allowed him to be defeated.

3) The national popular vote is not what matters anyway. In truth, the worst my not voting for McCain could do is give the Democratic candidate Pennsylvania's Electoral votes. Pennsylvania currently has 21 votes in the Electoral College. This is certainly not a completely insignificant number, as it is one of the largest number of Electoral votes for a state. But neither does the loss of Pennsylvania mean the loss of the Electoral vote. President Bush failed to win Pennsylvania in both his successful Presidential elections. Thus, everything I said in point 2 still holds, but for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania rather than for the country as a whole.² For my vote to be responsible for McCain's loss of the Presidential election, it would not only have to be true that McCain lost Pennsylvania by only one vote--which, again, is completely improbable--but you would have to prove that is was specifically Pennsylvania's Electoral votes that cost him the Electoral College. But this would seem to be impossible to do, since all the Electors vote at the same time and it is no guarantee that any of the Electors will be faithful. The best chance you would have for arguing that Pennsylvania's Electoral votes were the deciding ones would be if the Democrat won Pennsylvania and won the Electoral College by 21 votes. But for the strongest case, the Democrat would also have to not win any other states whose total electoral votes can be added up to 21. This would include, first and foremost, losing Illinois, which also has 21 electoral votes. And the Democrats have won Illinois in the last two Presidential elections.

Now, since nothing about my choosing to vote for a third party candidate, a write-in candidate or to abstain from voting would require that I will the victory of the Democratic Presidential candidate, let alone require that I will said candidate's evil policy, there is no way that it is formal cooperation with evil. I can, in fact, guarantee that it will not be formal cooperation with evil, since I will not will the victory of the Democratic Presidential candidate--let alone their evil policies--for any reason. Thus, I cannot be said to formally cooperate with evil.

It is also true that my action cannot be said to be immediate material cooperation with evil. For it to be immediate material cooperation evil I would have to act in a way that is necessary for the implementation of the Democratic candidates evil policies. But even if McCain loses Pennsylvania's Electoral votes by one popular vote, and loses the vote in the Electoral College by 21 votes, and the situation is such that it is only Pennsylvania's Electoral votes could be responsible for McCain's loss in the Electoral College, it would still not be true that it is my vote specifically that was necessary for the victory of the Democratic candidate and thus responsible for the implementation of their evil policies. This is because the situation that exists during an election is fluid and one where no particular voter can know all circumstances and variables at the time of his vote, so his vote, when it is cast, cannot be called the exact vote that necessitates the victory of one candidate or the other. But to say that my vote was the one that gave victory to the Democratic candidate would be to treat all other votes as a static existing situation that I can know, which would be false. Moreover, even in the improbable situation outlined above, it would be just as true to say that one of the people who voted for the Democratic candidate was the one whose vote necessitated said candidates victory. And which one would this be? The last one to vote in the entire state? How could any voter know if that was the situation? Thus there is no way to say that my vote or any vote could be immediate material cooperation with evil.

Thus, my vote--or any vote were the voter does not will both the election of the candidate they vote for and the candidates evil policies--can at worst be considered remote material cooperation with evil. And remote material cooperation can be licit if there is a proportionately serious reason for the cooperation, and the importance of the reason for cooperation is proportionate to the causal proximity of the cooperator’s action to the action of the principal agent and there is no danger of scandal. As to the first, I am seeking to avoid the grave evils I believe the other candidates will commit by not supporting them with a vote and--in the case of voting for a third party or write-in candidate--by voting for a candidate who I believe will not be responsible for any evil policies, but will rather work to end of evil policies that are already in place and work to implement policies that will work in favor of the common good. As to the second, with all that has previously been stated it should be obvious that my particular vote is causally remote from the actual election of any particular candidate. As to the third, no one has a right to know how I voted and in talking about it here I have stated explicitly that I will in no way be willing the evil policies of any Presidential candidate when I cast my vote. I do not will any of their immoral policies on abortion, embryonic stem cell research, homosexual "marriage" and adoption, waging an unjust war &c. Because of this, I cannot see how my vote would cause the danger of scandal--inciting or tempting another to commit a morally wrongful act--since I in no way make any excuses for the only action that can be considered immoral and sinful without a doubt, viz. formally cooperating with evil by willing the implementation of a candidates evil policies.

All these considerations have been in light of my understanding of the principles involved in determining whether or not an act is formal or material cooperation with evil. My conclusion is especially influenced by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's 2004 letter to Theodore Cardinal McCarrick on the general principles involved in determining whether or not a Catholic is worthy to receive Holy Communion under canon 915. In a final note, former Cardinal Ratzinger state the following:

A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.

If a Catholic can vote for a candidate with such serious flaws and not be considered to have committed a grave evil as long as they did so with proportionate reasons, then one should be able to vote for a good candidate who seems unlikely to win or to abstain from voting for either candidate and not be guilty of committing a grave evil for the same reasons. In fact, since the reasons for remote material cooperation have to be proportionate to the evil one is cooperating with, one would be less likely to be guilty of a grave evil by voting for a good candidate who seems unlikely to win or to abstain from voting for either candidate than one would be if one voted for a candidate with evil policies without willing the implementation of said policies.

Keeping all that in mind, I do not think that voting for a third party/write-in candidate or abstaining from voting can even be considered remote material cooperation with evil. Here is why. Those who argue that one who votes or a third party/write-in candidate or abstains from voting is cooperating with evil say that one is doing this because by one's action one divides the vote for the candidate who is the "lesser of two evils." In so doing, the one who votes for a third party/write-in candidate or abstains from voting makes it easier for the worse candidate to win. But this argument assumes that one has the duty to vote for the "lesser of two evils" in the first place. Thus, those who argue that one has the duty to vote for the candidate who us the "lesser of two evils" assume as a premise the point they are arguing for. This is the fallacy of begging the question. And indeed, to even set up an election as a choice between only two candidates--which is what is assumed by anyone who argues that one has the duty to vote for the candidate who us the "lesser of two evil"--is to be guilty of the fallacy of the false dilemma. This should be obvious, since those arguing that one has the duty to vote for the candidate who is the "lesser of two evil" are, at least in part, arguing against those who would vote for a third party/write-in candidate or abstains from voting. Thus the argument is fallacious from the very beginning.

As a final thought, it has been my experience that all those who argue that one must vote for McCain as the "lesser of two evils" do so because "he is better than either of the two possible Democratic candidates and he is the only viable alternative." This is the same kind of thinking that got us John McCain as the (almost certain) Republican Presidential candidate in the first place. Viability is bullplop. If you listen to the talking heads of the media and the punditry and vote for the "only viable candidate," then you are the one who helps make him the only viable candidate by voting for him instead of another candidate who you actually favor. Vote for the person you think is best for the job, even if they are from a third party or need to be written in. If more people did that, then perhaps we would get better elected officials.

Notes:

1. As an aside, the cry of "The judges! We need the judges!" as necessitating pro-lifers to rally around the Republican party is laughable. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. A Republican Congress could easily remove the Court's jurisdiction to rule on cases of abortion, embryonic stem cell research, &c. This would leave us with the same situation that we would be left with if Roe v Wade were overturned: fighting out the legality of abortion on a state by state basis. If you don't think the pro-life cause would win a number of important victories, I can only say I believe that you are mistaken. And nothing about such a solution would require pro-lifers to stop attempting to get an amendment respecting the personhood and right to life of human embryos added to the Constitution.

The fact that the Republican's have not tried strenuously to pass such legislation leads my to believe that they are either incompetent or they do not take the pro-life cause as seriously as they seem to imply they so. Such legislation has been put forward: HR 300, sponsored by Congressman Ron Paul. He also sponsored HR 1094, which would define life as beginning at conception. For more on Ron Paul on life, go here.

2. If there is a tie in the Electoral College or no candidate has a majority, then the President and Vice President are chosen by the House of Representatives and the Senate respectively. I have been unable to find any information on what the law is in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the case of a tie in the Presidential popular vote.

A Proposed Constitutional Amendment on Personhood

Section 1. All human embryos are considered persons from the moment of their conception and are granted all protections and rights due to persons by the laws of the United States and the laws of any state.

Section 2. Conception is the fertilization of an ovum by a spermatozoon.

Section 3. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.