tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5078331897510807942.post5239196539687970227..comments2023-12-28T01:11:49.188-08:00Comments on Cum Lazaro: Tina Beattie, abortion and incrementalismLazarushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09716412032074416331noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5078331897510807942.post-30625462954874732452014-05-12T14:16:31.608-07:002014-05-12T14:16:31.608-07:00Thank you in turn for your response. Looking in at...Thank you in turn for your response. Looking in at some of the debates which have riven the pro-life movement, I'm grateful for this opportunity to disagree whilst recognizing that we both share a commitment to the full Catholic teaching on the wrongness of abortion. <br /><br />We may well in fact agree. I'm not sure what sort of limited reduction in abortion is being proposed, might be politically possible, and what the reaction of the pro-abortion lobby would be in terms of suggesting their own amendments. All these questions would have to be clearer before any sort of incrementalism could practically be entertained. <br /><br />Whatever else we might disagree on, I am certain that both of us would share a commitment to sensitizing public opinion to the genuine horror of the mass abortion industry. Perhaps this is, in the end, the most important goal of the pro-life movement.Lazarushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09716412032074416331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5078331897510807942.post-68541113547418566582014-05-12T12:04:07.581-07:002014-05-12T12:04:07.581-07:00Thank you for your thoughtful and interesting resp...Thank you for your thoughtful and interesting responses. I suspect that we may never agree but I think we agree that doing nothing is not an option. We have to use our reason to do the best we can and hope to find out one day whether we have done right. I do not believe, for the practical reasons, that 'incrementalism' will save lives; on the contrary it causes deaths. Incrementalism does involve its proponents giving permission for abortions to be carried out. We Catholic pro-lifers cannot do that. Abortion is wrong - it is wrong. <br /><br />David Alton's Abortion Amendment Bill, the only serious attempt at incremental amendment which was aimed at introducing a time limit of 18 weeks, began with the words "A woman's pregnancy may be terminated...". At the time I supported the Bill but I would not do so today. The outcome of that Bill and of the subsequent refusal of pro-lifers at the time to let the matter go, was the increase in time limits to 24 weeks and up to birth. That is hard to justify. What are we to say of the additional deaths that have resulted? Saying it was a well intentioned try does not cut the mustard.<br /><br />But we must keep discussing these deep questions and looking for the right way.ALDUhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00209513152629225245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5078331897510807942.post-32620632201617279332014-05-12T07:15:25.293-07:002014-05-12T07:15:25.293-07:00And just to add to that!
There's a tendency i...And just to add to that!<br /><br />There's a tendency in some commentary to contrast the position of moral safety (not being an incrementalist is clearly a morally licit position so why take the risk by being one?) with moral danger (being an incrementalist is certainly wrong at times and possibly always wrong). But failure to preserve life when it can be preserved is also failing in a moral duty. Neither position is safe. We have to exercise the virtue of prudentia (practical wisdom) and come to the best assessment possible. God will forgive us for being mistaken. But not for having sidestepped that moral and intellectual struggle.Lazarushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09716412032074416331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5078331897510807942.post-74280937980925258762014-05-12T06:47:43.647-07:002014-05-12T06:47:43.647-07:00On b), the practical issues are the ones where I t...On b), the practical issues are the ones where I think the strongest arguments against incrementalism lie. I'd expect different people (and groups) to come to different assessments here. <br /><br />On a), I think Harte is wrong and Finnis et al. are right. One is not permitting killing younger children: one is simply unable to stop it. No Catholic in good conscience can refuse to rescue a number of children simply on the grounds that one cannot rescue all: to do so is precisely to overlook the preciousness of each individual life. This is not a question of deontology vs consequentialism as some commentators appear to think. No one (well, not Finnis, not me) is suggesting a formal cooperation with evil -ie the committing of an unjust act to achieve good ends. The argument is that voting for a limited restriction on abortion is not in principle an unjust act. In that case, the choice is between two licit actions: one which rescues children and one which doesn't.<br /><br />The argument in principle is pace Harte relatively clear. What is not always clear is the factual background and what in fact may be possible. Not every form of incrementalism is licit. Not every incremental restriction on abortion is morally right. But, in principle, support for a restriction of abortion absent the possibility of a full ban is moral. Indeed, ignoring it is to fail in the duty of promoting the good which is the first precept of the natural law.<br /><br />I'd recommend Finnis' papers in Helen Watt's 'Cooperation, Complexity and Conscience' as a necessary corrective to Harte.Lazarushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09716412032074416331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5078331897510807942.post-26029483504834374402014-05-12T05:17:25.805-07:002014-05-12T05:17:25.805-07:00Thank you for an interesting post. These are not ...Thank you for an interesting post. These are not easy questions to resolve for oneself. It seems to me that there are two approaches. First, principle. Relating the permissibility of abortions to age of the child inevitably means that one must permit (even if not approve) killing children who are younger than whatever limit is chosen. Even if it could be proved to reduce abortion numbers (a very big "if") no Catholic in good conscience could agree to abandon A in the hope of saving B - the ends do not justify the means. I advise reading Colin Harte's book Changing Unjust Laws Justly. <br /><br />Secondly, practical. In practice our opponents will not give one iota of ground. They will not give way in anything at all. In 1990 we are told that "time limits" had been reduced to 24 weeks whereas in fact the 1990 changes lead to abortion up to the time of birth (which had never existed before in UK) and even the 24 week limit then introduced was an increase.<br /><br />The vast majority of abortions in the UK are done before 12 weeks so there would have to be a massive reduction even in the 24 week limit to make any measurable difference. In practice, women would be pressured to make decisions earlier and the likelihood is that excuses would be found to do abortions after the new limit in any event - with the policy of non-prosecution of any abortionist which the prosecuting authorities seem to apply, nothing wold happen to stop this. Why would one compromise one's principles and risk one's immortal soul for this?ALDUhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00209513152629225245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5078331897510807942.post-51210617931048992912014-05-12T02:26:37.781-07:002014-05-12T02:26:37.781-07:00There are lots of practical issues here that, fran...There are lots of practical issues here that, frankly, I'm not sure what to do about. I'm not sure how likely (eg) reductions in time limits are or banning sex selection. Certainly, if others raise these issues, I think Catholics should, other things being equal, support such restrictions. As to whether Catholics should actively campaign for such reductions as an intermediate goal, again, I'm simply not sure. So I guess that means I'm sympathetic to your view that these sorts of issues need to be discussed.<br /><br />My two points here are: a) (repeating what I've said earlier) I believe that, in principle, it is morally licit to pursue a reduction in the number of deaths through abortion. (Whether it is wise in our particular circumstances is a different matter.)<br /><br />b) There are people who do not accept the authority of the Church's teaching who yet can see the wrongness of some types of abortion. We should neither ignore these as potential allies nor dismiss them as insincere or obviously inconsistent. They are wrong, but that wrongness may not be the fault of an easily remediable flaw in their exercise of natural reason.<br /><br />Lazarushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09716412032074416331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5078331897510807942.post-75401956469154821812014-05-12T01:37:38.031-07:002014-05-12T01:37:38.031-07:00Thanks Lazarus. My post wasn't arguing for red...Thanks Lazarus. My post wasn't arguing for reduction of time limits as a goal but rather more that pro-lifers should not be afraid to re-open the debate.<br /><br />Where small steps can be taken, for example the elimination of gendercide we shouldn't be afraid to grasp them.blondpidgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12631604905862504882noreply@blogger.com