[Vision2020] Sotomayor: US Supreme Court's Sixth Catholic?

[Ted Moffett]

On 6/11/09, keely emerinemix <kjajmix1 at msn.com> wrote:


>   Advances in science demonstrate to us that even a week after conception,
> the fetus has systematic organic function that, if allowed to develop, will
> mature into a baby capable of living outside of the womb even at 22 weeks of
> a normal 40-week gestation.
>

At the bottom I address the medical issues of very early premature birth. 22
weeks at birth means a very difficult life; survival rates are low, long
term problems common, the infant suffers.

But first: I think there is an ethical inconsistency in some of the
arguments made by those who oppose most or all abortion on ethical grounds,
yet support birth control, expressed in the argument I roughly outline lower
down.  And I think there is an ethical consistency in the Catholic Church's
official position opposing both birth control and abortion, and applying
some of the same ethical principles involved, opposing the death penalty,
though personally I favor birth control (6 billion and climbing!) and legal
abortion during the first trimester, when 88% percent of abortions occur (
http://www.ppacca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuJYJeO4F&b=139486 ), despite the
morally problematic issues.  I think the rights of an adult women to control
her own biology and life trump any "rights" of the fetus, before viability.
But I make this statement with serious misgivings.  Abortion is a morally
complex issue that often does not lend itself to absolute right or wrong
answers.

Relating the ethical reasoning involved in abortion and the death penalty is
common, and raised in this thread.  Catholics or Christians who support the
death penalty might consider that there is theological reasoning against the
death penalty because it involves humans interfering in the possibility for
redemption of an eternal soul, ending life sometimes before a sinner has the
chance to repent.  This is between the sinner and God (and maybe a priest),
not a choice for humans who want to play God.  I oppose the death penalty
primarily on the grounds that it is too much power accorded to the State,
which should only be granted the minimum power over its citizens that is
necessary to fulfill its functions.  The death penalty is an instrument of
totalitarian governments; and it is naive to assume the US government could
never utilize the death penalty as an instrument of oppression.  Indeed, the
well documented unequal application of the death penalty in the
US against African-Americans is an example (
http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/capital/report_who_surviveson_deathrow.pdf ).
That innocent people are sometimes put to death is not the primary reason I
oppose the death penalty, though it is certainly one factor, especially
considering the safeguards required to prevent this tremendously increase
the costs of the death penalty (long multiple appeals, etc.).  Life in
prison without parole protects public safety, and allows that mistakes may
be corrected, as has happened (
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty ). Anyone
ethically justifying war using "Just War Theory" knows that innocent life
being killed is sometimes unavoidable.  If the arguments for the death
penalty were compelling enough overall, a few innocents unintentionally put
to death might not create a strong enough argument against the death penalty
based on these mistakes to justify banning the death penalty.  But the death
penalty as a deterrent is a weak case (
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty ).
I understand the arguments that for those wronged by a death penalty
criminal (the loved ones of someone murdered, for example), the only justice
they may feel reasonable is "an eye for an eye."  But in a society striving
for compassion, understanding and forgiveness, an "eye for an eye" can lead
to endless demands for vengeance.  Thus the wisdom, if this applies, of the
Oresteia:  http://us.penguingroup.com/static/rguides/us/oresteia.html
"Aeschylus shaped his material into three dramas that depict the movement
from primitive retaliatory vengeance to civilized justice."

I am not claiming the argument below on abortion and birth control is the
same argument as in the Papal Encyclicals on this issue (
http://www.emmerich1.com/PAPAL%20ENCYCLICALS%20ON%20LIFE.htm ):

A human egg that could be fertilized and grow to adulthood, yet is not, by
whatever means (pill, condom, IUD) during sex, is denying the chance for a
unique human being to be born and develop personhood.  A just fertilized
egg, or a one week blastocyst just attached to the uterine wall, has no
consciousness or mental intentionality or awareness of "otherness," any more
than a living egg or sperm about to meet.  There is certainly no
"personhood" except as in a unique genetic code.  And a unique genetic code
alone does not define a "person."  There is the potential for the
development of unique human individuality and personhood with an egg and
sperm about to meet, just as the potential for personhood is present in a
one week blastocyst.

An argument can be made that birth control denies the creation of a unique
human life, a person, just as well as aborting a one week blastocyst that
has just implanted in the uterine wall.

Of course it will be argued that a unique (genetically coded unique) life
form capable of developing does not yet exist when an egg is not
fertilized.  But knowing that a unique human life could be created, while
deliberately preventing this during sex, still presents the same ethical
question regarding denying a potential person to develop.
-----------------

I'm not sure why you write "even a week after conception."  Immediately
after conception, under favorable conditions, an infant capable of living
outside the womb will develop.  However, the survival rate at 22 weeks
outside the womb is low (actually these figures are for 23 weeks), 11% or
30% (different studies), according to a 2002 article from the American
Academy of Pediatrics sourced below.  Premature births before 28 weeks
require extensive medical intervention to survive, and even then, sometimes
face long term handicaps.  There is ethical debate about the aggressive
medical care, suffering of the infant and long term handicaps, and long term
costs associated with these very early premature births:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;110/5/1024#R1

>From source above:

In the United States, an increase in the number of births of extremely
preterm infants and in their *survival* potential has occurred over the last
decade. Determining the *survival* prognosis for the infant of a pregnancy
with threatened preterm delivery between *22* and 25 completed *week*s of
gestation remains problematic. Many physicians and families encounter the
difficulty of making decisions regarding the institution and continuation of
life support for an infant born within this thresh*old* period. This report
addresses the process of counseling, assisting, and supporting families
faced with the dilemma of an extremely preterm delivery.
------------------

http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_1157.asp

>From source above:

What happens when babies are born at less than 28 weeks?

Almost all require treatment with oxygen, surfactant and mechanical
assistance to help them breathe.

These babies are too immature to suck, swallow and breathe at the same time,
so they must be fed through a vein (intravenously) until they develop these
skills. They often cannot cry (or you cannot hear them due to the tube in
their throat) and they sleep most of the day. These tiny babies have little
muscle tone, and most move very little.

--------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090614/ec4eab55/attachment-0001.html