A propos this, Professor Rick Garnett (Law, Notre Dame) writes:
[I]t is not clear why the claim "human fetuses are moral subjects and this fact constrains what should be done with and to them" is any more "religious", or any less "moral", than the claim "all human beings are moral equals, regardless of race, and should be treated as such in law."
The only people who are obsessed with protecting fertilized eggs and early stage fetuses are religious people, usually of a certain orthodox variety (mostly Christian in this country). Professor Garnett is correct that his second claim about human equality also has a religious origin, which is why Nietzsche hoped that kind of moral egalitarianism would die along with God. Unlike Nietzsche, I'm a moral egalitarian, despite being the least religious person in every other respect: as Nietzsche also understood (in other contexts), moral attitudes are matters of deeply ingrained habits of feeling, that easily outlast their supposed justifications. Fortunately, the egalitarian attitudes have, so far, survived the death of God: in that sense, moral egalitarianism has become secularized. But the pro-embryo movement has not become secularized in that way (where are its secular adherents? why are 99.9% of its proponents religious?), and it really defies credulity for anyone to suggest that a conservative Catholic upbringing would not produce profound antipathy towards abortion that would influence, perhaps not consciously, how a judge approaches any case that presents an opportunity to restrict its legal availability.
ADDENDUM: Here's what conservative Catholics would really like the super-legislature to do! I trust even Professor Garnett would acknowledge the role of religious conviction in that position.
Recent Comments