 |
| Father Robert Spitzer, SJ |
At a recent meeting of the Orange County St. Thomas More Society we
were fortunate enough to have Father Robert Spitzer, SJ present a his
new book
10 Universal Principles: A Brief Philosophy Of Life Issues.
You might remember Father Spitzer as the Jesuit Priest who defended
God’s existence against physicist Stephen Hawking’s belief that God
isn’t the creator of the universe on CNN’s “Larry King Live.” I’ve been
fortunate enough to hear many talks from Father Spitzer, including
dozens of riveting homilies from the pulpit. He is a brilliant and holy
man.
His conversation at the latest Thomas Moore gathering centered
around his efforts to challenge young people (he's primarily an
educator) to recognize certain universally held principles when
addressing the notion of when life begins in connection with the
morality and legality of abortion.
If this summary seems
incomplete, that's my fault. I have no philosophy background and I'm
taking notes best I can. Spitzer uses no notes as he excitedly takes us
through his new theory. I encourage you to get his book to fill in the
gaps.
Fr. Spitzer points out that the abortion issue has
historically been argued with the same false reasoning that supported
such historical follies as the subjugation of Native Americans as
inferiors and the Dred Scott decision.
In those areas, available scientific data could not prove that Native Americans or Africans were
not
inferior so courts and governments declared them inferior, since there
was doubt. It was a backwards philosophy that basically said, “we’re not
really sure, so we’re going to err on the side of
‘you are inferior’ and
let the harm to you continue.”
Sound familiar? This is Roe V. Wade. “We’re not really sure. We have
these trimesters, we think we can divide abortion rights into what’s OK
and what is less OK, but by all means let the fetus killing continue.”
Universal Principles of Reason and Ethics
The Principle of Complete Explanation:
Are all opinions equally valid, or at least have some kind of validity?
Yes?
If so, then Newton was just as correct as Einstein with respect to the
physical universe? Of course not. Einstein had more information. He knew
a lot more so his opinions were better. The theory that explains the
most data wins! The theory that leaves out large amounts of data, loses!
The Principle of Non-Contradiction:
Something
cannot both “be and not be” in the same respect at the same place and
time. Objective reason, contradictory theories need to be ruled out. We
should prefer theories without contradictions.
Principle of Objective Evidence:
You can’t make a public argument relying upon subjective experiences. (
A posteriori - corroboratable; or
a priori evidence -based on non-contradiction).
With this foundation, Fr. Spitzer starts to quiz his contrarian students about the definition of human life.
“Would you say that a human life is life that belongs to a being of human origin?
“Yes,” the student says,
“but how do you know they’re human?”
“
Well
I can map out the entire genome of a single celled human zygote and
tell you for certain that it will develop into a human being with human
capacities.”
We all, as human beings, share the same
mitochondrial DNA. We all come from the same “Eve Gene,” but apes do
not. At the single cell stage, prior to attachment, the science can
even tell what the zygote will look like when it’s older.
Most
would agree, and follow Spitzer’s logic. Most do agree that this is a
fine definition of a human being. And from there it is not hard to
convince them that this should be the legal definition of a human life
in court cases involving abortion.
Why? Because according to our
universally accepted principles, we need to be consistent to obtain
justice. We want the best and most complete definition of a human being
science can bring us. If it is not the best, it is incomplete, or
contradictory, or non-objective. Hence any court cases which used an
inferior definition of human life should be revised to reflect the best
evidence now available in the same way Einstein revised the
understanding of the physical universe
vis-à-
vis Newton.
Roe
V. Wade was decided PRIOR to the genome and protein sequencers. It
used completely inadequate criteria to define a human being. The court
even admitted it was “uncertain.”
But, as Father Spitzer points
out, even faced with this uncertainty the court allowed for the killing
of pre-born babies, not unlike the Dred Scott court case where faced
with uncertainty about the humanity of the Black race, allowed for their
enslavement.
Principles of Ethics:
1.
Principle of Non-Maleficence “Do no unnecessary harm, but if a harm is necessary, minimalize it.” This is an objective good.
2.
The Ends Do Not Justify The Means
You
can’t use a harmful means to get to a non-harmful end. You need a
“non-contradiction” to get to the end. If the end causes harm, it must
prevent a greater harm or evil. In both Dred Scott and Roe V. Wade, the
court said,
“When in doubt, do harm.”
Spitzer also brings up the 16
th Century debate between Dominican Friars
Sepulveda and
De Las Casas
over whether Indians in the new world were mere savages to be
subjugated, or capable of full human potential. Sepulveda’s argument
was again, “
When in doubt, do harm.” De Las Casas had evidence that some of the Indians were quite accomplished in the arts and sciences.
De Las Casas’ argument was that until it can be proved that these are not human beings,
do no harm.
This is the correct priority. Roe V. Wade and Dred Scott said you have
to prove you are a human being to have rights. That is a sad priority
that we should reject.
The Dred Scott Court actually asserted “
we must assume they are not citizens or human until it can be proved that they are.”
What would be proof? Well, if they were mentioned in the constitution
that would have satisfied the court. But it wasn’t there of course
because certain rights were not mentioned in the constitution because
they were so intrinsic.
The Roe V. Wade Court looked for evidence
that fetuses were “persons” but claimed they couldn't find it.” (The
victim has to prove his personhood?). The Court misspoke when it said
“the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense."
Spitzer’s book points out the very public cases that did establish that
pre-born infants had the right to sue and inherit property.
But
even if there weren’t any cases that indicated the personhood of the
fetus, we are left with the same fallacy. People have to
prove they are human. De Las Casas warned that this theory would open ourselves up to rampant violations of the universal
Principle of Non Maleficence.
3. Principle of Full Human Potential.
The assumption that people that have the capacity to develop into
humans with the full potential to achieve all that is human, e.g., self
reflection, moral, and aesthetic cognizance, etc.
Roe V. Wade’s
denial of this principle was one not based on race but on the
nonsensical notion that since fetuses haven’t historically achieved full
human potential, this is their death warrant.
Principles of Inalienable Rights:
This fundamentally Christian notion, first expressed according to Father Spitzer in 1620 by Jesuit Francisco Suarez in his book
De Legibus.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property are inalienable, yet not
expressed in our Bill Of Rights because they should not be granted to a
people, for then they could be taken away theoretically. John Locke
studied Suarez’ principles at Oxford, fortunately.
Locke wanted to
ground justice in these principles independent of “positive law” to
avoid the tyranny of the majority that might vote to deny them to some.
Surprisingly, both Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson agreed with this
notion of Natural Law. Federalists and anti-Federalists alike were on
board. Why did the Dred Scott and Roe V. Wade Courts go so wrong? The
Emancipation Proclamation nullified Dred Scott. What will nullify Roe V.
Wade? Where’s our Lincoln?
