Obama at Notre Dame

A number of prominent bloggers and commentators concluded that Obama routed his detractors, politically at least, by refusing to allow social conservatives to co-opt him as an opponent in a renewed culture war. In his speech, Obama called for fair-mindedness, mutual understanding and respect. He also displayed significant respect for the Catholic Church and its teachings. In doing these things, Obama, as E.J. Dionne explained, strengthened the forces of moderation inside the Church, while increasing his political popularity among the faithful.

Fair enough. However, if you believe what the hardliners do, i.e., that fetal life enjoys the same moral status as every other human being at every stage of its development, then the most Obama can do is make them "appear" unreasonable. The hardliners can rest assured that they were not being unreasonable at all. If anything, they were being far too passive and tolerant.

People in the right to life camp face a pretty serious conundrum, which is illustrated by the following hypothetical. Suppose someone told you that inside a particular building, adults were grabbing two-year olds, one at a time, and killing them. Suppose further that when you asked the person, "did you call the police?" the person replied "it turns out that the U.S. Supreme Court overturned all of the laws nationwide prohibiting the killing of anyone two-years old or less - what the adults are doing is perfectly legal." Suppose that the person then picks up two shotguns, throws one to you and says, "I don't care what the law says, I'm gonna put a stop to this. I'll give them a chance to stop without shooting, but I'll shoot if I have to. Are you with me?"

There's absolutely no doubt that I'd be with him. It would be cowardly of me not to take decisive action, even if it required violence, to put a stop to the slaughter. And if anyone criticized me, which is almost unimaginable, it wouldn't faze me in the least. Nor should it. In fact, I'd deserve severe criticism if I failed or refused to act and allowed the killing to continue. And if I had to shoot to get them to stop, so be it.

Agree?

Of course you do!

(For the record, I don't count pacifists among the cowardly - there's is a principled stand that most of us, thankfully, reject).

But if you agree, and if the moral insight and the logic of its application are sound in the case of two-year olds, and you add the additional premise that fetal life at all stages shares the exact same moral status as a two year old - which is precisely what pro-lifers say they believe - then . . .

By the way, Philosophers call this form of argument "reductio ad absurdum." The idea is to accept your opponent's premise and then show how its implications are unacceptable. Most people who are confronted with a successful reductio argument reconsider the premises they are relying on. In this case, I've proven that the core pro-life premise implies that Pro-lifers who do not violently confront abortion providers (or find some other way to stop them immediately) are acting cowardly, given what they say they believe.

However, what I think I've really proven is that they don't really believe that premise - they only think they do.

Any thoughts?

Joe H.