Gary Wills, a Liberal Roman Catholic, has recently argued in a column for the LA Times that abortion should not be a theological issue. His argument rests on two claims. First, he suggests that the only reason the Religious Right is so desperate to make the abortion issue one of theology is that if they leave the issue to scientists and bioethicists they’ll lose the debate. This is hardly true, as Wills himself will later admit that there isn’t anything close to a consensus from secular scientists, let alone philosophers of bioethics. Second, he claims that neither the Bible nor the early church creeds and councils deal with the issue of abortion. This is simply false, as Dr. Al Mohler demonstrates in his response to Wills. The fact that Wills doesn’t even understand the history of basic Christian theology should give us a serious lack of confidence in the credibility of the rest of his argument.
It’s at times like these that I find myself thankful for people like Peter Singer. Yes, that’s right, thankful. Whatever his faults may be, Singer is a smart guy. He understands that it is completely inconsistent to be in favor of abortion, and then suddenly against infanticide. There’s no significant difference between the fetus and the newborn baby. If it’s ok to kill the fetus, it should be ok to kill a newborn baby, and for all the same reasons (i.e. mom just decides she doesn’t want it anymore). Thanks to Singer’s honesty, we have a clear understanding of where most of the pro-abortion logic today is going to take us.
See, whenever people start trying to define what “personhood” is, aside from their qualifications generally being ad hoc and arbitrary, no one has yet succeeded in finding the qualification that separates the fetus from the newborn. So when Gills starts spouting rhetorical drivel like this,
The question is not whether the fetus is human life but whether it is a human person, and when it becomes one. Is it when it is capable of thought, of speech, of recognizing itself as a person, or of assuming the responsibilities of a person? Is it when it has a functioning brain?
we can immediately recognize where his logic must take him. And does Wills support infanticide? Who knows. But one thing is certain, the Canaanites in the Old Testament were executed primarily because they sacrificed infants to their gods. So whatever else it may be, infanticide is definitely a theological issue.
Why is Gills so wrong? What’s a person?
PS: This is me playing devil’s advocate.
Haha, thanks for clarifying!
I’m not really arguing for any particular definition of personhood here. What I’m doing is pointing out two things:
The first is that modern secular attempts to define personhood based solely on function are very weak. They end up amounting to lists of qualities that seem very ad hoc and, more importantly, completely arbitrary. Without a lot of fine nuances and more ad hoc distinctions, there isn’t a lot that would stop someone from adding race or even religion to the list.
The second is that this secular logic regarding what constitutes a person leads us to the conclusion that there is absolutely nothing wrong with killing a one-year-old child simply because we don’t want it anymore. This is less an argument and more an appeal to intuition. If you think it’s wrong to kill one-year-old babies whenever you feel like it, then you must think abortion equally wrong.
Last I recall, God took a dim view of the king of Egypt for killing infants.
Moreover, the Christian opposition to abortion is Christological. Jesus was a person at every natural stage of human development. To think that abortion is permissable because the unborn aren’t persons committs one to an Adoptionistic Christology, that Christ became a person later.
The modern notion of pershonnd comes from Locke, which mistakenly conflates personhood with a stream of consciousness. Christianity on the other hand maintains that Christ is a divine person with a human intellect so that intellect or consciousness can’t be identified fully with personhood. People need to put down their Locke and pick up some Cyril.
Perry, thanks for the comment. You’d think a Roman Catholic would be more familiar with his own tradition.
Just out of curiosity, why is your profile picture Emperor Palpatine?
Wills is a perfect example of Nominalism, where a label applies to a subject with no internal grounding for the name applied.
Re: Palpatine
Palpatine comments to Anakin to the effect that there are powers one can possess that “some consider to be unnatural.” Anakin replies, “Is it possible to learn this power?” Palpatine “Not from a Jedi.”
So, you’re trying to teach us Protestants unnatural powers that the “Jedi” won’t teach us?
David,
Hence the name of the blog. It isn’t that your Jedi Masters won’t teach you them, but rather that they can’t. Of course, you’d have to want to learn them. I am not interested in banging my head against a way in argumentation with people who aren’t interested in dialog and learning. I leave such people alone. What are words for, when there’s no use talking at all?
Errata
against a “wall” rather
It’s interesting that everyone manages to find a way to accuse all those who don’t agree with them of being uninterested in dialog and learning. I assume you weren’t actually accusing me, of course, it’s just an observation.
The reason I originally asked was because…well…isn’t Palpatine the bad guy? And aren’t the Jedi who can’t teach the unnatural powers the good guys, who don’t learn the powers in question for a good reason (namely, “unnatural” is just a euphemism for “bad”)? Anyway, the analogy just doesn’t seem to be in your favor, is all.
In any case, thanks for reading my blog, and Happy Thanksgiving!
David,
Not accusing. If I thought that about you I wouldn’t bother commenting. It is true nonetheless that some people aren’t interesting in learning, which is why people would rather read their group’s take on such and so position rather than read primary sources on such and so position.
As for Palpatine, its a film character. Palpatine offers powers unknown to the establishment, operates subversively, and gets his enemies to fight each other. Some of these things are true of me and that is as far as the analogy goes, so I am quite happy with a weak analogy.
Besides, he has cool pictures.
Would you consider the Bible a primary source on theological issues, or would you consider the Fathers to be the primary sources, and why?
Isn’t that sort of subversive behavior a little less than virtuous (and subsequently a less than Christian attitude…it’s not exactly “boldly proclaiming” after all)?
You’re right though, the picture is cool.
I think Perry would probably say that the Church is the primary source on theological issues. Both the Fathers and the Scriptures are part of the tradition of the Church. We view the Scriptures through the interpretative grid of the Church because it is the Church that established the canon. It is the Holy Spirit speaking through the Church that is authoritative. Really God is tbe primary source on theological issues and it is the saints who are able to speak to Him because of their purity of heart. So you could say that we look to the saints as well.
I’ll be interested to see what Perry has to say though.
I know Perry can more than adequately defend himself, but as far as subversive behavior goes…ever noticed some of the rhetorical tactics of St. Paul? Look at acts 17, he is doing the kind of thing Perry is talking about. He is being subversive and pitting different opponents together to divide and conquer. Nothing wrong with using some rhetorical tactics to bring people to the truth. We aren’t just gonna stand on a street corner and hold up signs and scream that we’re the one true Church to everyone that happens to walk by.