The most compelling reason to vote for George W. Bush got sick this week. Or, perhaps more accurately, one of the nine most compelling reasons to vote for George W. Bush got sick this week. Eighty-year old William Rehnquist, the chief justice of the United States, has thyroid cancer.

There hasn't been a vacancy on the Supreme Court in a decade. All but one of the justices is a senior citizen. Chances are, the man elected president next Tuesday will nominate two, three, or even four Supreme Court Justices.

Although Democrats accuse Republicans of having a litmus test on abortion--unfortunately, they don't--two-thirds of the court that instituted Roe v. Wade, and eight of the nine justices who upheld Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, were appointed by Republicans. So, if Republicans have a litmus test, they've failed it. Democrats, on the other hand, do have a litmus test. John Kerry, like Bill Clinton before him, would never nominate a judge to the high court who believed Roe v. Wade unconstitutional.

The point of all this is to suggest that if Kerry wins, several pro-abortion judges will be added to the Supreme Court. If Bush wins, you at least get a 50/50 chance of a judicial nominee recognizing that Roe v. Wade was invented out of wholecloth.

The chance is far less than 50/50 with Bush. A) Fewer elected Republicans could or would support such a thing than in years past. B) Arlen Spector will still be sitting on the judiciary committee. C) Democrats have zero problem filibustering. D) The last anti-Roe judge to be put on the court had the benefit of being black, and even then Thomas barely got on. Any future nominations will be attacked much more savagely.

Will conservatives finally stop thinking that the GOP is pro-life if Bush gets reelected and his appointments to the SC are not actually interested in following the constitution?

What I mean is that Congress has willingly ceded its obligation to legislate regarding controversial issues to the courts over the last several decades and this isn't simply a Democrat action as Dan's stats regarding the make-up of the courts that have been tyrranizing us indicates. This being the case, and Bush not actually being pro-life himself but only slightly less pro-abortion than Kerry since he believes in the so-called "exceptions," (also witness his nonsensical defense of his allowing limited stem cell research, his use of depleted uranium weapons, support of Spector, etc.) will this next GOP administration finally be the one that decides once and for all whether the Republican party is at all serious as a pro-life party?

Dan: "If Bush wins, you at least get a 50/50 chance of a judicial nominee recognizing that Roe v. Wade was invented out of wholecloth."

Brian: "...Bush not actually being pro-life himself but only slightly less pro-abortion than Kerry since he believes in the so-called 'exceptions'...."

This is so much nonsense. The judges Bush has nominated (Estrada, Pryor, Kuhl, et al.) are staunchly pro-life; he signed the ban on "partial-birth abortion," he signed the "Lacey Peterson" law making the murder of a pregnant woman a double-homicide, he ended federal funding for abortions overseas, and even his confused stem-cell decision denied federal funding for the further destruction of embryos.

To judge that record "not actually pro-life" or a 50/50 proposition on abortion is absurd. The "exception" Brian speaks of is the life of the mother, an exception recognized by the Church. It is clear that the contempt some conservatives have for Bush's foreign policy has clouded their judgment concerning his social conservatism.

Dan, I am glad you agree with me on this. It is one of the few reasons left to pull the lever for W.

Your abortion polemics aside, it is unlikely that a Republican president will be able to successfully nominate a staunch pro-lifer, given the opposition by many democrats (and a few republicans) in Congress to such justices.

A natural question then arises: if our representatives and senators fail to appoint a pro-lifer to the Court, then, why we'll make sure that the next time around there is a supermajority of pro-lifers in Congress who will appoint a pro-life Justice.

Wishful thinking. Polls consistently show a large majority of America supports choice (or is "pro-abortion" in your polemical argot). Thus, it is unlikely that, at present, Congress will comprise a supermajority of pro-lifers. Further there is no indication that in the immediate future Congress will comprise a supermajority of pro-lifers.

Recall that in order for a justice to be appointed to the Court a supermajority of Congress must approve the appointment, and pro-lifers do not constitute a supermajority at present.

What are we left with then? Well, for one, there is the possibility of an amendment to the Constitution specifically outlawing abortion. This, too, is likely to fail for the same reason that an amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman will fail: more than one quarter of the states wish not to ratify such an amendment.

It is thus futile, at this point in time, to speculate on the implications of Rehnquist's failing health for the likelihood of Roe v. Wade being overturned.

Another point bears mentioning: there are many pro-choice legal scholars who will willingly concede that Roe v. Wade is made out of wholecloth, as you put it, but will argue that in any event, the decision was of such societal import that hewing to the letter of the law was the greater of two evils. In this instance, it is quite clear that attacking Roe v. Wade on the substance of its argumentation is useless, for there are many pro-choice people who will agree with you here. An honest pro-choice person would have to concede the fact that there is no constitutional justification for the decision; it is a mistake that defeating it is as easy as pointing out its fabrication.

Two corrections: Dave -- In May 2004 Gallup found that only 37% of the country thinks that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, ABC News (asking a slightly harsher question) found the number to be 55%. Another Gallup poll found that only 52% of the country identifies itself as 'pro-choice.' In fact, 56% of US adults told gallup that first trimester abortion should be _illegal_ "when the woman does not want the child for any reason". The number jumps to 74% for third trimester abortions. Thus it is simply false of you to claim that "Polls consistently show a large majority of America supports choice (or is 'pro-abortion'..."). The situation is complex, and not satisfiying to either pro-aborts or pro-lifers. Nevertheless, the facts speak against you.

Second: Brad -- Using the 'double effect' principle, the Church discusses how we are allowed, in cases where the mother's life is at serious risk, to do procedures which result in the baby's death. The ectopic pregnancies are like this. This does not involve _intentional_ abortion, and it does not involve a direct attack on the life of the embroyo, even if it results in the embroyo's death. In fact, the Church forbids procured abortion in all cases, including cases where the life of the mother is in danger, because you are never permitted to do an evil action (intentionally ending the life of an innocent human being) for the sake of a good you hope to result. The distinstion is about what we _intend_; we are not allowed to do something which involves intentionally killing an innocent human life, period.

Short--

You have cited three polls which claim to show only a slim majority of American favoring abortion. But we know nothing of these polls other than the statistic you cite: we don't know the questions posed to the respondents, the sample size of the respondents, the statisical sampling technique used to extrapolate from the sample to the population at large, etc. Thus, in consideration of the evidence you have proferred, it is impossible to accept that "the facts speak against" me.

Additionally, to your response to Brad. You state: "we are not allowed to do something which involves intentionally killing an innocent human life, period." This is demonstrably false; there are many instances in law in which "killing an innocent human" is permitted. Justifiable homocide, rules of engagement during periods of war, and state-sanctioned execution are just a few of the examples in the law under which "innocent" people are killed, if by "innocent" we use that word in its religious context: they who are free from sin or guilt.

You seem to be arguing from the assumption that what is required in religion is also required in our laws; this again is demonstrably false. Just because a religion claims it forbidden to kill an innocent (again, in the context in which you use 'innocent' this word means 'they who are without sin or who have atoned for their sins') it does not follow that the actual law on which this society operates forbids it. Conflating religious belief and the actual law is a recipe for confusion.

It is quite possible that your religious beliefs preclude the possibility that it is permissible to kill an innoncent human life. The trouble then becomes, how do you resolve that belief with the discrepant fact that our laws actually contravene your belief?

Dave, all I am hoping for in supporting Bush is for the next SC nominee to be conservative. I can't wait for the fight to begin. If Bush backs him, like I suspect he will, then it will be spectacular. People will be talking about abortion, democracy, and the Constitution instead of both political parties hiding it under the carpet. I think a supermajority is needed only to get the justice out of filibuster and if the Democrats filibuster then that will make the issue even more public.

At this stage, I only hope for the opportunity to have a nationally involved diologue and believe that we only can succeed if given the chance. We have the better argument; let us argue.

Short,

Upon further review, I misrepresented the Church's position. I must admit that the "double effect" principle is a little confusing to me. What, in principle, is the distinction between a procedure to save the life of the mother with the 'unintended' but sure death of the embryo, and a procedure that inentionally kills the embryo to save the life of the mother? In what sense is a foreknown consequence unintended?

Whatever the case, Bush's position is significantly (by several orders of magnitude) more conservative than Kerry's. Dan and Brian would have us believe that Bush has little or no commitment to saving the lives of unborn children.

In the past 16 months the War in Iraq killed 16,561 people. In that same time period abortionists murdered 1,750,656 American infants. Which is of more consequence?

Brad, maybe I wasn't being specific enough about what I meant by "exceptions." Bush believes that abortion should be illegal except in the cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother. These are the standard exceptions that I consider copouts by people who have not really thought through the logic of the pro-life position. It is this basic view of his which I call only less pro-choice than Kerry's but not actually pro-life.

Actually, one positive bill Bush signed into law regarding life issues that you didn't mention is the Infants Born Alive Act (I don't know the exact name) which said that any baby born alive, even as a result of an abortion, cannot then be killed. Up until now abortionists have simply suffocated, drowned, or thrown babies into the garbage who somehow had the strength to survive the abortion procedure.

I am not trying to be idealistic or unrealistic and sacrifice the possible (the realm of politics) for pursuit of the perfect. I understand perfectly well (as Burke or Aristotle before him taught) that the statesman ignores the passions and prejudices of the people at his own risk and that Americans in general are morally corrupted to the extent that they still are not clearly in favor of ending the scourge of abortion.

But, I think my criticisms of the GOP are not extreme and imprudent but are actually very realistic. My intent is to point out that historically speaking the GOP has really not come close to doing what it has been capable of doing as regards defending life and other traditional cultural values. If conservatives simply give that party total support without criticizing their failures or holding their feet to the fire, as it were, then the issues we care about will continue to get short shrift. I was not here actually trying to make the argument that someone who is pro-life cannot legitimately and as a matter of prudence cast their ballot for Bush, clearly it is impossible for someone who is pro-life to vote for Kerry.

Brad: Brian and Flynn didn't claim that Bush has "little or no commitment to saving the lives of unborn children." The point is that Republicans have never been good about keeping their anti-abortion promises, and we have some reason to doubt whether Bush can or would do so. Are the chances 50-50? Who knows? They are better than Kerry's chances of appointing prolife judges, and they are worse than if I were president. I guess that means I'm voting for myself. I suggest you do the same.

It is interesting that your moral weighing of the war vs. abortion involves the question "which is of more consequence?" That's what you don't get about double effect. Consequences matter morally, but not exclusively. We can do something and not intend some of the consequences, and that makes all the difference for the type of people we are. That is the difference between our killing of 20K+ civilians in Iraq and the terrorists killing 3K- civilians here. They intend to kill random innocent civilians; to us it's an unintended but foreknown consequence of doing something we think is good, and better in the long run. It seems to me that if you want to make a moral distinction between us and the terrorists you better start buying the double-effect principle.

Short:

There are conservatives who would vote against Bush because of the War. And by doing so, they would contribute to the election of a president who supports abortion. With that in mind, I presented the consequences of the War and abortion as a dilemma. Naturally, we would prefer neither of these to happen, but given the dilemma, which is the greater concern?

As for intention in the context of the double-effect principle, your comparison with the collateral damage of a military strike is ill suited. When, for example, a bomb strikes a military target there is a possibility of civilian casualties. Whether or not there in fact will be casualties is unknown. That lack of knowledge is a necessary condition of an unintentional act.

Compare this with the use of nuclear weapons against Japan. Can the death of civilians in that instance be collateral? No. The decision to bomb Japan as a military target included (via the scope of the damage caused by nuclear weapons) the decision to kill civilians.

Now consider conjoined twins that will both die unless they are not separated, and one will die if they are separated. The intention to save one is at the same time an intention to kill the other.

This brings us to saving the life of the mother at the expense of the life of the unborn child. If a procedure which, in itself, is not an abortive is known to result in the death of the child, what is the differentiates it from the direct death of the child?

To Dave:

Your response to Short was amazing for its uncanny ability to perfectly exemplify a handful of basic fallacies of informal logic and argumentation. Short rightly mentions a couple. I only want to point out that you initially made the claim that "[p]olls consistently show a large majority of America supports choice." But . . . you provided no evidence for this claim by citing no polls. So when Short does just that to refute your claim you then play the role of a skeptic by saying that since Short provided no detail about the nature of the polls s/he cited then clearly it is impossible to accept that the facts are against you. That is simply a petulant response since you never cited any facts in support of your view whatsoever.

I do want to thank you, however, for actually attempting to make the stupid argument of Kerry, and other Catholic pro-aborts, that they "can't impose a religious belief on others" seem rational and logical. At least that is what I take your strange talk about confusing religious beliefs (such as some supposed religious definition of "innocence" that I have never heard of) and the law to be an attempt to do. Of course you fail just as they do but you managed to seem much more clever in the attempt.

Brad: You say that in going to war "Whether or not there in fact will be casualties is unknown." Since you reject double effect, favor the war, and want to distinguish yourself from terrorists, you must hold this. But if you actually believe this you are really naive, to the point of irresponsibility.

We knew with all practical certainty in going to war in Iraq that at least several thousand civilian causualties would result, accidentally and unitentionally. Suppose that bombing a house with Osama and his henchment in it, in order to kill Osama, will also kill his waiter. We can do so intending to kill Osama and not intending to kill his waiter while knowing quite well that if we succeed in the one we will also cause the other. You say that "lack of knowledge is a necessary condition of an unintentional act." I disagree; killing the waiter can be unintentional and foreknown.

Brad,

From what I know of ectopic pregnancies (which probably isn't all that much) the procedures that doctors have in place to treat the situation are all treatments where the death of the embryo is a foregone conclusion. Specifically, techniques have been developed in which surgery can be performed and the embryo can be removed from the fillopian tube or wherever it had improperly implanted and then reimplanted into the womb. Now, when this procedure is attempted it is in fact very risky to the life of the embryo BUT even if the embryo dies it would not be the case that the doctors are intentionally aborting the baby, and there have been successes in attempting to reimplant the embryo.

Also, the Church recognizes that an ectopic embryo is not viable, but one that would definitely kill the mother, or rather would definitely cause a serious rupture within the uterus that untreated could kill the mother. If the embryo is left where it is the rupture will absolutely occur and that means the embryo, left alone, will die. It is equivalent to a tragic miscarriage, that is what is meant by saying the embryo is not "viable." Therefore, taking measures to save the woman's life in this extremely limited situation will be licit, even if those measures end up resulting in the death of the embryo. Does this help at all? I think the specifics of what is going on in these sorts of pregnancies makes the abstract principles involved much clearer.

A tougher case is the even rarer simultaneous occurrence of severe cervical cancer and pregnancy like what took the life of Saint Gianna Beretta Molla. Her story is quite inspiring and she represents saintly, that is heroic, courage in her refusal to undergo treatment that would jeopardize the baby in her womb even though it guaranteed her death.

Darn. I have a very major and strategic typo in my last post. The first sentence SHOULD read ". . . the procedures that doctors have in place to treat the situation are *NOT* all treatments where the death of the embryo is a foregone conclusion."

My meaning becomes clear in the rest of the post but that was a mistake worthy of explicit correction.

Short:

Let's take a single example, and then extend the conclusion to related examples.

Twins A and B are conjoined and share a vital organ, say a heart. Both will surely die if they are not separated. If they are separeted, one will surely die and the other will likely survive. The parents choose to save A, and consequently, to kill B. Is the decision to kill B intentional or unintentional?

"Incalcitrant to the universal." What a great phrase! I think we have come up with the perfect bumper sticker for DB.

Short:

"I'm not a consequentialist. Deal with it." The question has nothing per se to do with consequentialism. The same ethical question can be posed with virtue or duty as the primary concern.

"It amounts to a direct attack on the person's body, so I wouldn't approve of the surgery." Choosing to allow both children to die (to abstain is as much a choice as to act) is ethically preferable to saving one child at the expense of the other? What principle is at work here?

"Our principles should apply to these situations, but it is difficult to read our principles off of them because they are inherently unclear and incalcitrant to the universal." They should, but what if they do not? So much the worse for the example? The current example is quite clear and simple. And to make a Wittgensteinian point, the simple example dispels the fog surrounding the more complicated.

Brian:

"I think the specifics of what is going on in these sorts of pregnancies makes the abstract principles involved much clearer." Better watch out; you may be violating an Aristotelian point of method.

My concern is with 'unintentional'. If the mother and physician know that a procedure will result in the death of the embryo, how can the death of the embryo be unintentional. If I intend something, and I know something else is a necessary (in the everyday sense) effect of the first thing, do I not also intend the second thing?

Brad: "Choosing to allow both children to die (to abstain is as much a choice as to act) is ethically preferable to saving one child at the expense of the other? What principle is at work here?" A nonconsequentialist principle, get over it. You're begging the question by being surprised.

The principle here is that allowing something to happen is not the same as doing something. I am morally responsible for what I intentionally do. Thus, allowing someone to die is not the same as killing them. _I_ will not be responsible for killing an innocent child, even if that means that another child dies naturally but unnecessarily.

If the children weren't siamese twins, but two unrelated children, would you be willing to take the heart out of the one living baby, who was probably going to die of some disease, and put it into the second to save its life? I wouldn't. But this example seems morally equivalent to your example. Let's raise the stakes: would you be willing to kill a healthy innocent baby yourself, if that meant an end to abortion in the US for the next year? I wouldn't, because I'm not a consequentialist.

It's the same with voting for Kerry: a Catholic could vote for Kerry for other reasons; but it is sinful to vote for Kerry in support for his position on abortion. It is not brute factual events that are sinful or virtuous, it is actions with their intentional structure. Intentions matter.

Short:

"Thus, allowing someone to die is not the same as killing them. I am morally responsible for what I intentionally do." Your account of 'intention' and 'action' are not complex enough to adequately describe the phenomena. If, for example, a child is drowning and you do nothing to save her, you are culpable. Abstaining from action is itself an intentional action.

"Would you be willing to kill a healthy innocent baby yourself, if that meant an end to abortion in the US for the next year?" Would I kill 1 innocent child to save 1,000,000 innocent children? I think (with reservations) that the answer must be 'yes'.

"I wouldn't, because I'm not a consequentialist." This is irrelevant. Suppose I say that maximizing life is a moral duty. Will you say that you are also not a deontologist? What if saving more lives is required by the virtue of charity? Will you denounce Aristotle (God forbid). The question is not bound to any particular ethical theory.

"...it is sinful to vote for Kerry in support for his position on abortion." I would say that any action which leads to a Kerry victory is sinful on the same grounds.

Brad, let's make a distinction: Causing X is not the same as not causing something that would prevent X. Thus: Doing X is not morally equivalent to not doing something that would prevent X.

So of course abstaining from an action can be an intentional act, but (this is simply a non-sequitor on your part) that does not mean that an intentional abstention is morally equivalent to a different intentional action with the same consequences.

On the contrary, _your_ account of action is not complex enough. My account is more complex because I recognize a distinction you are denying -- so I have another peice than you (more peices = "more complex").

The reason you are denying this distinction is because you won't recognize that intentions and not merely effects define actions, hence not saving a drowning child is not the same as drowning the child. It is never correct to drown the child. It may sometimes be correct not to save a drowning child.

Short:

"It may sometimes be correct not to save a drowning child." Perhaps. Let's make the example more specific. Your own child accidentally falls into a river and is drowning (and there are no "third-party" ethical considerations attached to the outcome). You can either save her or let her drown. If you let her drown, how is that action different from throwing her into the river to drown?

Is it different in effect? No. In both instances the child drowns. Is it different in intention? I think not. If you could save the child and you do not, it is your intention that the child perish. The only difference is one of means: how the child came to be in the river and drown.

In this scenario, the two actions are morally equivalent.

Brad, please promise never to become a prosecutor.

Brian:

After working for lawyers for several years, I would not wish the legal profession on my worst enemy, let alone myself.

By the way, do you recognize the rhetoric and style of my interlocutor? There's something familiar about the writing style.

Brad, you say that "any action which leads to a Kerry victory is sinful." Although I find this statement quite silly, I'm glad you've changed you position on the war! After all, if Kerry wins, Bush's going to war will be an action which lead there.

I do not see the War as a political liability, but as an asset. A majority of Americans identify the war in Iraq with the war on terror. A majority of Americans believe Bush would manage the war on terror and the war in Iraq better than Kerry.