Author and philosopher Jesuit Father Robert Spitzer defends the pro-life stance with secular principles and argues for a fresh approach to the abortion debate.
“The pro-life movement needs a comprehensive philosophy that makes a case, a very logical case, based on principles which are completely accepted by a secular society that shows that the pro-life position is correct and ethical and objectively true,” Father Spitzer told CNA.
His book, Ten Universal Principles: A Brief Philosophy of the Life Issues was released in 2011.
Father Spitzer, former president of Washington’s Gonzaga University and founder of the California-based Magis Institute, said that he wanted the work to be “very accessible” and help everyday Catholics learn how to oppose issues such as abortion and euthanasia by using philosophy.
In a recent interview, he said that despite secular media often associating the pro-life movement with illogical religious fanaticism, it’s actually those in favor of abortion who have poor reasoning.
“Abortion,” he argued, “is based on objective falsities, logical errors, ethical problems, violations of ethical principals and a complete betrayal of the notion of rights.”
The 10 universal principles discussed in the book are broken down into four sections under the topics of reason, ethics, justice and natural rights and identity and culture.
Father Spitzer said that the sections outline basic concepts such as how objective truth can be known and how everyone can agree on principles like minimizing harm or guaranteeing essential human rights.
He said that using logical concepts everyone can assent to take the argument out of the religious or political spheres.
In the U.S. especially, the movement in favor of legalized abortion has “claimed the entire territory of vocabulary and concept,” the priest said. “And because of that, in a way, they look like they’re much more sophisticated than the pro-life people.”
However, he added, “all we have to do is reclaim the territory right back.”
“We need a vocabulary that neither the right nor the left will quibble with,” he emphasized. “We need a vocabulary that neither the religious nor the secular groups will quibble with.”
For instance, he noted, all people believe in things such as “inalienable rights,” despite the struggle often involved to ensure them.
The priest highlighted painful examples in the nation’s history, such as the 1857 Dred Scott decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court essentially ruled that black individuals were subhuman and had no constitutional rights.
“The wording of that decision, it just knocks you over,” he said, “but if you look between the lines, its the exact same logic as Roe v. Wade,” the landmark U.S. case that legalized abortion in 1973.
Although nearly 100 years apart, “both courts forgot about natural or inalienable rights. They never mentioned them.”
The second mistake both courts made, Father Spitzer said, is the illogical assumption that black people and the unborn needed to be proved human when the opposite process was required.
“Anyone who knows elementary ethics,” he said, knows “the principal of non-maleficence: Don’t do unnecessary harm.”
“If you’re not going to do unnecessary harm, and you are uncertain, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the being under consideration is not human.”
Despite the tragic outcome of both cases and their societal impact, Father Spitzer said he’s optimistic that a renewed effort to introduce basic philosophical arguments into the cultural debate will be successful.
He also said he believes that humanity ultimately wants to do the right thing.
“I think people honestly want to make an optimal, positive difference with their lives, their time, their talents and their energy,” he said.
“They want to make an optimal difference to family, to friends, to society, to their church if they have faith, to their local communities, to the little league, to the school board; whatever it may be, people are just generally exceedingly contributive.”
Father Spitzer also said the pro-life movement will continue to be effective, given that people need to view these issues not just from an intellectual standpoint.
“Don’t just look at them with your mind, but look at them with your heart.”
“Let’s come back to our senses and get out of the political rhetoric,” he urged. Let’s take “a good objective look from the vantage point of the mind and the heart, and just say, ‘Come on, what do you really think?’”
Janet Morana: Who Were the Early Feminists in the U.S.?
Edward Pentin: High Expectations for Rome March for Life 2013
Comments
Post a Comment
This is such an important article. The type of reasoning/arguing promoted here is the ONLY way to present the pro-life cause in the secular sphere. NOTHING ELSE works. An appeal to reason, scientific facts and “natural and inalienable” rights is the only way to permeate the hard heads of those who have consecrated themselves to one political party or another.
I recently bought Fr. Spitzer’s book to read, and he’s absolutely right. We need to talk less about feelings, and more about how we think. At the risk of sounding sarcastic, if abortion is really about women’s health, and “curing” a disease, then why are pro-abortion so resistant to the new laws requiring women to see the ultrasound of the baby before an abortion. When women have a disease such as cancer, the doctor shows them the image of the tumor, and discusses how they plan to treat the tumor. Information is a good thing.
If the so called ‘secular sphere’ is LESS rational than the Church, how are we supposed to use reason to change it? Unfortunately the liberal pro-death point of view is just as much based on ‘faith’ (belief in things unseen) as any religion. If the Church cannot even convince it’s own members to vote pro-life, it will never convert the ‘secular sphere’.
As long as pro-death democrats (Pelosi, Biden, Sibelius, etc.) can claim the mantle of Catholicism, the Church will lack the moral authority to impact our political culture.
It is sad. I am a young African American, but I don’t think it is over reaching at all to say Slaves were lucky. They were lucky because they were conisdered one third of a person, enierly human, and allowed live because they had worth. Their work and the things they did had value, albiet in a twisted sense. On the other hand, infants are considered to not only have no worth, but to have anti-value: to be so horrid that people willingly pay hundreds of dollars to see that they never work, never are considered a person, never have a chance to live.
“....We tossed the forgein forces from our land
And founded one that sought each person’s good,
And yet we somehow didn’t understand
How negro slaves deserved such person-hood.
The slaves fought for their freedom, some escaped!
But children? How are infants going to fight?
Their sweetly forming lungs aren’t fully shaped,
So we must raise our voices for their rights!”- Roe v Wade, LoudDreamer
I have engaged in a protracted conversation with a long-time, recalcitrant pro-abortion friend, who will not answer my direct question - Is the fetus a human being, with unique and unrepeatable DNA, from the moment of conception?
I pray that this person, and many others similarly deluded by our cultural milieu, will have the veil lifted from their (human) eyes, and know and admit the answer to this question. Only then will the tragedy of legalized abortion end.
Prolifers and Prochoicers are so polarized from one another that prochoicers can’t see the reality that only true prolifers are true prochoicers…!!! Go Father Spitzer…!!!
Please!!!!!!This is a RESPECT LIFE issue!!!!!Not a PRO-LIFE or PRO-CHOICE issue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Linus Francis.
There is no mention of the Death Penalty in the article. We need to continue building bridges between Justice and Life.
Linus, I think we must go further and say that it is not just a pro-life/choice nor a respect life issue, but a CHOOSE LIFE issue! See, pro-aborts would claim to respect the life of the mother. Remember that chant some of them shouted to disrupt a pro-life gathering in Washington last month? I think they were yelling: “Pro-life, that’s a lie! You don’t care when women die!” In this chant they try to impress as if they are actually pro-life (of the mother) and her choice to live. The chant creates a poor, extreme and misleading caricature of the pro-abortion position as being “more” benign. But in reality, they are justifying their stance for choose death, the death of the defenseless and vulnerable unborn child. So, it is a CHOOSE LIFE issue because we want both mother and child to live, that everyone choose life instead of death. Even in extremely rare cases in which the mother or child may die in a life-saving medical process, the ethical option is to choose life and save both of them and never directly want the harm or death of either one. So, to choose to respect all human life does care “when women die”, but also worries when women kill!
In reference to Linus’s comment, I think we must go further and say that it is not just a pro-life/choice nor a respect life issue, but a CHOOSE LIFE issue! See, pro-aborts would claim to respect the life of the mother. Remember that chant some of them shouted to disrupt a pro-life gathering in Washington last month? I think they were yelling: “Pro-life, that’s a lie! You don’t care when women die!” In this chant they try to camouflage the pro-abortion position as being “more” benign because they are actually “pro-life” of the mother and of her choice to live. The chant creates a poor, extreme and misleading caricature of them. But in reality, they are justifying their stance to choose death, the death of the defenseless and vulnerable unborn child. So, it is a CHOOSE LIFE issue because we want both mother and child to live. We want everyone to choose life instead of death. Even in extremely rare cases in which the mother or child may die in a life-saving medical process, the ethical option is to choose life and save both of them and never directly want the harm or death of either one. So, to choose to respect all human life does care “when women die”, but also worries when women- and others involved- kill!
The pro-life movement has a wealth of intelligent and appealing arguments that connect with people’s minds and hearts. Fr. Spitzer’s is one of the best ever. He has a national pro-life organization dedicated to teaching the pro-life curriculum he talks about in this article. It’s called Healing the Culture. They have all kinds of products that can help us spread this amazing pro-life philosophy. The high school curriculum is coming out in May. Make use of this group. Fr. Spitzer rocks!
Tim O’Callaghan: Spitzer talks about the death penalty in his book. Please see <http://www.amazon.com/Ten-Universal-Principles-ebook/dp/B005R9HEC6>.
@Tim O’Callaghan
“There is no mention of the Death Penalty in the article. We need to continue building bridges between Justice and Life.”
As there shouldn’t be because capital punishment is not anything like the issue of abortion. There is NOTHING prolife about ending it, in fact, ending it results in just the opposite and promotes further harming to society and innocent human beings. Ending CP is built on a false assumption, while abortion goes against logic and science.
It’s actually really neat - I found all of Fr. Spitzer’s pro-life material (and other theological works from EWTN) available at that Healing the Culture Site. Thank you, Fr. Spitzer for helping us make the culture of life strong! We need more leaders like that in our society.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.