I’ll start with Ross Douthat’s courageous contributions while holding the only pro-life seat on a panel about the Supreme Court’s decision regarding a Roe overturn. His ‘come-backs’ to attacks upon pro-life were straight up. Here’s a section of his published article in the NY Times on the same subject. I got this excerpt from John Fea from over at The Current - https://currentpub.com/2021/12/01/ross-douthat-makes-a-case-against-abortion/. You’ll need to subscribe to the NYT to read the whole piece:
There is no way to seriously deny that abortion is a form of killing. At a less advanced stage of scientific understanding, it was possible to believe that the embryo or fetus was somehow inert or vegetative until so-called quickening, months into pregnancy. But we now know the embryo is not merely a cell with potential, like a sperm or ovum, or a constituent part of human tissue, like a skin cell. Rather, a distinct human organism comes into existence at conception, and every stage of your biological life, from infancy and childhood to middle age and beyond, is part of a single continuous process that began when you were just a zygote.
We know from embryology, in other words, not Scripture or philosophy, that abortion kills a unique member of the species Homo sapiens, an act that in almost every other context is forbidden by the law.
This means that the affirmative case for abortion rights is inherently exceptionalist, demanding a suspension of a principle that prevails in practically every other case. This does not automatically tell against it; exceptions as well as rules are part of law. But it means that there is a burden of proof on the pro-choice side to explain why in this case taking another human life is acceptable, indeed a protected right itself.
Abortion’s premise as violence, killing, means it cannot be some necessary compassionate act, regardless of the conception event. Is he right?
I’ll weigh in. Yes.
Would even God say he’s right? And, yes to that, too.
While it's a different subject, and I can't put words into Douthat's mouth without a slap on the wrist, the similarity of taking a life in capital punishment and abortion does have substance. Similar in intent, that is. We have a higher principle than the life of another person. I see Douthat's remarks countermanding abortion rights has an escape hatch, "practically every other case." The other cases of killing in war, self defense, and capital punishment include two events where there's time to adjudicate the killing — war and capital punishment. Self defense with a lethal outcome quite often involves split second reactions.
So, to your question, I'd say what Pope Francis says about this. Executing a criminal for a capital punishment identified crime may well take the person's life before they've had a chance to repent. He flatly condemns capital punishment, as do I.
War is also condemnable, but just wars still fall under a government's jurisdiction to protect their citizens. Pre-emptive wars? That's quite tricky to justify.
How might the death penalty be understood in these terms?
While it's a different subject, and I can't put words into Douthat's mouth without a slap on the wrist, the similarity of taking a life in capital punishment and abortion does have substance. Similar in intent, that is. We have a higher principle than the life of another person. I see Douthat's remarks countermanding abortion rights has an escape hatch, "practically every other case." The other cases of killing in war, self defense, and capital punishment include two events where there's time to adjudicate the killing — war and capital punishment. Self defense with a lethal outcome quite often involves split second reactions.
So, to your question, I'd say what Pope Francis says about this. Executing a criminal for a capital punishment identified crime may well take the person's life before they've had a chance to repent. He flatly condemns capital punishment, as do I.
War is also condemnable, but just wars still fall under a government's jurisdiction to protect their citizens. Pre-emptive wars? That's quite tricky to justify.