John Finnis on the Moral Status of the Fetus

Last Friday, John Finnis, whom I and many others consider to be one of the foremost living Catholic intellectuals, debated philosophers Peter Singer and Maggie Little at the Princeton conference Open Hearts, Open Minds and Fair Minded Words (Mirror of Justice‘s own Rick Garnett discussed the constitutionality of legalized abortion on Saturday). My friend, Ryan Anderson, over at Public Discourse has published a revised version of Prof. Finnis’ opening remarks, which are well worth the read. Here are two snippets from the piece (be sure to read the whole thing at Public Discourse):

The thing about moral status is, if you believe in morality at all, that it is not a matter of choice or grant or convention, but of recognition. If you hear anyone talk about conferring or granting moral status, you know they are deeply confused about what morality and moral status are. The very idea of human rights and status is of someone who matters whether we like it or not, and even when no one is thinking about them; and matters, whether we like it or not, as at bottom an equal, because like us in nature as a substantial kind of being.

About the moral status of the fetus, it’s clear, I suggest, beyond doubt, after forty years of intense philosophical discussion, that there’s no credible halfway house between, on the one hand, acknowledging that whether we like it or not the fetus—indeed the embryonic baby from the outset—has the same radical equality of nature that we all have despite myriad differences, and on the other hand joining Peter and Jeffrey in denying two things: (1) denying that the primary question is one of fact—shared nature as beings all having or capable of developing (given only food and protection) rational characteristics and activities, and (2) denying equality or ethical or moral entitlement to rights such as life until some time after birth (and here I think Reiman’s position will prove more stably defensible than Peter’s in making that years after birth; but of course neither of them can limit their denial of human equality to conditions of infancy; the denial extends to various sorts of disablement and decay). And each of them goes wrong from the outset in making “moral status” the fundamental predicate in the discussion, instead of predicates of the form “person,” “rational nature,” “kind of being.”

Notre Dame Law School is very blessed to have both John Finnis and Rick Garnett on board.

7 Responses to John Finnis on the Moral Status of the Fetus

  1. Thanks for posting Finnis’ piece.

    Is there any transcript or summar of the debate, perchance?

  2. […] John Finnis on the Moral Status of the Fetus « The American Catholic. VN:F [1.9.5_1105]please wait…Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)VN:F [1.9.5_1105]Rating: 0 (from 0 […]

  3. Zach says:

    Amen. John Finnis and Rick Garnett are tremendous gifts to the intellectual life of the Church.

  4. Paul D. says:

    This calls to mind Father Neuhaus and his response to Peter Singer whom he dubbed the “Philosopher from Nowhere”. As with most of Father’s work it makes for great reading and is intellectually edifying:

  5. David Jones says:

    Notice how the New Natural Law proponents are some of the best defenders of life, i.e. John Finnis, Robert George, Patrick Lee, William May, Germain Grisez, etc.

    I tend to follow the traditional Thomist perspective on Natural Law, but I recognize the great work that Finnis and others are doing.

    Thank you for alerting us about this event!

  6. […] According to Hart view, there must not be no moral opinion implied in legislative activity. According to John Finnis «the thing about moral status is, if you believe in morality, at all, that is not a […]

%d bloggers like this: