The Works of God

Titles frequently tip where a writer is heading.  “Common ground” is one of those phrases in a title that frequently signals a writer isn’t ready to make a stand on a principle or value, and that important, even foundational, things are open to negotiation.

But I was delighted to find myself mistaken as I read Dr. Charles Camosy’s article, “Common Ground on Abortion? Engaging Peter Singer on the Moral Status of Potential Persons” in the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy (subscription required to read full article).

Dr. Camosy does what Dr. Manninen refused to do: he defends the proposition that moral status is inherent to a person and NOT dependent on the ability to achieve a certain level of rational thought.

Wow!

Then he goes straight at Peter Singer, one of the leading thinkers on the moral acceptability of killing infants with severe cognitive disabilities AFTER they are born.

Dr. Camosy does so in a generous, open-handed way that leaves me understanding more about Dr. Singer’s argumentation than I have in the past, even after reading Dr. Singer’s own work.  And then Dr. Camosy identifies weaknesses and refutes multiple lines of arguments.  He ends by arguing that using Dr. Singer’s own line of reasoning, Dr. Singer should be against surgical abortion.  Truly, that was unexpected.

In the middle of all that, he dropped a bomb that has left my head spinning for the past five days: the important difference between active and passive potency in the defense of human life.  When I get my own head around it, I will write more.

Though I’m not yet equipped to explain it, I can tell you right now why it is important.

Dr. Camosy uses the argument on active potential to make a case for protecting the lives of those who otherwise cannot achieve personhood under other philosophical definitions:

So, the very reason we extend personhood to the severely mentally disabled is the same reason we should extend it to fetuses and infants: the beings in question all have a natural potential for personhood (emphasis mine). p. 590

That is a massively important argument!  It is a warning shot to all who believe that ‘personhood’ requires the ability to achieve a level of rationality.

Why do I pay so much attention to this?  Isn’t a biblical argument sufficient?

Yes, I believe that God will judge rightly and that he sees all the evil things happening in this present age:  “God is a righteous judge, and a God who feels indignation every day (Psalm 7:11).”  The evil done against our children with disabilities will not stand.

I also believe we need to be ready for the arguments that are building to destroy our disabled children, and our infirm elderly as well.  There are some who argue consistently (and I would add, persuasively) that philosophical arguments on the moral status of those with cognitive disabilities is NOT as settled as some would like to believe.

Yet, the confidence of those who disdain our children with disabilities is growing.  Peter Singer, for example, has achieved a certain media-darling status; there is a reason why this professor of ethics gets to write editorials for the New York Times and the Times of London.  He is influencing culture outside of the academy in ways that would have been unheard of a generation ago.

We need to be ready.