First Things has a long and implacable commitment to the defense of unborn life and an equally long and implacable resistance to all the philosophies that seek to justify the utilitarian treatment of such life. Here’s a selection of articles, all of the most recent ones and a selection of past articles from the magazine and the “On the Square” section of our website — but only a selection, because we’ve published so much on the subject.
From the magazine:
Richard John Neuhaus’s The End of Abortion and the Meanings of “Christian America”.
Nicholas Windsor’s Caesar’s Thumb.
Joseph Bottum’s The Signpost at the Crossroads.
Russell Hittinger’s Abortion Before Roe.
Richard Stith’s Her Choice, Her Problem.
Frederica Mathewes-Green’s Abortion in the Tide of Culture.
Terry Teachout’s Abortion, Set to Music.
Bernard N. Nathanson’s The Abortion Cocktail.
Killing Abortionists: A Symposium.
From On the Square:
Eve Tushnet’s Grotesquerie and Grief: Abortion in Horror Media.
Joseph W. Dellapenna’s Recycling the Myths of Abortion History.
Ryan T. Anderson’s Parsing Abortion Statistics and the Law.
Elizabeth Powers’ Slavery and Abortion.
January 24th, 2011 | 2:02 pm
I think I see a trend here. Has First Things ever seriously considered publishing an essay critical of the pro-life position? It’d be interesting to hear if the editors thought there were an such essays worthy of their discerning audience.
January 24th, 2011 | 2:07 pm
It’d be interesting to hear if the editors thought there were an such essays worthy of their discerning audience.
Has FT ever seriously considered publishing an essay critical of protecting human life? No, we haven’t. And I would not wish to work here any longer if that was even considered.
January 24th, 2011 | 2:19 pm
As Joe says, no, we haven’t. Such articles are in the same category as, say, arguments in favor of chattel slavery. They start from a position we completely reject.
The only difference is that abortion has so much support and has become so “normal” that most people, even many moral conservatives, don’t think of them as equivalent commitments. So slavery is absolutely bad, but abortion is, well, you know, it’s a complex issue, etc.
But if you begin at first things, one looks a lot like the other.
January 24th, 2011 | 3:46 pm
[...] III: Vermont “Assisted Suicide Bill” the usual Loophole ScamFirst Things: An In-House Round-upTony Rossi: Looking at pro-lifers Patricia Heaton and Mother Agnes Mary DonovanSome reading [...]
January 24th, 2011 | 6:30 pm
Like Joe and David, I think an essay “critical of the pro-life position” would be nonsensical. But I’m no editor.
What I would like to see, however, are good discussions about different pro-life tactics. People like Steve Schneck at Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good are pro-life but place abortion in the context of all Catholic social teaching. Reversing Roe is not the first thing on their to-do list. Rather, they believe that promoting the essential conditions for a culture of life will create the possibility of overturning Roe.
January 24th, 2011 | 6:30 pm
Richard Stith published another article on the website which had a deep impact on my thinking; however, I can’t remember the title! But it was about the difference between the “construction” and “development” views of the embryo, using the analogies of “constructing” a car vs. “developing” a Polaroid shot. It was one of the best arguments against abortion I’ve ever seen. Anyone help me out?
January 24th, 2011 | 10:15 pm
David Mills,
You reply that essays critical of the pro-life position “start from a position we completely reject.” I’d like you to specify what you think that starting point is, as I wonder if it is not rather the conclusions of the arguments that you dislike. Criticisms of the pro-life are many and diverse; it’s not as if they all rely on utilitarianism, atheism, moral subjectivism, or even a particularly weak view of human dignity or rights.
Joe Carter,
Your rephrasing of my question exemplifies a style of rhetoric that obstructs honest and thoughtful discussion. Aren’t there too many such obstacles already? What say we aim for a fair-minded interchange.
January 24th, 2011 | 10:25 pm
Your rephrasing of my question exemplifies a style of rhetoric that obstructs honest and thoughtful discussion.
How does it obstruct honest and thoughtful discussion? The pro-life position is that human life is deserving of protection. Was there something dishonest about framing the question so that it was accurate?
Also, how can there be an “honest and thoughtful” discussion when abortion rights advocates adamantly refuse to be honest about the basic facts under discussion. Advocating for abortion rights is claiming that there are certain circumstances when it is legitimate to kill a human being in the earliest stage of development. That is, after all, the crux of debate. The abortion rights crowd may believe they have good arguments for their position, but they should at least be honest about what they are arguing for. If anyone wants to start by admitting that essential fact then I’ll be glad to give them an honest hearing.
January 24th, 2011 | 10:52 pm
Mr. Carter,
You again deploy the style of counterproductive rhetoric. Do you really suppose that the “pro-life position” is merely that “human life is deserving of protection”? Is that how you describe what’s so controversial about the position? If so, then you are obviously giving the phrase “protecting human life” a very particular interpretation. The fair-minded thing to do would be to spell out that particular interpretation in a way that indicates what it is that reasonable people might find controversial about it. To baldly characterize your opponents as simply “critical of protecting human life,” is the path of polemical rhetoric, useful in inciting passions and outrage, but counterproductive in all other ways.
Or, do you really insist that there is no room for reasonable disagreement regarding the moral status of a human zygote? And do you really insist people cannot reasonably disagree with the political agenda that characterizes the pro-life movement?
January 24th, 2011 | 11:42 pm
Dear Joe Carter: You wrote, “Advocating for abortion rights is claiming that there are certain circumstances when it is legitimate to kill a human being in the earliest stage of development. That is, after all, the crux of debate. The abortion rights crowd may believe they have good arguments for their position, but they should at least be honest about what they are arguing for. If anyone wants to start by admitting that essential fact then I’ll be glad to give them an honest hearing.”
The most famous argument I know of which begins by acknowledging this is Judith Jarvis Thomson’s famous essay in defense of abortion. However, (1) she is the only one I know of and (2) Francis Beckwith already has written a book-length response. So I agree that there is no necessity to re-publish the piece.
Further, ENGAGING pro-choice arguments honestly and fairly certainly does not require a journal to PUBLISH those arguments. FT is a pro-life journal. It shouldn’t publish pro-choice pieces, any more than the Democratic National Convention is going to have a pro-life speaker.
January 24th, 2011 | 11:48 pm
Dear Joe Carter: In case the above comment wasn’t very clear, I was agreeing with you. Just pointing out the one pro-abortion piece I know of in which the author does begin by acknowledging the embryo as a human being.
January 25th, 2011 | 9:32 am
Seems the operative question among the commenters is why those of us who are anti-abortion may have difficulty engaging reasonable people who are pro-abortion in some sort of dialog or debate, which would be published in a medium like First Things.
It all revolves around the meaning of “reasonable.”
The chasm between the “first things” as understood by anti-abortion people and “first things” understood by pro-abortion people (however “reasonable”) is approximately equal to the chasm between heaven and hell. (Cf C S Lewis, “The Great Divorce.”)
January 25th, 2011 | 10:23 am
Craig,
The Democratic National Convention has in fact had pro-life speakers, most celebratedly, Bob Casey, Jr. The Democrats for Life are active, though battered of late. Still, the space for pro-life Democrats has grown since the 1980s.
—
Erhlich,
There certainly is room for “reasonable disagreement regarding the moral status of a human zygote,” but such conversation is not especially interesting among people for whom the question of the beginning of life is settled, and no fresh, interesting arguments have been forwarded. I count myself in that group. Life begins at conception, and God requires Christians to protect that life. Abortion at any stage and for whatever reason is a kind of murder.
Far more open to debate is your second question concerning the political agenda of the pro-life movement. In general, the people editing, writing, and commenting on First Things regard such organizations as Democrats for Life or Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good as insincere, compromised, or worse. Because of this lack of engagement with other serious thinkers, the journal impoverishes itself.
January 25th, 2011 | 11:20 am
Michael,
I entirely agree with you that “life begins at conception.” I also suspect that arguments that presuppose the denial of such a plausible claim are not worthy of publication–anywhere. You seem to suggest, however, that arguments critical of the pro-life position all somehow deny that life begins at conception. But even if we all affirm that human life begins at conception, surely there is plenty of room for reasonable disagreement as to whether aborting a human zygote is, morally speaking, like killing one’s 12-year old child. Don’t you agree? If not, then why do you feel compelled to think otherwise?
I’d still like to hear David Mills specify the putative starting point that the First Things editors reject.
January 25th, 2011 | 1:05 pm
Is killing your 12 year old, morally speaking, like killing your 6 week old child? Is it like killing your 96 year old grandparent?
I believe that you will need to prepare yourself for an a prior position here that is not compelled to reavaluate the sanctity of life, morally speaking, by use of the term zygote.
January 25th, 2011 | 1:17 pm
DBP,
I want to refer to the human zygote. What term would you prefer I use? Would it be better if I referred to the zygote as a fertilized female egg cell; or “the cell formed by the union of two gametes”? We could even speak of the individual human life form constituted by such a cell. Does this help your case?
January 25th, 2011 | 1:55 pm
C. Ehrlich,
I expect that you may use any of the terms you have referenced. I’m simply suggesting that each will be understood by the editors here, morally speaking, as synonymous with a human person, irrespective of age.
For what it’s worth from someone NOT an editor at First Things, I, morally speaking, concur.
January 25th, 2011 | 2:21 pm
Please understand, I am not criticizing First Things for endorsing a particular side of the debate and presenting only essays that support that point of view. It is perfectly fine for a publication to play an advocacy role. What’s bad is when people misinterpret such a publication as instead aiming for a fair-minded and honest presentation of the issues. It’s particularly bad when, in assuming the advocacy role, the editors themselves actually begin to think that there is no room for reasonable disagreement regarding the position for which they advocate, or that they are forced by high intellectual standards to publish essays from only one side of the debate, or that all who disagree do so because of some unacceptable starting point. David Mills and Joe Carter appear to be making these errors.
DBP, the particular understanding you suggest is more appropriate as the conclusion of an argument, rather than a starting point. Or do you rule out, from the onset, any room for reasonable disagreement? If so, why?
January 25th, 2011 | 2:52 pm
“But even if we all affirm that human life begins at conception, surely there is plenty of room for reasonable disagreement as to whether aborting a human zygote is, morally speaking, like killing one’s 12-year old child.”
I really can’t find any room for disagreement over whether killing a human zygote is different from killing a 12 year old *in any way that matters if human life deserves legal protection.” Where is the wiggle room in the words “human” or “deserves protection?”
As others have said, the issues are settled in the minds of the editors of FT.
1) Human life (as such) deserves protection.
2) Human life begins at conception and continues until biological death.
3) Morally speaking, human beings are not free to determine that some classes of humans as defined by #2 are not covered by #1. To find any class excepted from either principle would be to contradict both.
To deny or quibble over any of the above three is a denial of the editorial principles of FT, as I (a mere reader of the website) understand them. Given that, what does that leave to “discuss?”
January 25th, 2011 | 4:37 pm
If human life does not begin at conception, then when does it begin, and why?
To say that it begins at birth is a lie. We do not ourselves believe it. We do not apply this standard to “wanted” babies. We do not think it is a harmless act when someone kills a fetus that is “wanted”. We do not believe that there is morally no difference between destroying an egg in a fertility clinic vs. destroying a fetus in a woman’s stomach.
It can’t be a political decision. It has to be a biological distinction, and it has to be real, and it has to be such that all biologically identical organisms are classed the same way – you can’t have two biologically identical organisms where one has rights and status and the other does not.
There’s an article at the Washington Times by a Robert Knight called “When Science Goes Mad”, that discusses looking backward and trying to figure out how the Holocaust could have happened.
The article suggested to me that the problem is at least related to the lack of boundaries.
If it’s okay to kill defective babies, why not defective adults? If it’s okay to kill defective adults, why not defective races?
I don’t know if it happened this way in real life, but the problem I’m seeing is that there’s no logical answer to “where does it end?”
There is no “line”, there is only personal judgment.
Either life is sacred or it’s not. Thank God for all the people who have pushed back against Roe vs. Wade, because obviously there are people out there who would expand Roe vs. Wade – and why not? What makes one person worth more than another?
And according to whose beliefs, anyway?
January 25th, 2011 | 10:38 pm
Pentamom, I appreciate your candor.
To the editors of First Things: take note of the comments here. Supposing that Pentamom (not to mention Blake) is somewhat representative of your readership, might these comments not serve as an incentive to occasionally expose your audience to reasonable arguments critical of the pro-life position–if for no other reason than to assist them in formulating positions that are less vulnerable to easy defeat?
January 26th, 2011 | 5:33 am
C Ehrlich, thank you for your condescending correction. Generally, when labeling another person as ignorant, it’s nice to explain why.
So. Please. In what ways are my positions vulnerable to easy defeat?
January 26th, 2011 | 8:25 am
Dear C. Ehrlich: Your concern for our intellectual well-being is touching. And I am sure you are also encouraging journals such as The Nation to publish articles by Robert George, Francis Beckwith, and so on?
January 27th, 2011 | 11:35 am
My goal here is not to correct the lopsided understandings of First Things readers myself; it is rather to encourage the editors to think about this problem–a problem which they are not only responsible for, but are also in a good position to address.
As for the idea that George and Beckwith are not getting an appropriate share of attention, this could not be further from the truth. The realm of their influence–even among those who fundamentally disagree with them–far outstrips anything they have to offer in terms of sound or compelling argumentation. That they do get such a broad hearing probably reflects the fact that they are among the best of a class which– although socially and politically influential (and for this reason worthy of attention)–is not really known for its contributions to reasonable, thoughtful, and well-informed discourse.
January 27th, 2011 | 12:29 pm
C. Ehrlich — tactical blunder. I gave you an opening to pretend to think that I was making a confession of ignorance, not a confident statement of the absence of something. I should know by now that any statement that can be read without good faith, will be.
I can’t find any room for finding a morally significant distinction between killing a 12-day old human and a 12-year-old human for the same reason I can’t find any room for a whale in my dresser drawer — there is no room. It’s not because pro-choice moralists haven’t tried, or because I haven’t grasped their arguments. It’s because their arguments are not coherent in light of facts + fundamental moral assumptions.
January 27th, 2011 | 12:55 pm
Pentamom, with all due respect, my argument is not with you. The observation of interest is only the fact that you “can’t find any room” for reasonable disagreement about these issues. Whether you happen to be proud of or humbled by this inability is largely beside the point.
January 27th, 2011 | 2:07 pm
C Ehrlich, I am capable of constructing a perfectly sound argument as to why children should be used as slave labor in third world countries.
It’s efficient. It’s rational. It can be justified using the language of “comparative advantage” (I know, because I have seen it done). And so on.
But that doesn’t mean I will ever seriously put forth that argument, because I start from certain basic assumptions, and these basic assumptions lead me to believe that using children as slave labor is an evil thing to do.
I invite you again to go ahead and explain why you think I and other pro-life types are so ignorant, just on the off chance that you really do have an argument that actually needs to be addressed.
If, on the other hand, it is merely self-evident to you that a fetus is a dehumanized thing – that your own perception is adequate to tell you which human lives are valuable and which ones are just obviously not worth preserving – then there can be no argument.
January 27th, 2011 | 8:36 pm
“As for the idea that George and Beckwith are not getting an appropriate share of attention, this could not be further from the truth. The realm of their influence–even among those who fundamentally disagree with them–far outstrips anything they have to offer in terms of sound or compelling argumentation. That they do get such a broad hearing probably reflects the fact that they are among the best of a class which– although socially and politically influential (and for this reason worthy of attention)–is not really known for its contributions to reasonable, thoughtful, and well-informed discourse.”
Good God. To think I used to have some respect for your posts.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact