Jon Shields says a lot in a few words. Don’t know why a catchy title didn’t come to me.
For feminists, the puzzle is why “the right to choose” hasn’t experienced the same success as other Civil Rights initiatives. One answer is that people and especially young women can’t help by bond with the foetus or the very obviously unborn baby that today’s technology allows them see and so “feel” in such detail.
For many natural-law Catholics, a puzzle is why their airtight rational argument in defense of the equal rights of the embryo doesn’t experience the same success as other Civil Rights initiatives. The evolutionary answer, of course, is that people don’t bond with the embryo that doesn’t look like them at all. They can’t “feel” the embryo as a who, not a what.
For a Cartesian (feminist), we shouldn’t listen to reasons that might sucker us into chaining one’s own personal liberty to biology.
For an evolutionary psychologist (even Mr. Jefferson), reasons are too weak without the support of moral sentiment.
But we’ve managed to say nothing about our faith in the dignity of every unique and irreplaceable human person.
How reasonable is THAT?
