By Dave Andrusko

Wesley Smith's fine analysis of Peter Singer over at Today's News & Views reminds me of how much I still regret that I could not attend a debate held at Princeton which featured bioethicist Peter Singer, Georgetown Philosophy Professor Maggie Little, and John Finnis, one of the preeminent philosophers in the English-speaking world. I would like to add a few words.

Prof. John Finnis

According to the Daily Princetonian, the debate was part of an "Open Hearts, Open Minds and Fair Minded Words" conference sponsored by Princeton University's Center for Human Values. (That's where Singer hangs his hat.) The panel discussion, held October 15, was on "the moral status of the fetus."

"Little said that the fetus's moral status increases gradually as it develops," according to Alaka Halder. "Earlier abortions can be decently -- 'indeed, honorably' -- ended, but later abortions are 'incredibly serious.'"
Singer was his usual self.

He "argued that a fetus, even when it becomes a newborn, lacks the same moral status of an adult," according to Halder. "He later said, 'Our rights over our own bodies are not absolute if the rights of others are affected,'" which, frankly, is inconsistent with everything he has said about unborn babies AND babies born with disabilities.

Fortunately, Prof. Finnis has produced an article adapted from his debate with Singer and Little which can be found at www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/10/1849.

It makes for magnificent reading. Because Prof. Finnis writes so brilliantly and engagingly, let me make just two points. Many of us who've followed Singer's various and outrageous statements over the year were convinced that he was not being entirely candid way back in 1984. In those days (as Finnis writes) Singer said he believed that "the moral status of equality and right to life is to be affirmed (I'm not sure why) a month after birth." I wasn't sure why Singer drew the line there, either.

Sure enough, "In the debate following this presentation, Singer made clear that his 'one month' proposal dates back to 1984 and was intended just as a pragmatic legislative line, and that his basic and present view approximates to [Philosopher Jeffrey] Reiman's"--which is that "the child doesn't acquire the equal moral status of having rights of its own for several years, when it has started to 'consciously care about the continuation of its life.'"

The other is, "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," Finnis writes. "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 (emphasis added)."

Do yourself a big favor. Grab a cup of coffee, sit down on your easy chair, and read Professor Finnis's essay at www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/10/1849.