This was originally written very badly and in the wrong spirit. I beg the reader’s forgiveness. It is now better but still imperfect.
Charles C. Camosy1 is a bioethicist—Yours Truly is also one of these creatures (self certified)—and Assistant Professor of Christian Ethics at the (officially certified) Catholic Fordham University. In the on-line journal Catholic Moral Theology, Camosy penned the article “From the Honest Question File: Could a Prenatal Child be a ‘Innocent Aggressor’?”
What is an “innocent aggressor”? Camosy says there are at least three kinds: (1) the insane and mentally ravaged, (2) those who act in ignorance, and (3) those who are not yet fully rational, i.e. children. To these he would add a fourth: the lives growing inside females who, somehow, commit violence against their carriers. (Notice the unemotional, baggage-free language? This is something good bioethicists do.)
The propriety of knocking “innocent aggressors” on the head? Camosy says, “Both the [Catholic] tradition (and common sense) seems to answer in the affirmative.” Seems. Few would quarrel with your right to plug the maniac charging at you with a meat hook, most of us would forgive the soldier who accidentally shot the wrong fellow, and the horror of a child co-opted as mercenary is agreed to by all.
But how except by an appalling abuse of language could an unborn life be considered an “aggressor”? It is true in rare cases unborn lives cause damage to the health of their carriers, but to say these are acts of aggression is like non-metaphorically claiming bacteria are belligerent or that a viral infection is a blitzkrieg.
Willful Behavior
In Camosy’s paradigmatic examples there is always a violent act of will. Now an unborn life wills some (meager enough) things, but it never has the comprehension or willful desire that its actions harm its carrier. Thus it is impossible an unborn life can be an aggressor, innocent or otherwise. (Camosy shows he does not appreciate this point in answer to comments on the CMT site.)
A more apt analogy is a child on a lifeboat lost at sea, its occupants ravenous and whose only hope of survival, they convince themselves, is to throw the child overboard to stretch provisions. Yet it is only a guess the passengers will die if the child isn’t murdered—a ship or an island may unpredictably appear. So too it is a crude guess that the carrier will die unless the unborn life is killed. Doctors are far from infallible prognosticators. But suppose their predictions were perfect, and that it is certain harm will come to the carrier or that the carrier will be killed.
When To Kill?
If it is certain harm will come to the carrier because of the unborn life, should that unborn life be killed? The harm the unborn life causes is inadvertent and unwilled; therefore the unborn life is blameless. To kill the blameless (and defenseless, etc.) is murder, therefore to kill the unborn life to spare its carrier grief is murder.
Recall certainty about death of the carrier will be rare or nonexistent, and in many cases prognoses will be absurd (“She’s a suicide risk”), but here we suppose good will. There are three cases: (A) killing the unborn life preserves the life of its carrier who would otherwise die, or (B) allowing the unborn life to live which causes the death of its carrier but where the unborn life becomes a born life, and (C) where the unborn life, in causing the death of its carrier, dies with it.
In (A) we saved the carrier but killed an innocent life, which is murder. (B) is tragic, yet no sin is committed. (C) appears to be a problem. But if killing the unborn life saves the carrier, we are in (A). And if allowing the unborn life to live knowing the carrier will die, we are in (B). Thus there is no (C), except in the sense that the evidence might say (depressingly but unconditionally) that both the unborn life and its carrier will die no matter what.
These cases are different than scenarios with uncertainty, wherein a doctor proposes a procedure to alleviate danger or to cure, but where the procedure is risky or where it goes awry and the unborn life, the carrier, or both suffer or die. Here the intent is not to kill.
Some will say that killing the unborn innocent is not murder because one can only murder human beings. But this begs the question when the unborn life becomes human. What explicit, exact, rigorous event takes the unborn life and transforms it into a human life? The scientific, natural law answer is conception: human life is created when boy meets girl, so to speak. To say this life is just a “bunch of cells” can be said of Yours Truly. What makes the “bunch of cells” human? Various alternate answers have been proposed, all of them disquieting, and all, eventually, bloody.
Politics Finally
Camosy is anxious that his term be accepted because it would justify the killing of unborn lives, which is desirable politically because many “support direct abortion to save the life of the mother.”
If the Church’s position can once again be marginalized as “anti-woman” because it will not permit direct abortion to save the life of the mother…we will be sitting on the sidelines of the debate. Our ability to participate in an American political debate is not, of course, a good reason to change or reject certain tenents of Catholic moral theology. It is, however, a good reason for American Catholics to revisit some ideas that have been largely unexplored, and perhaps prematurely shut down.
Only a fool accepts the label applied to him by his opponent, a frequent unforced error. And just as often the Church’s position has been made with fists of ham. This is too bad, but does not imply we abandon truth for the sake of votes.
Abortion is anti-woman. It is women denying their sex and its consequences. It is anti-men, too, and for the same reason. One’s sex cannot be evaded or escaped. This is Tough Luck for those ever-increasing numbers who wish to. But life cannot be made fair by killing or by calling what is not what is.
Now it’s difficult for people to keep separate the morality of killing unborn lives with the consequences faced by those who commit such acts supposing they were deemed immoral (and unlawful, which is not equivalent). If the act is immoral it is absurd to complain of its sanitary conditions. This is like a serial killer who knifed his victims arguing he should be set free because he couldn’t afford poison, which would have made his spree more efficacious and less bloody.
It is also clear that murder is punished differently depending on the circumstances. We weep little when hearing of one mobster rubbing out another, but are outraged when a child is murdered by a lunatic. Circumstances are dramatically different for an unborn life at conception and for one which is just about to escape into the wild naturally. What the best and punishment is in these cases is a discussion for another day.
———————————————————————————
1Camosy is also author of Too Expensive to Treat?—Finitude, Tragedy, and the Neonatal ICU, Peter Singer and Christian Ethics: Beyond Polarization, “Common Ground on Surgical Abortion?—Engaging Peter Singer on the Moral Status of Potential Persons”, “La périnatalité au regard de la qualité de vie et des considérations économiques.”
The Unification church was conceived as a way to unify religions–as a way to all get along. All that happened was they ended up almost universally despised.
If you want a church were you can “get along”, try the Unitarians. They have no rules, no doctrine–believe what you like.
I am always amazed at how Catholics in particular (no offense–just an observation) want the church to change so they can keep the Catholic label. What is it that prevents these individuals from just leaving? If you don’t like the message, fine, go elsewhere.
As for the argument presented, it is interesting that a “lump of flesh” suddenly becomes an aggressor. I will also rudely point out that the risks associated with sex are well know. If you engage in sex, you agree to the risks. Trying to weasel out later is just an admission you want to shirk personal responsibility. (Let’s leave rape out of this for now–far too complicated a subject and not really part of this thread, unless, of course, someone wants to argue the lump of flesh is demon spawn and should be annihilated as such.)
It is worth pointing out a few things here:
1. It would help if you had actually read the post he wrote. Camosy never “argued” anything. He proposed a topic for discussion that is currently an open question in Catholic teaching. There is an interesting discussion in the comments section in which theologians of all kinds are exploring the topic. Instead of lobbing grenades, you would do well to join the discussion.
2. Again, if you had actually read Camosy, you would know that he is a strong pro-lifer who believes that the fetus is a person and deserves protection of the law. His question in the post you cite is merely about the rare cases when a baby threatens the mother’s life. Attempts to make this about abortion more broadly are straw men.
3. It is a bad, bad mistake to describe his work as “can’t we all just get along?” If you had actually read any of his work you would realize that he doesn’t shy away from arguments–but instead tries to find a way for them to actually take place. It is a rare thing for an actual argument to break out, not least because the discourse is dominated by participants like you…by people who would prefer to caricature and score rhetorical points rather than engage actual positions and arguments.
Dennis,
1. It won’t wash. He wrote his argument as a courtier would: all his “questions” (and there are a string of them) have implied answers.
2. He is “strong” except in some cases; it is those cases we are discussing, and where he is wrong. “Innocent aggressor” forsooth. I notice you forgot to mention the counterarguments to this point.
3. His theme is certainly getting along. It’s well enough to point out areas of agreement and to allow all sides to have their say, but it’s wrong to imply that if we just sat down and had a cup of tea and a good chat over matters of fundamentals that we’ll all come to an accord, because, as pointed out, when somebody calls for a dialogue over truth he is always trying to convince somebody that the truth should be abandoned or weakened.
1. At least where there is documented evidence (which you have failed to read), your attempt to discern Camosy’s motives has been 100% mistaken so far. Neither of us know whether his attempt to answer ask this important question is genuine, but your answers to the “guess what’s in his head” questions have all been wrong to this point. Maybe its time to reevaluate your assumptions.
2. “Except in some cases” is totally misleading. If you read him, you’d know that he is against abortion choice in 99% of cases.
3. This kind of nonsense can only have two sources: (1) your being ignorant about what he actually argues, or (2) your desire to knock over a straw man because it fits your predetermined narrative and absolves you of struggling with a complex point of view. (Or is it both 1 and 2?) Camosy’s theme is absolutely not about “getting along”…and his methodology, again, is all about actually having arguments.
If you haven’t read him, stop making these embarrassingly mistaken assertions. All they do is undermine your credibility.
From the time of conception the child’s body is alive as shown by the fact it is growing. One of the earliest advocate of the unborn
was Tertullian (sometimes called “the father of Latin Christianity”) 1n 197 C.E.
“In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed” (Apology 9:8).
In 1995 Pope John Paul II declared that this position is unchanged and unchangeable”. It sounds reasonable enough to me. No further groping for a middle grund is necessary. Having said that however, I still defend the right of the woman to choose while I hope and pray that she chooses life and at the same time I feel that society must do more to fulfill its responability to continuously attempt to lessen the desire for the abortion option.
“The scientific, natural law answer is conception: human life is created when boy meets girl, so to speak. To say this life isn’t human and that it’s just a “bunch of cells†can be said of Yours Truly, too. What makes the “bunch of cells†human?”
That’s a complicated question. Consider this case of identical twins. This occurs when a fertilized balls of cells splits into two before implantation, so both twins originate from the same conception. And yet, they are clearly two different people. Or the even rarer case of chimeras, where two fertilized balls of cells from two separate conceptions merge and develop into a normal-looking single person. Or are they actually two people, there being two conceptions?
(And I’d love to hear the Catholic view of the Virgin Birth with regard to this issue! At what point did Jesus become a human, if there were no sperm to meet the egg?)
The natural world does not have any nice sharp boundaries to fit our human way of thinking, and it is, when you get right down to it, far bloodier than we have been for a very long time. That’s how the creator made it, assuming you believe in a creator. Probably 50-70% the fertilized eggs never result in pregnancy – they don’t implant, or miscarry. You could call them ‘God’s little abortions’.
It’s the same thing happening, but without any human responsibility for it. It’s an interesting question why the rest of God’s creation should be blameless. If it’s the awareness of sin that makes it a sin, what if you don’t regard it as a sin? Vegetarians say ‘meat is murder’ – what if they’re right?
But anyway, I’m not sure that the theological sin is actually murder as such – the Old Testament God did not apparently have anything against killing infants and children under the right circumstances. The issue, as with most of the injunctions around sexual behavior, is procreation. The sin is in having sex without the opportunity to procreate. That’s why sodomy, masturbation, and contraception of all forms are regarded as sins.
If you use a condom, there is no conception, and hence by your definition no murder. And yet it is still a sin! The sin is not to have children, and therefore it doesn’t matter what date you set the dividing line: coitus, conception, implantation, brain formation, or viability outside the womb. The only excuse for termination there can be is if there is no chance of a live birth anyway. On the grounds that you cannot prevent what is impossible.
But what makes a bunch of cells “human”? Is an arm or a leg “human”? A kidney? Blood? Do bodily growths you want the surgeon to remove, whether to save a life or out of simple vanity, have human rights? They’re “just a bunch of cells”. But they’re human cells, and with cloning technology they could even become a whole one. (And another interesting case with no ‘boy-meets-girl conception’ to speak of.)
When you hear someone reject “dialogue” on a matter of dogma or truth, it always means they are claiming infallibility – they know the absolute truth already, their world is comfortable and settled, and they do not want to hear anything said that could disturb it.
They might be right, but we’d never know for sure.
Why would you call eggs that don’t implant or miscarry “God’s little abortions”? Are you saying God actively kills the fertilized eggs? Or that he fails to prevent it’s death? I don’t understand the use of the term. Do you call all deaths “God’s little homicides?”
Nullius:
“Probably 50-70% the fertilized eggs never result in pregnancy – they don’t implant, or miscarry. You could call them ‘God’s little abortions’.”
Approximately 100% of lives end in death. Is murder therefore acceptable?
“It’s the same thing happening, but without any human responsibility for it. It’s an interesting question why the rest of God’s creation should be blameless. If it’s the awareness of sin that makes it a sin, what if you don’t regard it as a sin?”
It’s a sin because the agent committing it has free will, and can freely choose to commit or refrain from doing a sinful act.
“If you use a condom, there is no conception, and hence by your definition no murder. And yet it is still a sin!”
Yeah, because other things aside from murder are sinful. What’s your point?
“But what makes a bunch of cells “humanâ€? Is an arm or a leg “humanâ€? A kidney? Blood? Do bodily growths you want the surgeon to remove, whether to save a life or out of simple vanity, have human rights? They’re “just a bunch of cellsâ€. But they’re human cells, and with cloning technology they could even become a whole one. (And another interesting case with no ‘boy-meets-girl conception’ to speak of.)”
A foetus isn’t “just a bunch of cells”, it’s a human being in its earliest stages of development. If you leave a foetus alone, it will be born and become a baby; if you leave a limb alone, it won’t.
Dennis,
Still no attempt at a counter-argument yet. I’ll wait.
Dennis,
Whenever I read comment such as, “If you read him, you’d know that he is against abortion choice in 99% of cases,” I let the writer know that Karl Marx was arguably right 95% of the time. But that 5% was a real doozy.
This is why i dislike leftists. They always seem to want to murder children.
The Churches position – and everyone’s – has been marginalized since Roe.
“Approximately 100% of lives end in death. Is murder therefore acceptable?”
The question wasn’t whether murder is acceptable/moral, but whether death by Act of God is.
“It’s a sin because the agent committing it has free will, and can freely choose to commit or refrain from doing a sinful act.”
The point of the question was that the person doesn’t consider it a sinful act. Their free will doesn’t have that information.
“Yeah, because other things aside from murder are sinful. What’s your point?”
The point is that theologically speaking it is any form of contraception that is sinful, and therefore these are all distinctions without meaning.
“If you leave a foetus alone, it will be born and become a baby;”
Only in conjunction with a womb. And only if it implants, and is fed via a placenta, and lots of other things are done to it. Plus, in vitro fertilization has to be covered too.
And the same is true of an egg and a bunch of sperm. Or even a boy and a girl. If you leave them alone, they too will ‘become a baby’.
Jim: worst. argument. ever.
Did you just seriously equate nearly every single person in the pro-life movement to Stalin?
Dennis,
What?!? Did I miss something? Is “Stalin” somehow encrypted in the underlying HTML of my post — maybe a hidden font?
The point — which you obviously missed — is that everyone is right at least some of the time. And most people are right most of the time.
Your claim of 99% pure fails — it does not justify the 1%. That must be justified alone, absent the 99%.
Note: And what about the references to the pro-life movement? Can you enumerate the logical fallacies in your reply?
You could call them ‘God’s little abortions’.
Not if you use language precisely rather than demagogically.
+++
If it’s the awareness of sin that makes it a sin, what if you don’t regard it as a sin?
Then you are an ‘innocent aggressor’ and we can kill you?
Genuine ignorance indeed mitigates guilt. A drunkard who kills is less culpable than one who does so in cold blood. But it is also accessible to natural reason that certain acts are seriously disordered, and the plea that you don’t regard rape as sinful, or you don’t regard theft as sinful, or… These things can easily take on the coloring of special pleading and personal interest.
++++
If you use a condom, there is no conception, and hence by your definition no murder. And yet it is still a sin!
Sin is defectus boni, a ‘deficiency in a good.’ It is not specifically a transgressive act, although the concrete act may itself be sinful. But since there are many goods — material as well as moral — there are many different ways in which something may be sinful.
The sin is not to have children
No, it is not. You obviously have a deep misunderstanding of this issue.
++++
But what makes a bunch of cells “humanâ€? Is an arm or a leg “humanâ€? A kidney? Blood? Do bodily growths you want the surgeon to remove, whether to save a life or out of simple vanity, have human rights? They’re “just a bunch of cellsâ€.
Simple: a living substance (i.e. a union of matter and form) of a rational nature. In particular, it contains within itself the principle of its own actualization. A kidney will not in the common course of nature develop on its own into your next door neighbor. For those who have forgotten that Aristotle came up with it long ago, the modern terms are ‘self-organizing systems’ and ’emergent properties.’
The question of artifact and violent motion is a separate issue. Technologists have actually built mechanical cockroaches — the world presumably suffering a shortage of cockroaches — but no one supposes that the artifact is the real thing. Your faith that Real Soon Now we can use artifice to grow a kidney into a human being is surely a bigger leap of faith than most. Be sure to let me know when it happens.
“Then you are an ‘innocent aggressor’ and we can kill you?”
It seemed to me that Camosy was confusing the reason for self defense being limited to “unjust aggressors”. The point is not to say that you should not kill an innocent, but that it’s also a crime to resist those imposing justice upon you. If somebody attacks you to save their own or somebody else’s life, attacking them back is not self-defense.
“No, it is not. You obviously have a deep misunderstanding of this issue.”
Then educate me. That’s what I’m here for.
” In particular, it contains within itself the principle of its own actualization.”
Without the womb?
Surely it is only the mother and child in combination that embody a generative principle.
“Your faith that Real Soon Now we can use artifice to grow a kidney into a human being is surely a bigger leap of faith than most. Be sure to let me know when it happens.”
We already did it with sheep. (And many other animals, by now.) The only reason we haven’t tried it with humans is fear of messing it up.
I’m confused why people think that a child is somehow less than fully human or maybe not human at all because they have dependencies for survival and development. Are we all less than fully human because we can’t get by without this planet?
Nullius:
“The question wasn’t whether murder is acceptable/moral, but whether death by Act of God is.”
First of all, it’s not entirely clear what you’re accusing God of doing here: are you arguing from an occasionalist point of view whereby everything that happens is due to direct divine intervention (so God specifically causes each and every miscarriage), or are you simply saying that God isn’t intervening to stop them?
Secondly, given that abortion isn’t an act of God, it’s not really clear why this issue is relevant in the first place.
“The point of the question was that the person doesn’t consider it a sinful act. Their free will doesn’t have that information.”
A sin is still a sin, even if the guilt is mitigated somewhat by ignorance. On the other hand, it is as YOS said possible to conclude thro’ reason alone that abortion is immoral, so ignorance on the matter is still culpable.
“The point is that theologically speaking it is any form of contraception that is sinful, and therefore these are all distinctions without meaning.”
What is being meaninglessly distinguished here exactly?
“Only in conjunction with a womb. And only if it implants, and is fed via a placenta, and lots of other things are done to it.”
“Leave it alone” =/= “suspend it in an empty void without anything else around it”. Given that in the natural course of things a foetus only ever comes into being in a womb, “leave it alone” here = “leave it in the womb”. And unless something interferes with the foetus while it’s in the womb — an abortionist, say, or a miscarriage-inducing disease or whatever — the foetus will in fact develop into a baby.
“are you arguing from an occasionalist point of view whereby everything that happens is due to direct divine intervention (so God specifically causes each and every miscarriage), or are you simply saying that God isn’t intervening to stop them?”
I think that theists would all say that God invented the mechanism.
But the common belief used to be that God intervened in each conception. How far towards Deism do you go?
“A sin is still a sin, even if the guilt is mitigated somewhat by ignorance.”
Quite so. Which was my original point – if natural processes have identical features and consequences to sinful ones, then does it matter that they happen without human intervention? Is sin a property of the actor, or of the act? If of the actor then ignorance or disbelief may be an excuse – but we approach a dangerous relativism here. If of the act, then God’s creation often does the same thing.
“Secondly, given that abortion isn’t an act of God, …”
Miscarriage arguably is.
“On the other hand, it is as YOS said possible to conclude thro’ reason alone that abortion is immoral…”
Is it? A lot of people would argue with that.
As an example of the sort of thing people find difficult to interpret in moral terms, consider Genessis 22. “The fire and the wood are here. But where is the lamb for the burnt offering?” Is it a sin? Could one deduce it?
“Given that in the natural course of things a foetus only ever comes into being in a womb,”
Not quite correct. Fertilization occurs in the fallopian tube, and there are cases where rather than entering the womb, the foetus goes the other way and implants in the body outside the womb – called an ectopic pregnancy. If the foetus is allowed to develop, it will kill both mother and baby. That was one of the cases Camosy was talking about. Is it a sin to abort a foetus if allowing it to stay will result in the mother’s death?
Camosy is arguing that it’s self-defence. Dear Mr Briggs is arguing that you should let the mother die.
“And unless something interferes with the foetus while it’s in the womb — an abortionist, say, or a miscarriage-inducing disease or whatever — the foetus will in fact develop into a baby.”
Not so. Approximately 50-70% of fertilized eggs do not come to term. In many cases the genes get scrambled into a non-viable combination and the cell does not divide or develop properly. Some do not implant properly by mechanical or chemical accident. Anyone who has tried to get pregnant knows it often takes several tries. Sometimes the flaw doesn’t show up until late in the pregnancy, which results in a miscarriage, but it’s rare for a problem to be small enough to allow extensive growth and development but big enough to kill. Most flaws prove fatal early.
Yes, I agree that “leave it alone” is not the same thing as “suspend in the void”. The point is that there isn’t a sharp dividing line here. Nothing is ever isolated – and a foetus in a womb is no less dependent than a foetus in a cloning lab. The real distinction you are making here is what you count as “natural”, versus “artificial” intervention – but I’d argue that’s begging the question. It’s natural for intelligent humans to develop and operate cloning labs. It’s just another sort of human behavior, and human intelligence is entirely natural.
The artificial/natural distinction is, if you’ll excuse me saying so, entirely artificial. It’s just a way of saying “done by humans” or “not done by humans”, as if we were the center of the universe. If you *define* sin as something only humans can do, then of course only humans can do it. But why does it have to be defined that way? A dog that eats his owner’s dinner will afterwards act ‘guilty’, but is he? If not, why not?
Actually, it is possible to argue against abortion without introducing religion or a moral content. I did it in college for a very, very picky philosophy professor. I got an A on the paper, so it must have been fairly persuasive.
Nullius:
“But the common belief used to be that God intervened in each conception. How far towards Deism do you go?”
If you’re referring to the view of Aquinas and people like him, they thought that each person’s soul was implanted by God, not that God personally oversaw the result of each pregnancy (any more than He oversaw everything else).
Anyway, though, this part of the discussion seems to be veering into “Why does God permit evil?” territory, and I’m hesitant to go into detail about that because it doesn’t really seem that closely linked with the OP. I could recommend a few books if you really want to learn more.
“As an example of the sort of thing people find difficult to interpret in moral terms, consider Genessis 22. “The fire and the wood are here. But where is the lamb for the burnt offering?†Is it a sin? Could one deduce it?”
Is human sacrifice a sin, do you mean?
“Not quite correct. Fertilization occurs in the fallopian tube, and there are cases where rather than entering the womb, the foetus goes the other way and implants in the body outside the womb – called an ectopic pregnancy. If the foetus is allowed to develop, it will kill both mother and baby. That was one of the cases Camosy was talking about. Is it a sin to abort a foetus if allowing it to stay will result in the mother’s death[…] Not so. Approximately 50-70% of fertilized eggs do not come to term. In many cases the genes get scrambled into a non-viable combination and the cell does not divide or develop properly. Some do not implant properly by mechanical or chemical accident. Anyone who has tried to get pregnant knows it often takes several tries. Sometimes the flaw doesn’t show up until late in the pregnancy, which results in a miscarriage, but it’s rare for a problem to be small enough to allow extensive growth and development but big enough to kill. Most flaws prove fatal early.”
The foetus not transferring to the womb or a mechanical accident would also count as “something interfering”.
“The real distinction you are making here is what you count as “naturalâ€, versus “artificial†intervention – but I’d argue that’s begging the question.”
I don’t see how. If we grant that (a) it’s wrong to kill people, and (b) a foetus is a person, then abortion is wrong. The fact that foetuses can be harmed by natural processes as well doesn’t matter, anymore than the fact that people can die from natural causes matters to the moral status of murder.
Can you post the original? Your tease makes me want to read it.
why Camosy shouild want to propose a hypothetical that only a Nazi could love is anybody’s guess.It does nothing to enhance the appearant level of ordinary intelligence, let alone academic rigor and ” humanism” at Fordham. I suspect he won’t get tenure.
I’m sorry to say that I went back and read the original Camosy post. Trolling, pure and simple. Nothing has changed since Hippocrates, including hypocrites.
Pingback: Ectopic Pregnancy and the Principle of Double Effect | Vox Nova