Life performing morally good acts.

To perform such
acts I must live. My very nature as a human
PROBLEM person therefore demands that I have the right to
Since ethics is not only a normative but also a life.
practical science, it cannot be satisfied to give Is this right a nonrenounceable one, so that not
only the general norms of morally good conduct only may no human lawfully take it away from
but must try to apply these norms to the chief me but also even I myself may not give it up? Is
types of human conduct. Though human acts it a right that is also a duty? Is it always wrong
taken individually are indefinitely variable so to deprive another of his or her life, even
that no two are ever exactly alike, they can be incurable sufferers, and even unborn babies?
classified under certain headings, and the What about self-defense, when one can save his
general norms can be made more specific so as or her life only at the expense of others? Here
to bring out more clearly the goodness or we only deal with deliberate destruction of
badness of each class of acts. human life, saving marginal questions for the
Earlier writers, such as St. Thomas, built their next chapter. Our questions are:
whole treatment of applied ethic around the 1. May one kill oneself?
classification of the virtues and opposed vices. 2. May one kill another person?
Some modern writers prefer to make a specific 3. May one kill the incurable?
investigation of the rights conferred and the 4. May one kill the unborn?
duties imposed by the moral law. The first 5. May one kill in elf-defense?
method unless used skillfully, tends to become a
sterile process of naming and cataloging. The SUICIDE
second method gives the impression that ethics
is restricted to the minimum of goodness Suicide is here taken in the strict sense as the
imposed by law. Our method will consist of direct killing of oneself on one’s own authority.
mapping out certain areas of concern in our Direct killing is an act of killing that is directly
moral life, involving rights and duties, habits voluntary; that is, death is intended either as an
and virtues, aspirations and ideals that pertain to end or as a means to an end. Either the action is
each area. capable of only one effect and that effect is
First in dignity comes our relation to God. The death, or the action is capable of several effects,
whole moral life is the fulfillment of our duty including death, and among these deaths is the
and the expression of our love toward God. On effect intended, either for its own sake or as
this problem, the findings of philosophical ethics means to something else.
appeared so thin, compared with the rich Indirect killing is an act of killing that is directly
offerings of religion and theology that we will voluntary; death is not intended either as an end
hand over this whole topic to these studies. or as a means to an end, but is only permitted as
Among our rights the right to life is fundamental an unavoidable consequence. The action is
for there can be no further rights or duties unless capable of at least two effects, one of which is
there is someone there to have them. This death, and the agent intends, not death but the
natural right is evident. The only way I can other effect. TO avoid misunderstanding it is
fulfill y function as a person, reach the goal of better not to speak of the indirect killing of
my existence, and achieve my highest good is by oneself as killing at all, but as the deliberate
exposure of one’s life to serious danger. Such of expected to manage his or her life
exposure is not what is meant by suicide. intelligently and not to be merely
passive in the face of inexorable nature.
The killing is not suicide unless it is done by When reasons show that life has no
one’s own authority. Two others might be more to offer, it is folly to drag out life
thought of as having authority in the matter: God to its last bitter breath. The person
and the state. God, having supreme dominion preserves dignity and self-mastery by
over human life, could order a woman to kill ending his or her life at the moment
herself but to know God’s will in such a case, a when all its worth and the meaning are
special revelation would be needed, for which exhausted.
there is no provision in philosophical ethics. The 3. A person is allowed to choose a lesser
state supposing that it has the right of capital evil to avoid a greater. Since there are
punishment, might appoint a man condemned to worse evils than death, why cannot
death to be his own executioner. Whatever be death be chosen as the lesser evil? There
the morality of such an uncommon and is nothing unnatural about it. If it is not
questionable practice, it is not suicide according wrong to interfere with nature to
to the accepted definition. prolong life, as medical science does,
Suicide can be committed positively, by the why should it be wrong to interfere with
performance of some death-dealing act against nature to shorten life? In both cases it is
oneself; or negatively, by omitting to use the done for the benefit of the person
concerned and by his or her consent?
ordinary means of preserving one’s life. It is
suicide to starve oneself to death, to refuse to 4. Even in admitting that God has given us
avoid an oncoming train, to neglect to use the our life, yet it is truly a gift. A gift
ordinary remedies against an otherwise fatal belongs to the receiver, who may now
disease. do whatever he or she wills with it. No
gift is expected to be retained
Among the arguments proposed in favor of the indefinitely at the expense and to the
moral permissibility of suicide are the following: harm of the receiver. When its
possession becomes more injurious than
1. It is understood that no one should its surrender, it should be in accordance
commit suicide for whom life holds out with the will of a good God and a wise
some hope or promise, and that people use of his gift to relinquish it.
suffering from temporary despondency 5. To suppose that suicide in any way
should be prevented from harming defrauds God of his supreme right is to
themselves, but there are always some have a very naïve idea of God. No
for whom life has become an intolerable creature could possibly defraud God of
and irremediable burden. They are anything. In giving us the gift of life,
useless to society and to themselves. It God knew how we would use it and
is better for all concerned that they retire expected us to use our intelligence and
from the scene of life through the ever freedom in managing it. He allows us to
open door. destroy animals and plants, other life,
2. It is an act of supreme personal self- for our purposes. Why should our own
determination to summon death when life be withdrawn from our control?
life’s value has been spent. A person is
 6. In the case of self-defense we have the involved, but moral evil may never be
right to destroy other human lives for chosen to avoid a physical evil. Medical
own safety. The state claims the same science is an intelligent use and
right in war and capital punishment. It development of the remedies nature
seems, then, that God can and provides to preserve life. To use them to
sometimes does give us direct destroy life is not wise management but
ownership over human life. Why must it a wrecking of what has been an
be only over others’ lives? The reasons entrusted to our care. I would be free to
for suicide are often stronger than for wreck myself if I was responsible only
self-defense, either personal or national. to myself, but this is not so if there is a
Why not kill ourselves when we have God to whom I am ultimately
become our own greatest enemy? responsible.
4. Life is a gift from God, but some gifts
These rather persuasive arguments are countered are given outright and others have
by opposing arguments: strings attached. All God’s gifts are
1. Suicide is often regarded as an act of restricted, not because of any lack of his
cowardice and refusal to face life generosity, but because he has to make
courageously. We take the easy way out us responsible for their use when he
when we thrust the burdens we cannot entrusts them to our freedom. Freedom
bear onto the shoulders of our itself is perhaps his greatest gift, but we
are not allowed, though we are able, to
dependents. But not all are in this case;
rather, they themselves are burdens to misuse it. Life has been given, and its
others. Yet they must not forget the allotted span goes with the gift. It is not
worth of their own person. Who can be ours to decide when we have had
called useless? Suffering has no earthly enough of it and to tell God that we are
value and might be called the worst quitting.
earthly disvalues, but its moral and 5. We can never actually defraud God, but
spiritual value can be tremendous. we are not allowed even to try or to be
Courage and patience cannot be willing to do what would defraud God
discounted in any moral appraisal of were he not infinitely beyond all
human life. possible harm. God allows us to destroy
2. It is a natural prompting of well-ordered animal and plants because they are not
self-love to keep one’s person in being persons and are provided for our use and
against all destructive forces. There are consumption. Human life is not on the
times when one must face death without same level as other life; personhood
flinching, but there is something makes the difference.
inordinate in willfully acting as that 6. In self-defense the defender kills the
destructive force oneself. Everything attacker not on his or her own authority
natural seeks its own being and tends to but on God’s authority implicit in the
keep itself in being as long as possible. defenders own natural right to life. The
Intelligence is meant to promote, not defender has no ownership over the
counteract, that natural urge. attacker’s life and but only repels force
3. The lesser of two physical evils may be by force, a situation the attacker brought
chosen when there is no moral evil on by the crime. The state also acts on
 authority given to it by God as a natural developed so far, and that He will simply get no
society, authority not to be used in any more. The creature thus tries to dictate what
way the state please but only in defense God will have to be satisfied with, in
against the nation’s internal and external contradiction to what God in creating has a
destroyers. The suicide is both attacker right to demand from His creature. God cannot
and attacked, and there is no defense. give such authority to a creature without
Crime and punishment are here making the creature supreme over Him. The
simultaneous and extreme. The suicide suicide by making further works of his or her
is simultaneously executioner and own impossible, invades God’s exclusive right ,
murderer. is a rebel against the creator, and commits
moral wrong.
It can be readily seen that from a
nontheistic viewpoint there is no argument
against suicide. A person who acknowledges no
being higher than himself or herself assumes MURDER
supreme minion over his or her life and can do In ethics we find the civil law’s distinction
away with it at pleasure. The fact that theistic between murder and manslaughter of little help.
philosophy sees life as a gift from God does not Murder supposes malice aforethought and thus
of itself make suicide wrong, for an outright gift full voluntariness, but the civil law can judge
may be used or abandoned in any way the only by external criteria. Morality, which resides
recipient wishes. The case against suicide, then, chiefly in the act of inner freedom preceded by
requires proof that God’s gift of life to us is not knowledge, does not always correspond with the
an outright but a restricted gift, that he has not amount and kind of evidence presentable in
given us full ownership and control over our court. So long as the act of killing another is
person with the right to consume and destroy it
both directly voluntary and unjust, we shall call
at our discretion, but he has given us only the it murder, following the usage of common
use of ourselves, the right of stewardship and language rather than the technical terms of the
management, for which he will demand an civil law.
account. Since philosophy cannot ask God what
he willed to do, its only recourse is to show that Murder is defined as the direct killing of
God not only did not but could not give us full an innocent person. It is direct killing, directly
ownership over ourselves as persons. voluntary, so that death is intended as ends or as
means. Indirect killing, or the exposure of life to
The reason that God must reserve to
serious danger, is discussed later; it does not
himself full mastership over human life is the come under the heading of murder.
peculiar nature of a rational and free being,
such as the human being is. We can attain the An innocent person is one who has not
end for which we have been created only by forfeited his or her right to life. Murder is unjust
freely choosing to do morally good acts. These killing, done without legitimate authority. This
acts take time, and length of each person’s life excludes killing another on the authority of God
is the opportunity allotted for doing them. It is or the state, as mentioned before under suicide.
for God and not for us to say when we have The soldier killing the enemy in a just war and
done enough well enough to deserve the end. the executioner putting criminals to death are
The suicide equivalently tells God that He will acting on the states authority, presuming the
have to take the deeds performed and virtues state has the authority. The state, however, can
commit murder by acting outside the scope of its MERCY KILLING
legitimate authority. Killing in self-defense is
not murder because the defender acts by Mercy killing, or euthanasia, is the
authority of his or her natural right to life, as will giving of an easy, painless death to one suffering
be discuss later. The word innocent must be from an incurable or agonizing ailment. Its
understood as objectively innocent, for it is not advocates argue that the person will die anyway,
murder to kill a maniac in self-defense. that the purpose is not to invade the person’s
right to life but only to substitute a painless for a
That murder is morally wrong hardly painful death, that shortening of a person’s life is
needs a separate proof if the argument against merely deprives him or her of a bit of existence
suicide is already admitted, for if a person is not that is not only useless but unbearable, that the
allowed to take even his or her own life, much person can do more good for anyone, himself or
less would a person be allowed to take the life of herself included. Some would leave the decision
another. Murder is morally wrong because it to a qualified physician; most would require the
violates the right of God, who has exclusive full subject’s consent.
ownership that each person has over his or her
own life, and the right of the state to administer Although one can sympathize with the
justice and preserve public order. sentiments of compassion and mercy inspiring
this proposal, moral judgment on it falls into the
From a nontheist point of view murder two categories of action just described. If
is immoral, because the murderer violates the administered to oneself, euthanasia is suicide. If
rights of both the person murdered and the state administered by another without the victim’s
of which the murdered person was a member. consent, it is murder. If administered by another,
The murderer commits a double injustice: (1) with the victim’s consent or cooperation, it is
against the individual by depriving another of suicide and murder combined. Nontheistic ethics
the life to which he or she has an absolutely has no solid argument against it, unless it were
inalienable right as a rational and free being, and done without the victim’s consent. Theistic
(2) against the state as a society that exists to ethics has to condemn it, and say that, even if it
foster the common good of all its members and should be made permissible by the law, for
cannot long to continue to do so if even one of which there is strong propaganda in some
its members is allowed to go about freely killing quarters, it still remains an immoral act.
other members.
Until recently, euthanasia had only this
Murder can be treated briefly because meaning. It is still the only meaning appropriate
no one of sound mind, not even a philosopher, to the term mercy killing, where killing has an
has ventured to defend it. It has always been active sense. However, euthanasia is now being
recognized as one of the worst crimes and as the used in an extended sense, and a distinction is
most glaring example of a morally evil act. But being made between active euthanasia, which is
some are not convinced of the injustice killing the person, and passive euthanasia, which
contained in certain types of direct killing, and is letting the person die. Passive euthanasia is an
these must be examined further. indirectly voluntary act and, among other risks
to life, will be considered on pp. 283-285.
ABORTION 6. Admit doubts, difficulties and
weaknesses in our own position and
Abortion is a hotly controverted issue in not extend clarity and certainty
American society today and polarized us into beyond what the facts warrant.
proabortion and antiabortion forces with both 7. Remember that verbal formulation
sides at times using dishonest and immoral of a moral conviction is not
tactics to carry a point. We need less heat and necessarily an accurate reflection of
better manners if we are going to communicate the substance of that very
successfully with one another. Most of us are conviction.
weary of the continued debate and might be 8. Take care not to confuse morality
inclined to yield to fatigue rather than to grapple with public policy, because legality
with the problem. We shall try for a does not necessarily coincide with
dispassionate and philosophical discussion of the morality. We shall remark on this
topic by observing some guidelines for our matter later.
discussion: 9. Be careful to incorporate women’s
1. Identify, if possible, areas of perspectives as an important
agreement such as the tragic nature ingredient in any discussion of
and undesirability of abortion abortion.
because this might lead us all to
cooperate is supporting policies MORALITY OF ABORTION
aimed at eliminating the personal
and social causes of abortion of Abortion is the expulsion of the fetus
seeking alternatives to abortion. from the womb before it is viable, that is, before
2. Avoid the use of slogans because it can live outside the mother. It is not the
they hinder and stop effective premature delivery of the viable fetus. To hasten
discussion and often depends highly birth is not wrong if the child can be kept alive,
questionable assumptions. but it presents such a serious risk that grave
3. Represent the opposing positions reasons are required to make it permissible. It
accurately and fairly. can be justified by the principle of double effect,
4. Distinguish carefully the objective the proportionate reasons being the danger to the
right and wrong from the subjective health of the mother, child, or both, if the
good or bad intention. In this way gestation be allowed to reach its natural term.
we can disagree with one another
without imputing moral evil to one A spontaneous miscarriage is nobody’s
another. fault. Our discussion is about induced abortion,
5. Identify, if possible, the central which is voluntarily brought about. If the death
issue at stake in the argument and of the fetus is intended as end or as means, it is
separate other issues that cluster direct killing, and no mere exposure of the fetus
around abortion without demeaning to danger, for by this act it is taken from the only
those other issues. That issue is the place where it can live and is put in a place
evaluation of nascent human life where it cannot live, there is no more efficient
and moral claims the nascent human way of killing a person. No one can seriously
being makes on us. say that the fetus dies from natural causes after it
has been born; it has not been allowed to be born
properly. All killing consists of interfering with by which she is cured. She has a right to take
nature in such a way that a person dies from it. such treatment and is morally to do so. The
doctor has the responsibility of deciding whether
the mother’s condition is truly pathological and
whether the treatment contemplated is the only
Applying the Principle of Double Effect
effective remedy.
Today we are no longer living in a world
that commonly rejects abortion and judges it as
always immoral. The tradition we have inherited The More Recent Discussion
focused on cases of indirect abortion that
ethicists could justify according to the principle The rapid development advances in
of double effect. The following discussion medical knowledge and technology have created
illustrates how such argument proceeds. not only new possibilities for caring pregnant
women and the children conceived, but those
The principle of double effect is of no very advances and developments have also
value in cases of direct abortion. The act itself is given rise to new ethical questions as well,
directly destructive to the fetus, is no merely questions or issues where the direct-indirect
permitted side effect but is the means used for distinction used in double-effect reasoning does
the accomplishment of whatever good effect not seem applicable. For example, when a
may accrue to the mother. Since the first two woman and a physician are confronted with a
conditions of the double-effect principle are not fetus that is developing either without all or a
verified, it makes no difference whether there is major part of the brain (anencephaly) and
a good intention and a sufficient proportion. therefore clearly lacks from the biological
Thus it is futile to attempt any moral substrate for any expression of truly personal
justification for direct abortion the basis of life, is it absolutely clear and certain that the
double-effect principle. Any justification, if woman must preserve that life or may she opt to
possible, would have to be based on other abort without moral evil being imputed to her?
principles. Would this be abortion in the full moral sense of
It is a different situation if death of an that word? If such a fetus allowed to come to
unborn child is only indirect, so that it is merely term and is delivered, it will surely die shortly
permitted and not willed as means or an end. after birth.
This situation of indirect abortion arises when Opinion is divided, as you may expect,
the mother has serious illness (pregnancy itself given the pluralistic society in which we live.
is not an illness but a natural condition), and the Many of the people involved in discussing these
only workable treatment, whether medical or issues are convinced more by good reasons and
surgical, will have two effects: the cure of the keen discernment than by applications of the
mother’s disease and the death of the fetus. This direct-indirect distinction used in double-effect
is the type of case to which the principle of reasoning. No one denies the value of the
double effect readily applies. The fetus is not traditional formulation of double-effect principle
directly attacked, and its death, even if certain to and its application, for it help us see our way
follow, is incidental and unavoidable by-product through cases such as pathological pregnancy in
of a legitimate act. The mother herself needs the Fallopian tube or in a cancerous uterus.
treatment no matter effect it may have on the Something more is needed to handle certain
fetus, and the death of the fetus is not the means
extreme cases of fetal abnormality such as existence, which the “quality of life” position
anencephaly. stresses. This may be the principle we need to
help us see our way through cases of extreme
The discussion of these cases of extreme fetal abnormality such as anencephaly in which
fetal abnormality centers on questions about “the we do not have the physical basis for
sanctity of life” and “the quality of life” that personhood in the full sense of that word. We
such fetuses may be expected to have after birth. shall see more of this in the chapter on sex when
At times people seem to treat “the sanctity of we discuss “Genetics and Sexual Reproduction
life” and “the quality of life” as though the two (see pages 340-341).
are opposing moral principles. In fact, both are
values, and the principles correlative to them are
“life is to be preserved” and “do no harm to
another.” Based on the principle that life is to be Some Distinctions and Arguments, Pro and
preserved, life is valued as sacred. On the basis Con
of the principle of doing no harm to another, a We give here some distinctions necessary
life of extremely poor quality is valued for an understanding of the arguments: Abortion
negatively, since it is injurious or painful to the can be spontaneous, miscarriage that is no one’s
person experiencing it, whereas life of an fault, or induced voluntarily brought about.
acceptable quality is valued positively, since it Induced abortion can be indirect, the foreseen
benefits the person experiencing it. Depending but unwanted consequence of doing something
on which principle predominates in the else, or direct, the expulsion of the fetus
discussion, the corresponding value will intended as end or means. These distinctions
predominate also. have relevance for ethics because they separate
While current discussion seems to suggest the voluntary from the involuntary and indirectly
a dichotomy between “sacredness of life” and voluntary from the directly voluntary.
“quality of life”, in actuality they are not. The Some of the following arguments favor
dichotomy seems to be false. One way to see abortion on demand, whereas others would
this is to think of personal life in terms of its
allow it only under certain conditions. Since the
integrity, and then the ethical issue becomes one notion of person is crucial for understanding
of respect for life and its integrity. Such respect what is to follow, we shall first look at some
involves an appreciation of the fact the physical further distinctions currently being proposed by
existence alone has little meaning and value in some pro-abortionists before we proceed to the
and of itself. The integrity of personal life
arguments themselves.
demands a certain richness consisting of a
modicum of self-awareness, interaction with the A person, in the strict sense of that term,
environment, interpersonal relatedness and love, is an adult moral agent having the three
and autonomy, coupled with the capacity to characteristics of self-consciousness, rationality,
experience joy and sorrow, pleasure and pain. and moral awareness. The same term is also
used in speaking of young children, infants, the
The principle of respect for personal life newly born, the senile, the severely and
and its integrity recognizes the preciousness of profoundly retarded and the demented, none of
life, which the “sanctity of life” position whom is a full moral agent able to engage in
stresses, and emphasizes the importance of moral discourse. Rights are also accorded to all
interpersonal life as distinct from mere of these “persons”, but not the rights of full
moral agents. The term person has various 2. To say that the fetus is
meanings derived from the social standing that inviolable from the moment of conception
each has in a community of moral agents who (zygote stage) is to fly in the face of
are persons in the strict sense. The rights and the certain phenomena in the preimplantation
moral standing of young children, infants, and period, namely, the twinning process,
son on are imputed to them not by reason of spontaneous abortions (miscarriages), and
their developing personhood but by reason of the rare process of recombination of two
duties and obligations the moral community of fertilized ova into one. We have no solid
adults accepts in regard to them. When it comes evidence as to the moment when the fetus
to the consideration of fetuses, embryos and receives a human soul. Many modern
zygotes, these are seen as having an even lesser thinkers hold to the moment of
standing in the moral community than the newly conception, but an honorable ancient and
born and infants. The moral standing of each medieval theory said several weeks later.
“person” is then a matter of degree, the adult Since certainty is not possible on this
moral agents having full moral understanding question, we must have recourse to
and the zygote having the least, with the degrees probability. Recent research shows that
lessening as we proceed from young children only 40%-50% of zygotes survive to
through infants to newly borns, fetuses, embryos become persons in the full sense. At the
and zygotes. In terms of rights, young children moment of ensoulment, the zygote has
have stronger ones and so a stronger moral claim less than 50% dance of reaching full
on the moral agents of the community than do personhood. We can therefore act on the
fetuses, embryos and zygotes. probability that the fetus is not a person
and for good reason terminate the
With these distinctions in mind, let us pregnancy.
look at some of the arguments in favor of 3. Even if the fetus, because of
abortion: biological continuity and chromosomal
1. To speak of abortion as murder inheritance, is regarded not merely as a
is nonsense because the human fetus is not potential but as an actual human being, it
a person in the strict sense of the word. To has not yet become an actual person. Only
deny a distinction a conceptus and a an actual person has rights, including the
newborn baby is absurd. Either the fetus right to life. The fetus is at most a
(conceptus) is a part of the mother to be potential person. So, if the fetus is a
treated as any other appendage, or it is a potential person, it follows that the fetus is
separate living being within the mother not a person. Consequently, the fetus does
but not yet arrived at the moral status of not have the actual rights of a person, but
full personhood. In the first case it belongs only potentially has those rights. That
to the mother and may be removed from being the case, the fetus does not yet
the mother’s body as undesirable possess the right to life. As a consequence,
excrescence. In the second case it also its life may be terminated for a good
belongs to the mother and may be put out reason without any breach of good morals.
of the way for a good reason just as we 4. Even if the fetus be granted a
kill animals and other forms of non- right to life, in any collision of rights the
personal life for our benefit. fetus’ right yields to that of the mother.
On all possible counts the mother’s rights
takes precedence, because she is a person and cannot live a normal life without it.
in the strict sense of the word and has Some parents can learn to love it later, but
higher moral standing in the moral even the child can detect the strained
community than does the fetus. She is an feeling behind the show of love. In many
adult person, a full moral agent exercising instances there is not even the show of
her intelligence and freely controlling her love, and the child grows up rejected and
life, with already assumed responsibilities resentful, to take out his or her spit later
toward her family and others. For the fetus on against society or all humanity. Such
all this in the future. It barely lives, is not misfits should not be allowed to be born.
conscious, and is wholly dependent. The The most closely involved with the fetus,
mother can live without it, but it cannot the mother and father who conceived it
live without the mother. To argue that the and especially the mother who is bearing
fetus ought to be protected at the expense it, have first claim on evaluating the fetus.
of the mother is for now at least, absurd. They produced it; it is theirs; they do not
Until such time as artificial wombs are love it. The fetus, therefore, having no
available, the fetus must yield to the rights value, may be terminated.
of the mother. 8. No pregnant woman who wants
5. In some cases the fetus can be an abortion should be denied one. The
considered an unjust aggressor against the continued presence of the fetus within the
physical or mental health of the mother. womb is completely dependent on the
Danger to the mother’s physical health in discretion of the pregnant woman, for a
certain pregnancies is the reason why most woman has the right to determine her own
states allow therapeutic abortion. But life. Since no one knows with certainty
mental health is every bit as important as when human life begins, the matter should
physical health. To make the rest of the be left to the pregnant woman. Very few
mother’s life an intolerable torture of men concern themselves with the
psychic derangement is too high a price to consequences of sexual intercourse or
ask. The mother is allowed an adequate determine their sexual behavior in the
defense against such prospect, and the light of possible undesirable aftereffects.
only defense is the elimination of the Since this is the case, why should women
cause. bother about it? The prejudice against
6. At least in those cases, now abortion has been made by men and
fortunately rare, in which both mother and should be removed by women. A woman
child will certainly die unless the fetus is has the right to control her own sexual
aborted, only benighted legalism could activity including procreation and,
oblige the obstetrician to let both die because of the callousness of many men,
rather than save one. No fine distinctions needs the freedom choose an abortion as
between direct and indirect actions, the final means of preventing unwanted
principal and incidental effects, wanted children.
and permitted consequences, and similar 9. The population must be
rules should be adored as fetishes while a controlled. So urgent is this need that
life is at stake. Necessity knows no law. some individual rights will probably have
7. No unwanted child should be to be submerged for the greater good, the
brought into this world. A child needs love very survival of the human race.
 Contraception and sterilization would be personhood does not depend either on society or
better methods than abortion, but human on developmental biology for its moral status.
beings are too unpredictable and The very existence of the person entails its
uncontrollable to eliminate the need for moral status and its right to life.
abortion entirely. Rather than forbid The arguments that follow seek to
abortions we should promote them and provide for the interests of the fetus as an
should be gratified that they are being objective value in the world:
done voluntarily, thus putting off the time 1. All biological evidence confirms the
when we may have to make them fact that the fertilized ovum has the
compulsory. We have come to the point of human chromosome pattern
global ethics, in which lesser issues are containing all the inheritable factors,
transcended. and it can never grow into anything
The opposing abortion find these but a human person. Biologists are
arguments unconvincing, especially in that thy also unanimous in testifying that
do not provide for the interests of the fetus. The fetal life is distinct from the
concept of personhood espoused in the mother’s life, even though the two
following argument differs from that of the pro- are connected during the period of
abortionists in that the value of the person does gestation. Therefore any analog with
not depend on its being recognized by any the surgical removal of tumors or
particular society. Each adult person in the with the killing of animals is
moral community is rational and free, capable of inapplicable to the case of abortion.
entering into personal relationships and of Direct abortion is the killing of an
engaging in moral discourse with others. This is innocent person, and that is murder,
approximately what the pro-abortionists have even if the mother has stewardship
said about the adult moral agent. The two sides over the fetus. As a matter of fact,
part company on the foundation of the moral the mother’s very stewardship calls
standing the person has. The antiabortionists for beneficence toward and care for
holds that from the moment of conception all the the well-being of the fetus, while
way to adulthood the person is intrinsically abortion is the greatest harm she
unique in its own right, an end is him or herself, could do the fetus.
and has the same right to life as any other 2. Aristotle thought that the embryo
person. As the process of development from does not become human until
conception progresses, the personhood becomes sometime after conception and this
more and more recognizable and perceivable. may be why he saw no wrong in
For theists, the person is an embodied subject early abortion. St. Thomas accepted
who is also ensouled by the Creator at the Aristotle’s opinion as probable
moment of conception. The conceptus carries physical theory but drew no such
the genetic code derived from its parents and the ethical conclusion. We do not know
soul created by God, the giver of life. This is not and may never know the exact
an effort to restrict personhood only to humans, moment when the human soul
but rather to highlight the personhood of the comes to the body to make a human
only persons known to us by reason alone. person, and so for all practical
Whether there are other personal beings in the purposes we must consider it a
universe we do not know. Further, this notice of person from the moment of
 conception. Probabilism is of no use permitting the death of one or the
here, for we have no doubt about the other, that one should be chosen
moral law or the moral obligation to who has the better chance of
do no harm to another person. The survival. A collision of rights cannot
doubt is about a matter of fact. Just be settles by appealing to a higher
as we may not bury a person who is moral standing for the mother. Both
probably dead, so we may not kill a fetus and mother are intrinsically
fetus if its only probably a person. valuable as persons, and the fetus
In such matters we must take the has done nothing to lose its right to
morally safer course, which is to life. In this case the mother’s rights
treat the embryo as a living person. yields to her duty to do no harm to
3. The language of potentiality is another person, in this case her
misleading because its sounds as if fetus, and neither may be killed. The
one is saying that a potential person mother may not kill any of her born
already possesses in some children to be free of her various
mysterious fashion the being and responsibilities; why the unborn?
significance of personhood. We 5. To consider an unborn child as an
have enough mystery already aggressor against its parents, who by
concerning ensoulment and do not their own voluntary act caused its
need more. Clearly, if the fetus is presence in the mother’s womb,
not a person, it has no right to life seems absurd. Aggression does not
and can be killed with moral consist in merely being present but
impunity. But what criterion shall in doing something; there must be
we take for personhood? If we take an actual attack or at least the start
the actual use of intelligence and of an attack. If the pregnancy is not
freedom, then we could kill the developing normally, this is one of
newly born, infants, and young those accidents that is no one’s
children for some years after birth. fault, surely no more the fetus’ than
Whether the child is inside or the parents’. The abnormally
outside the mother can hardly developing fetus is not attacking the
constitute the essence of mother. The mental-health angle is
personhood. The only way to deal different. Here the mother is the
with this matter is to consider the one, who needs therapy, and the
human embryo or fetus as a human killing of the fetus is no moral
person with all the rights, including solution, any more than the remedy
the right to life, that go with being a for paranoia is the slaughter of all
person. In this consideration the imagined persecutors.
child is not a potential person but an 6. No ethicists want doctors to be
actual person, though full use of its remiss in their professional duty of
personality will have to wait on the saving human life. They must use
gradual attainment of maturity. all legitimate means, but they must
4. All persons are equal in their right not use means that are morally evil.
to life, and age gives no priority. If Their duty obliges them above all to
there is question only of indirectly do no harm. They have no more
 right than anyone else to put who was inside her at the wrong
innocent person’s death. The fact moment. Pregnancy can be an
that the unborn child cannot protect expression of many things besides
itself does not mean that its right mutual love, but no matter what
can be invaded at anyone’s pregnancy expresses it is always an
discretion. Protection of the child’s expression of a need more
right to life is not legalism but the complicated than the needs abortion
correct use of law. The necessity can satisfy. The quality of a
knows no law may be a popular woman’s life is at stake when she
proverb, but it has little standing as enters into sexual relationship with a
a moral guideline. Some kind of man and becomes pregnant. Life
necessity could be thought up for exists for her, inside her. To choose
anything. abortion may free her from the fetus
7. All recognize the importance of love but not from her state of mind.
in the child’s life. But shall we say Abortion may give women greater
that if the child is not loved, the control over their own bodies, but it
thing to do is to kill it? Let us put also lessens their sense of
the blame for the unwanted child on relationship to their bodies and
the right parties, on those who leaves unresolved all the questions
conceived it. They took the chance they have in relation to themselves
of conception and are responsible as women. That a man can be
for the result. Whether or not they coward enough to abandon a woman
can learn to love the child, they have he has mistreated is the man’s
the obligation of caring for it and mortal crime. Abortion is a
not harming it. Even unloved woman’s more difficult way of
children would rather live than be seeking equality in iniquity. A
put to death. Who has the right to second wrong is not the way of
make this decision for them before righting the first one.
they are born? Furthermore, the Furthermore, no fine
fetus as a person with the right to philosophical distinctions about
life has an intrinsic value that does freedom and rights can quiet the
not depend on its being valued by minds and hearts of the enormous
the parents. That the parents do not number of women who have had
recognize its objective value is no abortions and now regret their
excuse for terminating the child’s decisions. Many women feel
life. “forced” into the abortion procedure
8. Abortion may solve the problem of by external circumstances and
unwanted children in individual would keep their child under better
cases, but it surely is no answer to circumstances, that is to say, with
the general callousness in human emotional and or financial support
relationships that makes abortion from husbands, boyfriends, parents,
“necessary” in the first place. doctors, and social workers. Once
Psychologically a woman can never the abortion has been formed, it is
be free of the memory of someone the woman who has to contend with
 the emotional and psychological have stewardship. Even while they
stress of hallucinations, nightmares, affirm the duty to care for and guard
memories of the abortion that life, they do not deny that there
experience, and thoughts of the are at times difficult decisions to be
aborted child. Some women after made in regard to the care and
their abortions feel uncomfortable protection of fetuses, newly borns,
around children, are less able to and infants in the light of this
experience emotions, feel known obligation, they choose to
victimized, see themselves as less take the safer course even when
worthwhile, fear the others will faced with difficult probabilities. If
learn of their abortion, and feel a mistake is to be made, and
grief, sadness, regret, and loss. mistakes inevitability are made, the
9. We are all conscious of the theist wants to operate with a clear
population problem and know that bias for life while at the same time
something must be done about it. knowing that the quality of that life
Whatever solution we arrive at, if is also important and a value to be
there is one will have to accord with considered.
morality. Widespread abortion is not There are many viewpoints and
the answer. Compulsory abortion interpretations on the question of
would be so flagrant a violation of abortion, and each has its ethical,
human rights that any people would legal, social, and medical
have the right to resist it violently. implications. The position one takes
We do need global ethics, but if it on abortion depends on one’s
consists of global immorality, there ranking of the values involved. TO
are no ethics left. arrive at agreement as to which
The arguments just concluded value belongs where on the scale of
propose a view of personhood that importance is not a simple matter.
does not depend on community Each person must decide how to
recognition for its moral standing. It rank at least the following values:
is intended to provide for the the life of the fetus, the woman’s
protection of the weak, innocent and freedom of self-determination, and
the disvalued of our own kind. The the common good of society. Over
history of human should serve to and above these values, there is a
remind us that the weak and series of rights designed to protect
powerless are easily exploited and these values: the right of the fetus to
abused by the strong. This view of life, the right of the woman to
personhood is further intended to determine what she will do with her
cultivate the virtues of compassion, body, the right of society to make
sympathy, courage, patience, and laws restricting freedom, the right of
trustworthiness in regard to another doctors and other health care
especially in times of weakness and personnel to participate in abortions
powerlessness when we are most or not. If we can agree on the values
vulnerable. Theists hold that human at stake and the rights we want to
life is a God-given over which we guarantee to protect those values,
perhaps we can cut through some of as an event having social
the side issues in the debate to implications. A woman’s body even
address ourselves to the main issues. while she is pregnant is regarded as
The debate itself will probably an entirely private possession of the
continue until we can determine woman. The women’s movement,
exactly when life begins and come born in espousing abortion on
to a consensus about whether we demand as a right for all women had
want to protect that life and, if we created a class of women who now
do, to what extent will we protect it. gain their freedom at the expense of
Thus far in the debate no one seems the nascent human life in their
satisfied because neither the anti- wombs. Have they accepted
abortion nor the pro-abortion forces abortion as a technological solution
have come to any agreement with to human problems? Has abortion
one another. Certainly neither side technology settled us into a cultural
has managed to convince the other mind-set so powerful that we now
of the rightness of its position. accept easily what was previously
We conclude the presentation of unacceptable? Are we as a society
the arguments with some thoughts giving up on the protection of
about social dimension of abortion human life? Are we decivilizing
and its implications for us as a ourselves by legalizing abortion by
society. Generally, abortion is further making no appropriate
examined in terms of private, response to the rising number of
personal morality, but when we see abortions? Are we corroding the
the large number of abortions very values we hoped to pursue? We
performed each year we should also need to look at what is happening
ask ourselves: what is happening to with new eyes, the eyes of human
us as a society? The sheer number responders to a situation of our own
of abortions points not to a simple making. To fail to ask ourselves
accumulation of homogenous cases these questions is to miss a very
but to a qualitatively different moral significant dimension of the entire
reality’s meaning for our society by abortion controversy-the dimension
asking about purpose of an of social justice.
individual abortion or about what The author and the reviser of
the law permits, but we can and this book conclude from this debate
must ask ourselves: what is that there is no moral justification
happening to our society and what is for direct abortion, because has a
a fitting response for us to make to right to engage in the direct killing
this social phenomenon? The of the innocent, and if anyone is
movement toward abortion on innocent, it is the fetus. The only
demand points to something that has line of investigation open to those
happened and continues to happen who wish to make a moral case for
to us as a society. abortion on demand is to establish
Pregnancy has become an somehow that the fetus in question
entirely private affair; it is not seen is not a human person and so has no
 right to life. Efforts along this line Abortion concerns not only the consenting
have been made, but these adults, mother, doctor, and father, but also the
demonstrations have not been made nonconsenting nonadult, the fetus, whose stake
successfully. The only other in the matter is crucial but whose interest is
possible course we see is to often wholly overlooked. Is not the state obliged
demonstrate that in some cases of to protect the life of the otherwise defenseless
extreme fetal abnormality that is no fetus? This is a strong argument for severe,
bodily basis for personhood at all, even, rigorous, abortion laws.
so that the termination of such a On the other side there is the nature of
pregnancy would not at all be the political state itself and what can be
abortion at the moral sense. As accomplished by its laws. A state, especially the
fetology, perinatology, and pluralistic state of today, must operate within a
neonatology develop further, we framework of popular consensus. The argument
may finally come to the point when for the immorality of abortion, the theory of
cases of extreme fetal abnormality rights on which it rests, and the philosophy of
can be corrected and then the the person underlying ethics of rights are not
question would once again become admitted by a large part of the population. There
one of the moralities of abortion on is popular consensus on the wrongness of
demand. murder, theft, and similar crimes; the defense is
never that the act was not wrong but that the
Legalization of Abortion accused did not do it. Abortions, however, are
A further question arises on the control readily admitted, and the defense is that it is not
of abortion by the civil law. It is one thing to a wrong, act but one within the rights of the
hold an action immoral and another thing to mother. Does one group of citizens (whether
forbid and punish it by civil legislation. It is not majority or minority) have the right to impose its
the business of the state to regulate the whole opinions and the philosophical hacking for those
private life of its citizens, and many immoral opinions on another group that disagrees? A
practices must be tolerated by the civil law as democratic and pluralistic state will say no.
being outside its scope. Can we say that abortion Hence there are many who think that
belongs wholly to the moral sphere and that civil there should be no laws on abortion. Some do
law should not attempt to deal with it? not want abortion to be legalized, since that may
Most such cases deal with victimless be interpreted as approving of it, but rather
crimes and consenting adults, such as decriminalized. Without approval, the state
prostitution, homosexuality, and such matters. simply does not punish such acts and turns them
Though many pro-abortionists try to reduce over to the individual consciences of its citizens.
abortion to this category, it will not fit. Abortion Would not the state, then, fail in its duty to
invades the fetus’ right to life, and the protection protect the rights of the innocent? Every
of its people’s rigths is the chief business of the antiabortionist will say yes. But such failure is
state. No state can overlook killing as not its inherent in the limited function and power of the
business; abortion’ whether called murder or state. The state cannot force all it citizens to
not, involves the same right to life. Even when adopt the same philosophy of rights the same
the state does not define the unborn as a citizen, respect for human rights, and the same judgment
the question remains whether the state can get on the personhood of the human fetus. To
rid an obligation merely by defining it away. attempt it would involve a grave violation of the
freedom of its citizens. On the other hand, no the guilt or innocence of the person attacking,
doctor should be obliged to perform an abortion, but we are interested here in what the person
no nurse to assist at one and no private hospital who is attacked may do. He or she needs to repel
board to allow one to be done with the hospital the threat to die, whether the assailant means it
facilities. These persons also should not be or not.
pressured to act against their consciences.
As can be seen from balancing Conditions of Blameless Self-defense
both sides of this debate, there is a conflict Each of us has a right of self-defense,
between two very basic moral principles: that of but only under certain conditions. There are four
the right to life and that of the right to freedom. of them, and they stem from the very notion of
Is the right to life so great that we can force our defense:
fellow citizens to accept our view of it against 1. The motive must be self-defense alone. If
their conviction, or is the freedom of the citizen self-defense is only a mask for hatred or
to think and act according to his or her revenge, the act becomes evil because of evil
convictions strong enough that to defend it we intent.
are allowed to entrust unborn children to the 2. Force may be used only at the time of
tender mercy of their mothers? Many think that the attack. The danger to one’s life must be
the best solution would be to spend less effort on actual, not merely prospective. The mere fact
legislation and more effort on moral persuasion that someone sends me a threatening letter does
of the mothers. not allow me to go out and kill the person, for
many threats are never followed up. There
SELF-DEFENSE would be an end to public order if anyone could
Our right implies a right to the means use force to repel merely imagines attacks.
necessary to preserve our life. The right to life is 3. Force may be used only when there is
a coercive or juridical right, one that may be no other way repelling the attack. Recourse
protected by the use of physical force. It is often must be made to the police and public authority
impossible, when one’s life is attacked, to appeal when possible. One need not run away from
to the civil government, the normal guardian of every fight but should try not to provoke one.
our rights. After the attack is over, punishment Persuasion or other nonforceful methods should
of the offender belongs to the civil government be used if there is any reasonable hope of
alone, because the factor of urgency is not success.
present, but at the moment of the attack the 4. No more injury may be inflicted than is
victim must often use self-defense or there will necessary to avert actual danger. If I can save
be no defense. On what principles is self-defense my life by injury less than death, I must not
morally justified, and how far may one go in proceed further. If the assailant is knocked
defending one’s own right to life? unconscious, there is no need for killing. More
The act of violating or attempting to harm than necessary may not be inflicted for
violate another’s right is aggression. As we use defense.
the term, it always means an unjust attack. Mere The second of these conditions has the
intention to attack without any external attempt most difficult application. In concrete cases it is
is not aggression, but there may be aggression often hard to determine just when preparation
without deliberate intention, as in an assault by a for attack turns into actual aggression. Mere
maniac. The distinction between intentional and purchase of a gun by my enemy with a
unintentional aggressor describes under certain declaration of intent to shoot me is not
aggression, but I do not have to wait until the self-defense, except for such as have public
person has actually shot at me, for then no authority, who while intending to kill a man in
further defense may be possible. Defense may self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in
begin as soon as the aggressor lifts the gun or the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and
even approaches the oncoming fray, depending in the minister of the judge struggling with
on the circumstances. Here the common estimate robbers, although even these sin if they be
of sensible people must be taken into moved by private animosity.
consideration. In a matter so crucial, when the
action to be efficient must be swift, it is It should be easy to recognize in this
impossible to draw fine lines and make delicate passage the source from which the principle of
discriminations, and it is better to favor the double effect was derived, by broadening it to
defender of life than the attacker. Individual suit other questions besides that of self-defense.
conscience will decide subjective guilt or However, in applying the principle of double
innocence in concrete cases; we are trying to effect to self-defense a crucial problem about
discover objective principles for any act of self- first two conditions arises: Is not the killing of
defense. an assailant a direct killing, so that in defending
my life I am using an evil as means to a good?
Morality of Self-defense On this matter there are two opinions:
Self-defense seems to be merely an application
of the principle of double effect, and so St. One opinion holds that legitimate self-defense is
Thomas appears to consider it. He says: always only an indirect killing. Though more
fully expressed by his commentator Cajeta, this
Nothing hinders one act from having opinion seems to be that of St. Thomas. Only
two effects, only one of which is intended, while one public authority may intend killing another,
the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts even in self-defense. According to this opinion,
take their species according to what is intended, all that I as a private person may do in defending
and not according to what is beside the intention, myself is to produce a state of quiet or
since this is accidental…. Accordingly the act of nonactivity in the assailant so that he or she
self –defense may have two effects, one is the cannot continue the attack. If my attempts to
saving of one’s own life, and the other is the produce this nonactivity; a thing that is morally
slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since indifferent, result in death, that is incidental and
one’s intention is to save one’s own life, is not regrettable. But must not intend anything more
unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything than the quieting of the adversary, not the death.
to keep itself in being, as far as possible. And The other opinion holds that in self-
yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an defense the killing may be direct. John de Lugo
act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of puts it as follows:
proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in
self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, We may intend whatever is necessary for the
it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force defeat of our life. Sometimes the striking of
with moderation his defense will be lawful, blows alone is insufficient for this purpose, but
because according to the jurists, it is lawful to the death of the adversary is necessary. His
repel force by force, provided one does not stubbornness is such that he will not cease from
exceed the limits of a blameless defense…. It is attacking you, either by himself or others, unless
not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in he dies. Therefore you can intend his death, not
merely as the striking of a blow [from which The argument proves that each person has a
death may follow] but as death, because it is right to self-defense. Is it a duty? No. As we
useful to your safety not otherwise than as dead. shall see, I have the duty to use ordinary means
…. The death of the aggressor is not merely to preserve my life, but the killing of the human
connected with another means that is intended, being, even he or she is an aggressor, is surely
but in itself, and as death, is useful and judged an extraordinary means. Therefore nothing
necessary .to your defense. prevents me from choosing, the heroic course of
giving up life rather than taking another’s. Only
This latter opinion falls back on a in unusual circumstances could self-defense
collision of rights. By the very fact of the become a duty, for example, in the case of a
assailant’s attack is unjust, his or her right to life public personage indispensable to the
yields top that of the person attacked. The right community’s welfare.
to life of the two parties is no longer equal, but One may come to the assistance of another
the aggressor temporarily loves the right to life whose life is unjustly attacked. Such assistance
by the unjust act of aggression. Killing in itself becomes a duty for custodians of public order
is not wrong, but what makes it wrong is it because of their office and for others who have a
injustice, the invasion of another person’s right. natural duty to protect their charges. The casual
If that right is extinguished, there is no injustice bystander has a general duty in common
present to make the act of killing wrong. This humanity to come to another’s assistance in
second opinion has the double advantage of distress; if this action goes far as to require the
eliminating the subtle distinction between killing killing of an assailant, it usually entails serious
and quieting and of permitting both direct and risk to one’s own life, a risk one is allowed but
indirect killing in self-defense. not obliged to take.
Whichever of these explanations is
preferred there is no doubt about the existence of Unintentional Aggression
the rights of self-defense. The use of force is not The preceding argument is expressly
in itself wrong. It is only when no one has no directed at intentional aggression but applies
right to use it. We must have natural right to with proper observations to unintentional
self-defense for the following reasons: aggression. A person who has lost the use of
1. The assailant who breaks the moral law reason, either permanently or temporarily,
cannot thereby acquire a better right to life than cannot perform a voluntary act and cannot incur
the innocent person who keeps the moral law, so moral guilt but such a person can be just as
that on being unjustly attacked one finds that his serious threat to other people’s lives. The same
or her right to life becomes a duty to die. is true to someone who has the use of reason but
2. The good and upright members of the does not realize that the act he or she is at the
population cannot have the duty to let the moment will kill someone; for such a person the
criminal element, by their indiscriminate and act is voluntary only as far as he or she sees it,
unchecked use of force, seize control of human and its unforeseen consequences, though
society and thus pervert it into an instrument of involuntary, can be fatal to others who have
evil. right to protect themselves against them.
Therefore our natural right to life would defeat Such acts are unjust aggression from the
itself unless, under proper conditions, it carried standpoint of the person attacked, because his or
with it authorization to use force even to killing her right is actually, though unintentionally,
in self-defense. violated. Such persons may protect themselves
even to the killing of the assailant under the four checked only by opposed violence. The attacker
conditions of a blameless self-defense. The can easily save his or her life simply by desisting
unintentional aggressor’s right yields to the from aggression.
defenders, not because of the former’s fault, but Honor and reputation have been
because of his or her misfortune. Human lives deliberately omitted here. They are as important
cannot be placed at the mercy of the insane, as any of the goods just listed, for their loss can
however blameless they may be, nor are we mean utter ruin, but they are not the kind of
obliged to give up our lives in deference to thing that can be defended by force. Lies and
another’s ignorance. Most assailants are slander are words and cannot be beaten back by
malicious, but it is not necessary that they be so fists or swords or hand guns. The only weapon
in order that we may exercise our right to self- against them is the truth. The use of physical
defense against them. force against a liar would only prove me
physically stronger but would not restore my
Goods Equivalent to Life reputation; if I use physical force to coerce a
recantation, it would not be generally believed
Each of us has a right not only to life itself but to under the circumstances. However, force short
a human life, a normal and decent life fit for a of killing may be the only way of closing the
rational and free being. My right to defend my mouth of a reviler or slanderer who refuses to
life would be of small value if I could not also stop. Here physical force can be effective.
defend my right that life in a manner befitting a
personal being. This right entails the possession
of certain goods that make life worth living,
goods that some writers call equivalent to life.
Force may be used to defend such goods even
to the killing of the unjust aggressor, under the
same conditions that apply to the defense of life
itself. Personal goods considered equivalent to
life are liberty, sanity, chastity, and bodily
completeness. Many would rather die than
submit to such evils as rape, insanity, blindness,
or enslavement, and, whether they would or not,
why should anyone have to yield to a fiend who
tries to inflict them?
Material goods, even of great value,
may seem so disproportionate to human life that
we may never kill to defend them. On the other
hand, the social as well as the personal aspect
must be considered, and the good of society
requires that people be secure in their
possessions, especially those on which their
whole livelihood depends. Acts of violence,
whether against one’s person or against one’s
property, cannot be allowed to go unchecked in
society, and in the last resort they can be