The Joy of the Truth » Freedom

Organ Donation: Act of Charity or Abuse of Human Dignity?

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:00:16 +0000

New York recently past a law requiring all citizens to be organ donors unless they opt out. While Catholic moral theologians are still debating the moral rightness of organ donation, in a culture of death this new law is more than problematic.

Catholic moral theologians debate the moral value of the organ donation because of the principle of totality and integrity, which states that the body should be kept whole unless the removal of a body part is necessary for the body’s overall health. This principle protects the dignity of the body as part of the human person. This philosophy of the human body stands at odds with other philosophies within our culture that see the body as a mere vessel for the spirit, or that see the human person as no more than a physical animal. There is also question about whether or not a human person is truly dead with the organs are harvested. Complete bodily death leads to the immediate deterioration of organs. Some organ donation advocates want to create a new category of “death” that allows for the harvesting of organs before the body is completely dead as long as it is reasonably certain that the patient will not regain consciousness and that the brain activity has fallen below a level defined as the standard for life. This places the value of the organ donor’s life below that of the organ recipient because the organ donor’s life is considered useless. The definition of brain death is debated among moral theologians.

Besides questions about the morality of organ harvesting in general, there is also the question about free will. If organ donation is deemed morally acceptable, it is because it is a free gift of one’s body for the good of another, and therefore an act of love. However, if organ donation is forced by law, this free act of love is diminished or even destroyed. Furthermore, our culture runs the risk of becoming utilitarian, judging one life against the other based on some standards of quality that are purely materialistic and that do not recognize the dignity and value of each human person.

Any way you look at it, the New York law is a problem. Yes, it could save lives by making more organs available for transplant, but only at the expense of devaluing other lives. It could put doctors in the position of making value judgments that determine that one person’s life has less value than another person’s. It could be one more step in the culture of death to devalue human personhood and to make life, our bodies, and our very lives into nothing more than a commodity for the highest bidder.

Living the Deliberate Life

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 19:07:00 +0000

While the natural moral law does address moral issues (what’s right and wrong), it also leads us to live fully human lives. This was the good news that I shared this past weekend with our diocesan Lay Formation Institute students and deacon aspirants. I think this knowledge gives us a new vision of morality. Most people view morality with a bit of trepidation, like a child looks at her parents’ house rules. Rules are limitations on our freedom that we don’t want to get caught breaking. The Catholic moral tradition tells us that the moral law is given to us by God to guide us to true human fulfillment.

Human beings are endowed with an intellect and a will. We have the power to truly understand the world around us, to see the natural and even the supernatural meaning imbued in Creation and in our own actions. We also have the freedom to determine our own personality and ultimately our own eternal destiny.

To live a truly human life means to live deliberate lives. This means that we

examine our lives
seek meaning
control our emotions and our desires so we can choose whether it is best to act on them or to suppress them
analyze influences on our choices and choose whether or not to be swayed by them
truly know ourselves
truly know others (intimacy)
form our character through our choices
grow in virtue
choose the good for others (philios – love)
choose to offer ourselves as gift to others (agape – love)

This is certainly not an exhaustive list. However, I think this list shows how the natural law leads us to truly fulfilled human lives.

Living this way requires effort. It requires exercising our intellect by reading, dialogging with others, writing and studying. It requires strengthening our will through the exercise of self-control, careful planning (prudence), and being conscious of the choices we make.

Read more about living a deliberate life

The Foundation for Critical Thinking advocates strengthening the intellect and will through careful thinking and study
Read our Squidoo lens about natural law
Read how natural law leads us to become more human in the Library
Listen to Matthew Kelly telling you how to become the best version of yourself by buying his audio CD from the From the Abbey online Catholic bookstore.

$2.84 (3.00 with tax for WI customers) + shipping

The Myth of Reproductive Freedom

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 05:50:00 +0000

Advocates of abortion do not believe that they advocate killing babies. Most of them actually believe that they are striving for “reproductive freedom” for women. In the last pre-election cycle, a brief editorial advocated the vote for a specific candidate because that candidate was the “only one who will protect reproductive freedom.”

What is freedom, as understood morally and by the US Constitution? Many modern Americans mistakenly believe that freedom means the ability to do whatever we want. However, such a definition will not stand up to scrutiny. Certainly our founding fathers did not envision a land without law or restriction. Indeed, much of the political energy expended after the Revolutionary War was in attempt to balance freedom with social order. Nobody would argue that rapists are deprived of their freedom by laws of sexual consent. Few people would argue that suicide should become an accepted practice among American teenagers (there are those who would put harm to others as the only limitation on freedom). The founding fathers understood freedom as the abiliy to maximize one’s human potential. This understanding of freedom comes from enlightenment philosophy, but the Enlightenment got it from Catholic moral philosophy. Catholics would add another level, the ability to attain the greatest good, union with God.

Does abortion allow for the attainment of the greatest good, even on a human level? I recognize that a pregnancy before a young woman is ready to raise a family can seem to impede the fulfillment of her human potential. However, avoiding pregnancy and abortion are not necessarily the same option. Sexual restraint actually maximizes a person’s human potential. It requires the use of the human faculties. It offers a chance to forge truly loving, life-giving relationships.

Does abortion empower women? Ellen Goodman definitely belives it does. I have to give Ms. Goodman credit where credit is due. In her article, “Taking ‘choice’ out of Pro-Choice ,” she offers a good attempt at a logical, consistent ethic regarding her pro-choice position. She berates the idea of forcing someone to have an abortion – reminding her readers that pro-choice means just that, ensuring that woman have the choice whether or not to have an abortion. That may sometimes mean that they choose not abort. Ms. Goodman’s error is to choose to comment on an extreme case (unfortuantely the same mistake made by pro-life advocates such as Cheryl Sullenger from Operation Rescue). She then uses this exreme case to argue against parental notification laws. What if the parents want the abortion, she asks? Would anti-abortion advocates still want parents to have say over their children? Her very question reveals the error of the “reproductive freedom” argument. I don’t have to argue from extremes to prove it, either.

Let me offer you an anecdote. A good friend of mine – a former girlfriend, actually – had a one-night stand and got pregnant. She informed the child’s father and asked him only for a little help. He told her, “I’ll give you money for an abortion. If you don’t want an abortion, you’re on your own.” I ask you – who did abortion empower in this case?

When pro-life advocates talk about women being forced into abortion, we don’t have to focus on the extreme cases of “sobbing women dragged into abortion clinics by the neck and hair.” Women are forced to have abortions in many more subtle ways. Women are forced to have abortions because their boyfriends offer no other options. Women are forced to get abortions because their parents have sent the message that sexual misconduct would result in being disowned. Women are forced into abortion by a culture that assumes that not having an abortion is foolhardy. No, women don’t have the “choice” that Ms. Goodman advocates for them.

That’s exactly why the pro-life position is actually more pro-choice than the pro-abortion position. Law is designed to establish a minimal level of morality. Oops – does that word offend you, Ms. Goodman? Let me rephrase. The purpose of law is to establish a level of protection within a society against those who would exploit us or who would have disregard for our safety and our rights in their quest for pleasure.

Technorati Tags: abortion, freedom

The Joy of the Truth » Freedom

Organ Donation: Act of Charity or Abuse of Human Dignity?

Related Links:

Living the Deliberate Life

Related Links:

The Myth of Reproductive Freedom

Related Links: