Now, my former colleague James H. Fetzer (we're both retired now from the University of Minnesota Duluth) has cogently argued recently that the Roman Catholic bishops' objections to artificial contraception and to legalized abortion in the first trimester are themselves immoral positions -- based on the deontological moral theory that he works with. Deontological moral theory derives from Kant's moral theory -- not from Roman Catholic natural-law moral theory.)
Fetzer sets forth his position in a lengthy essay (with helpful illustrations) titled "Hobby Lobby: Can philosophy help solve social problems?" that he published at the Veterans Today website on July 12, 2014.
Because Fetzer is a retired philosophy professor, you may suspect that he will try to answer the question in his title in the affirmative. But I am not going to try to sum up each part of his lengthy essay. Instead, I will quote his own summary statement of his position based on deontological moral theory:
"The crucial issue is whether women should be compelled [by the law or by the misguided moral claims advanced by the Roman Catholic bishops and their allies in other religious traditions] to carry an unwanted fetus to term. The anti-abortion zealots who are promoting ever more restrictions on women's reproductive rights [i.e., legal rights under U.S. law since Roe v. Wade in 1973] are immoral, anti-democratic and un-American.
"They [the anti-abortion zealots] are immoral because slavery is immoral, if any acts are immoral, where these fanatics want to convert women into reproductive slaves. Forcing a woman to bring to term an unwanted fetus is about as immoral as it gets.
"They [the anti-abortion zealots] are anti-democratic because democracy is based on freedom of choice, which has historically been the basis for our democracy. In this case, these [anti-abortion] zealots are imposing articles of [their religious] faith upon others who do not share them [in short, the anti-abortion zealots are theocons].
"They [the anti-abortion zealots] are un-American because, as a Constitutional republic, the nation is supposed to be governed by the rule of law, not the interests of religious fanatics, who are doing everything they can to subvert the law of the land.
"Unwanted children are a major expense to society because they tend to commit more crimes and other offenses, leading to prosecutions and incarcerations at great cost to the taxpayer. Choice compels no one to abort or not abort. It is moral, American and democratic."
In a nutshell, this sums up Fetzer's position. However, I hasten to add that he works out a nuanced position regarding the morality of abortion in the second and third trimesters. However, like the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade (1973), and like me, Fetzer is not troubled morally by legalized abortion in the first trimester.
In closing, I would like to mention that Fetzer has also worked out his position regarding abortion in the first, second and third trimester in his book Render Unto Darwin: Philosophical Aspects of the Christian Right's Crusade Against Science (2007, pages 95-120).
Concerning the threat that anti-abortion theocons pose, see Damon Linker's book The Theocons: Secular America Under Siege (2006).
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
