BONUS|Faith, Reason, & Dobbs. v. Jackson w/ Fr. Marcel Guarnizo
Summary
What are the foundations of a course on faith and reason? What are the positives that have come out of the Dobbs v. Jackson SCOTUS opinion? Are there serious problems with the SCOTUS opinion? Fr. Marcel Guarnizo joins us to discuss these topics.
Guest Bio
Fr Marcel Guarnizo is a philosopher, theologian, political commentator, and columnist. He was the President and founder of Aid to the Church in Russia as well as an international academy where he taught ethics, bioethics, metaphysics, and political philosophy.
Resources
EMAIL ADDRESS
The Dobbs v. Jackson Supreme Court Opinion
Abortion is Unconstitutional (article) by John Finnis
“Legal Timidity” (online article) by Fr. Marcel Guarnizo
Related Episodes
Ep. #138 – Pro-life Philosophy & Arguments w/ Trent Horn
BONUS|Originalism & Dobbs v. Jackson w/ Prof. Kevin Gutzman
Ep. #99 – What to Say and How to Say It w/ Brandon Vogt
Hey John. This was a really interesting episode. I implore you to listen to the episode again if you haven’t already. I think you misunderstood his main point. From my understanding, he seemed focused on the fundamental legislative authority of a government and not a “U.S. Constitutional” government authority. He thought the Dobbs ruling gave the states illegitimate legislative authority with allowing laws on abortion. I’m interested to see if you change your mind. Thanks for the great podcast!
Thanks, Zenya, for the comment! I may have misunderstood, but we also may just disagree.
Re: “He thought the Dobbs ruling gave the states illegitimate legislative authority with allowing laws on abortion.”
As I see it, the issue is that neither Dobbs nor the U.S. Constitution (on an originalist reading) gives *any* legislative authority to the states. The states are already sovereign to make laws in the spheres of policing and public health. Hence, they have jurisdiction when it comes to laws concerning abortion. But, just because they have proper jurisdiction there doesn’t mean they have the moral authority to legalize abortion (or that they can make just what is inherently unjust).
I will grant, though, that there’s a substantive argument that the 14th amendment entails that no state can legalize abortion. John Finnis makes that argument here. If Finnis is right, then it would be unconstitutional for a state to legalize abortion. However, I don’t think that is correct according to an originalist reading of the 14th amendment. Fr. Marcel would then say we need to ignore originalism. But I disagree. I would say that the constitution can be *amended* to ensure a more perfect union, and we could seek such a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion (the amendment process is not ruled out by originalism but is part and parcel with it).
Here’s another subtlety. Just because one doesn’t think it’s unconstitutional for states to legalize abortion, it doesn’t follow that one thinks States have the moral right to legalize abortion (or that it’s fine and dandy if they legalize it). I think Alito is only saying the former (i.e. it’s not unconstitutional for states to make laws about abortion).
But I am open to correction. I tried to provide some after-show synthesis in the episode that dropped today. Thanks for commenting!
Thanks for responding. I’ll try to be more precise with my words. I think Fr. Marcel was talking more about his metaphysics of government or metapolitics (if that even is a thing). So when I said, “He thought the Dobbs ruling gave the states illegitimate legislative authority with allowing laws on abortion,” I was talking about his metaphysical view on government. I only think this because during the episode he kept referring to the metaphysical arguments that no government could pass legislation to kill children more than once.
I agree you both disagreed about whether the constitution allows for states to legalize abortion. But I think his main point was on his metaphysical view on government, regardless if it is in the U.S. or somewhere else in the world, no government has the authority to legislate whether children should be murdered. I think this is where you were both talking past each other a little bit.
In summary, I think you were thinking a little more narrow with the U.S. government while he was thinking of a bigger scope. Again thank you for responding I may have misunderstood him and you two may just disagree on the issue. Hopefully, that is a little clearer. Also, I will be sure to listen to today’s episode. Keep up the great work!
Re: “In summary, I think you were thinking a little more narrow with the U.S. government while he was thinking of a bigger scope.”
Yes, that very well may be right. Thanks for listening and commenting.
I do not understand the point of this dialogue. Father Marcel is well-intentioned, but lacks a rudimentary understanding of the Constitution, and of how political power is dispersed in our federal system. (And as a practical matter, there were not five votes on the Supreme Court to hold that a fetus is protected under the 14th Amendment. Granted, I think that is a serious legal position, and probably even support it. But you need five Justices, and Kavanaugh made clear is his concurrence that he would not go along with that argument.)