Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Material Aggressors: continuing discussion with Daniel Hill

The aggressor idea is much kicked around. As you know the application to a foetus was condemned in 1898 and 1902 (on the history, see Ramsey 'War and the Christian Conscience'). That wouldn't stop a Jesuit taking it up, of course! I'll read this Conley piece. I'm not completely clear on how best to define a material aggressor. But a foetus doesn't look very like a child playing with a grenade, or a person falling onto someone from a balcony. The foetus is just *there*, and has as much right to be there as the mother - a point made by Finnis is his reply to Judith Jarvis Thompson's strange article about finding yourself an involtary life-support machine for a famous violinist.

No comments: