The Vanishing Right to Live by Charles E. Rice, New Morality or No Morality ed. by Robert Campbell (review)

50~ BOOK REVIEWS known m scholastic circles. His interpretation of the notion of being as participated esse has opened new insights into Thomistic metaphysics, which appears to be an original synthesis of Platonic, Neo-Platonic, and Aristotelian elements inspired and enlivened by a Christian spirit. Perhaps not everyone will agree with Fabro's interpretation of Aquinas's thought, and many no doubt will resent his manifest disregard for the contributions of other schools within the framework of classic philosophy. Yet it must be admitted that Fabro's work raises many interesting and challenging issues and tends to reassure the reader that the perennial values of scholastic philosophy, as reflected in Aquinas's approach to truth and reality, have much to offer even to the twentieth-century man. The Catholic University of America Washington, D. C. BERNARDINO M. BoNANSEA, 0. F. M. The Vanishing Right to Live. By CHARLES E. RICE. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Co., 1969. Pp. 200. $4.95. New Morality or No Morality. Edited by RoBERT CAMPBELL. New York: Bruce Publishing Co., 1969. Pp. 248. $6.95. Realistically aware that people are less often persuaded by " general and theoretical " considerations than by " concrete arguments directed to specific situations," yet convinced that the former are of fundamental importance, Charles Rice has skillfully combined both approaches in his very readable treatise on contemporary moral problems. A professor at Fordham Law School when his book was published, and now at Notre Dame, Rice shows the expertise of a legal background along with a keen sensitivity to moral principles in his discussion of eight major areas: artificial insemination, abortion, euthanasia, suicide, capital punishment, contraception, sterilization , and homosexuality. His thesis is that the present trend toward liberalization in these areas reflects a declining reverence for human life, and, more basically, an erosion of men's sense of responsibility both for their own actions and for the rights of others. In each specific problem he discusses, Rice offers a quite adequate presentation of the relevant traditional arguments concerning respect for human life and for the processes that generate life; he is perhaps most effective in his reprobation of abortion and euthanasia, least so in his defense of capital punishment. At the same time, as would be expected from an author in his profession, he does not explore every aspect of each BOOK REVIEWS 503 problem with the systematic precision of a moral philosopher or theologian but concentrates on those aspects that contain discernible social and political dimensions. As regards artificial insemination, for example, he is concerned not with the case of the husband-donor (AIH) but with the more common and socially complicated case of the anonymous donor (AID). Similarly, his concern in the chapter on contraception is not with the moral character of each instance of contraceptive intercourse between married people but with the generally expanding contraceptive mentality which signifies and promotes irresponsible sexual behavior in married and unmarried people alike. Other issues are similarly treated with heavy reference to their implications for social policy. Some readers, even if they applaud the author's traditional stand on the moral issues, wiil object to his views on the political handling of these problems. Rice stands unapologetically with those who are often accused of trying to "legislate private morality." He favors legal prohibitions against not only abortion, euthanasia, and attempting or abetting suicide, but also fornication, adultery, AID, homosexuality, and most cases of sterilization. Moreover, he advocates legal " discouragement " of contraception through such measures as banning their sale to unmarried minors. In particular, Rice will no doubt be charged with offering an "alarmist" argument for his position: one of his major apprehensions about AID, abortion, euthanasia, contraception and sterilization is that these practices, once condoned in principle and permitted legally, may be adopted as coercive instruments of a government increasingly preoccupied with population control and human engineering. However, I think the author makes a good case. He is not at all unaware that questions of moral principle are not the same as questions of political prudence, in fact he is often at pains to emphasize the distinction; but he is also aware-as some of his opponents may not always be-that it...