Science in Christian Perspective
Abortion: A Subject for Research
JOHN B. DeHOFF
Deputy Commissioner of Health
Baltimore City Health Department
Baltimore, Maryland
21202
From: JASA 25 (June 1973): 53-55.
Conflicting Opinions
Should physicians abort any undesired pregnancy on demand and with little or no
legal restraints? May they do this only until an arbitrarily numbered week, or
at any time in a given pregnancy? Under what circumstances should
physicians recommend
an abortion because of genetic aberrations? These questions and other important
aspects of proposed liberal abortion laws are being discussed by
legislators and
interested groups, often with conflicting opinions that becloud the issues.
For adherents to an organized religion, whether they be liberal or conservative
or undecided about abortions, a central set of questions might include: Is that
body which occupies a pregnant womb simply a fetus? If it is not
simply a fetus,
how human or how much of an individual is it? If it is an individual soul, how
and when did it get there? In the ease of induced abortion, what happens if it
is denied birth? For these and related questions, are there available
sound religious
answers?
Mechanical prolongation of life, organ transplants, human
experimentation, recurring
proposals for euthanasia, and even assisted suicide are prime discussion topics
today, along with new laws to regulate abortions. For all of these,
like the debate
over abortion, each side can collect reasonable support for argument
from health
data, hospital records and statistics, anecdotes and philosophy.
Social scientists,
in speaking of
abortions, emphasize economic or family problems associated with unplanned and
unwanted children. Gynecologists and obstetricians are apt to be more concerned
with the relative safety of carefully timed and surgically correct techniques,
contrasting these to the dangers of illegal or clumsy abortions. Psychiatrists
report emotionally traumatic experiences of patients they see after
crude abortions,
or the distress which parents or even children may suffer when that pregnancy
is not wanted.
Even as these related professional persons have differing but
predictable opinions,
so do the clergymen of several major faiths, based on respective
Scripture, dogma
or religious law. Their opinions may also reflect contributions from medicine,
social sciences and legal thought because church groups sometime lack their own
clearly derived and tested experimental evideince.
A Fresh Theological Approach
What now seems required is that the governing bodies of major
organized religions
initiate fresh theological research into the nature of being or of existence.
Life itself has always been a primary concern of major religions.
Church-sponsored
action programs, in the main, relate to concerns about human life,
improving human
existence, lessening suffering, and preparing individuals for life everlasting.
Christianity has a particular concern for man's individual being-ness but,
without a continually expanding knowledge of this life-force, its
statements and
social action to protect individuals tend to become either progressively more
secular or more dogmatic. In the matters of life and death, which the debates
over abortion and euthanasia bring to our attention, spokesmen for
organized religions
must be prepared with cogent arguments reasonably developed, if they -wish to
influence public policy.
New attitudes concerning birth and death generate new questions,
answers to which
will require that religious professionals possess an improved understanding of
the life process. Dad Wolfe, in an editorial about dying (Science,
12 June 1970)
said, "Physicians alone cannot answer such questions. They call for wider
attention, for they all involve scientific, ethical, humanitarian, social, and
sometimes religious questions." Denis Cavanaugh, M.D., professor
of obstetrics
and gynecology at the St. Louis University School of Medicine, said (American
Medical News, 22 June 1970),
I think that certainly from the blastocyst stage the fetus qualifies for respect. It is alive because it has the ability to reproduce dying cells. It is human because its parents are human and because it can be distinguished from other non-human species. It seems evident that the fetus is only different from you and me in that it has not yet been given the time to develop its whole potential.
For the fetus, abortion is always a matter of life or death.
Sometimes it is also
for the mother, and in this case society cares what happens to her. If society
really believed that the unborn infant needed only time to develop
its whole human
potential, think what a difference it would make in any consideration
of abortion.
It is interesting to note that psychoanalytic literature reports cases in which
people related their adult problems to their experiences in the womb or while
being born. Should this really be so, one would have additional reason to think
of the fetus as a developing human being.
What, then, should be done about this fetal child, this person on the
way to incarnation
or embodiment? Is it fair to brush aside considerations of his destiny because
one does not yet know him? Obviously, abortion either makes no
difference at all
to the unborn child or it matters greatly to him. At this time, no
evidence supports
either supposition, and one guess is as valid as another.
Only occasionally do physically harmful conditions truly threaten the lives of
mothers. Ample legal permission now exists to abort dangerous
pregnancies. However,
the hulk of requests for abortions are to terminate healthy
conceptions in healthy'
women. The Maryland State Department of Health reported that 91
percent of legally
performed abortions in that State for 1969 were to relieve
"maternal emotional
distress." Career women, careless marital partners, unmarried
women, or accidental
pregnancies later in married life are major components of this broad category
of legal abortions.
A physician can find it difficult to evaluate women who plead severe emotional
distress when they demand that he abort their pregnancy or they will
abort themselves.
"The clear-cut fetal, medical and severe psychiatric case is not
difficult."
wrote Charles A. Dafoe, M.D., in the American Medical News for 15 June 1971);
for the other eases which put professional judgments to severe test "there
must he a middle
ground of medical, social, and public opinion. This we must seek out
and find."
Major church organizations should insist that effective religious opinion for
that middle ground be available.
Religious questions about abortions should have to do at least with the nature of ensoulment and the effects of human tinkering with this process.
Questions which face churchmen, then, are not those which deal with
whether abortions
are safe or dangerous, legal or illegal, free or restricted. These are matters
for physicians and lawyers. Religious questions about abortions should have to
do at least with the nature of ensoulment and the effects of human
tinkering with
this process because the very nature of existence has always been a
proper religious
study. Indeed, it is now an urgent subject inasmuch as technology can
abort one's
becoming or prolong human existence even when conscious life has
definitely ended.
From their own knowledge, as well as from that understanding gained
from the study
of other disciplines, major denominations should begin by issuing comprehensive
opinions on the nature and process of birth and death. Denominational
statements
about abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide, based on religious experience
and interpretation, are urgently needed.
Religious Research
Having first responded by these fresh expressions of their unique concepts of
existence, which are in addition to their other official statements,
major denominations
soon thereafter should engage in serious attempts to gain new
insights into life
processes through religious research.
Imaginative medical and scientific research has developed techniques which can
interrupt pregnancies without danger to the mother, extend reasonable life by
transplants, or prolong existence by mechanical support. Just as
medical-engineering
partnerships have solved complicated technical human problems, so can equally
determined medical-theological investigative partnerships learn more about the
life which is in those humans with problems.
One would hope that church governing bodies could seriously consider
the sponsorship
of research centers allied with other university-based health and
social welfare
study groups, and with staffs who match them in curiosity and integrity. Moves
of this nature should attract additional contributions from
foundations interested
in human studies, if church money is also sincerely committed.
Should an independent research center not be feasible at this time, a seminary
associated with a medical school or university could, if it desired,
attract research
professors and graduate students with sufficient
curiosity and proficiency to investigate religious problem areas
previously considered
impossible. Although it is not easy to persuade either the biological scientist
or the theologian to accept each other's viewpoints, often
apparently' incompatible,
the beginning and ending of human life surely is an exciting area for joint
exploration. Together, they should succeed in developing a new set of
valid research
techniques which are needed to explain much of what has been
considered a mystery.
Some movement in this direction has been made at universities like Harvard and
Vanderbilt, where several professors have joint appointments in
schools of divinity,
medicine and social science.
Unfortunately, church governing bodies cannot be expected to receive favorably
a proposal to establish a religious research institute. In addition
to the constraints
of increasingly limited budgets, and the tendency for large ruling or governing
groups to be conservative and resist all hut the most orderly change,
the serious
impediment to collaborative research is attitudinal.
Uncritical Beliefs
Progress through research is rendered difficult by the heavy reliance of most
religions upon belief. Uncritical belief or belief that permits no doubt will
block research in any field; but it is particularly troublesome in
organized religion
because both its leaders and the rank-and-file regularly say, "I
believe."
Creedal statements and Scriptural statements emphasize this belief base. It is
natural, therefore, for a true believer to find it nearly impossible to deny a
belief which has been regularly stated publicly, or to openly
question the membership
vows which provide access to a circle of respected fellow-worshippers. Although
belief may he a useful attribute in the act of worship, it is apt to become a
hindrance in the pursuit of knowledge which, paradoxically, can
improve the worship
process.
One would hope that church governing bodies could seriously consider
the sponsorship
of research centers.
Religious beliefs may perhaps be termed paradigms, which have
recently been discussed
in another context by Charles C. Tart.1 He pointed out that "A paradigm is
an intellectual achievement that underlies normal science and
attracts and guides
the work of an enduring number of adherents in their scientific theory."
He further stated that a paradigm is an implicit framework for most
persons working
within it, and that it does not seriously occur to the adherents of a paradigm
to question it any more. (His paper should be consulted for a further
discussion
of state-specific sciences and
religion.)
Inasmuch as organized religions are composed of leaders and followers
with firmly
established sets of believing relationships or paradigms, one can expect only
gradual, evolutionary changes, if the formal organizations are to
survive. However,
Canon David Jenkins, a well-known British theologian and Director of
the Humanum
Studies for The World Council of Churches, has suggested that interdisciplinary
inquiry into problems of biology and the quality of life be
started, even though "it is not cry clear what,
if anything, biologists, moral philosophers and social scientists
have in common
in their respective customary methods of investigation for dealing
with problems."2
Beliefs upon which we have built assumptions for handling questions no longer
work smoothly, and these new uncertainties appear in the form of
problems. Canon
Jenkins says that problems are merely symptoms of disturbances, and
do not necessarily
describe the nature and causes of the disturbances. He proposes an
interdisciplinary
approach, with full use of respective expertise to probe into the causes and
features of disturbances recognized as problems. Furthermore, he believes that
a collaborative investigation into the quality of life can be
constructed so that
scientists, social scientists and theologians may work together on
the questions
"Who am I?" and "What am I for?"
An Effective Research Institute
Relevant religious research can hardly be expected to issue from a constituency
which repeatedly and faithfully affirms belief in a system. Nor can
it be expected
to issue from dedicated pastoral clergymen, or even from governing
bodies unless
they are encouraged and supported by theologians or divinity school
faculties.
No doubt, the development of an effective research institute will he difficult.
Without a research technique, without religious persons interested in research,
it may be almost impossible. Yet, there are signs of a growing interest in the
problems of life and death now evident in progressive universities.
One can only
hope that the news will reach denominational headquarters soon.
REFERENCES
1Tart, C. C., "States of Consciousness and State-Specific Sciences,"
Science pp. 1203-1210, 16 June 1972.
2Jenkins, D.: "Problems of Biology end the Quality of Life."
Anticipation: Christian Social Thought in Future Perspective, pp. 21-29, (Published by Department on Church and Society, World Council
of Churchics, Geneva, Switzerland).