Science in Christian Perspective
Christian Perspectives on Abortion
ROBERT L. SHACKLETT
Professor of Physics and Assistant Dean,
School of Graduate Studies,
California
State University Fresno, California 93710
From: JASA 25 (June 1973): 44-53
Response by:
Samuel A. Jeanes,
Michael Tooley and
Gordon Brown
[
My interest in this subject grows out of a long study, extending over some 25
years, of the Biblical teaching on the nature of man. This study,
quite logically,
led to the consideration of such questions as, "V/hen does man
have his beginning?"
I soon found that the subject of abortion is closely intertwined with
these theological
issues with the result that my theological interest began to expand
into the social,
medical, and legal aspects of abortion. My association with people interested
primarily in the latter led to the formation of a local chapter of
the California
Committee on Therapeutic Abortion for which I served as chairman until
its merger
with a local affiliate of Planned Parenthood. I now serve as Vice President of
the board of directors of this organization.]
The subject of abortion is one manifesting particularly strong coupling between Christian and environmental concerns. This paper will attempt an analysis of this relationship, concentrating on the moral aspects of abortion as seen from a Christian perspective.
Methodology
Abortion is a very complex subject and because of this complexity many people
have made up their minds on the matter based upon the emotions that are related
to a few key phrases such as "sanctity of life," "murder of human
beings," or 'secret and loathsome crime." It is not the triggering of
emotional responses
by value-laden words that I would object to, but the attitude that
these few trigger
words suffice to come to a reasoned conclusion on the subject. In an attempt to
minimize the impact of value-laden terminology, I would like to use a method of
analysis which I find to be helpful in dealing with moral questions
that Are further
complicated by legal prohibitions.
Let me illustrate this method by supposing there exists some aspect
of human behavior,
call it X, which has been regarded by a large enough segment of a
society as sufficiently
immoral or "had" so that a law or code has been enacted or otherwise
established prohibiting X. For example, X could be miscegenation in
the deep south,
skinny-dipping in Vermont, or wearing clothes in Kampala, Uganda. 1,
2 The dispassionate
analysis of the X issue proceeds as follows. One attempts to discover all the
reasons why the society regards X as immoral and then one tries to
find the reasons
why the prohibition of X works to the disadvantage of that society.
Once the reasons
are accumulated, the analysis continues with a careful assessment of
the validity
of each reason proposed. The investigator arrives at his conclusion that X is
indeed "bad" for that society or that its prohibition is just as bad
or worse through a subjective weighing of the relative merits of each
argument.
The analysis is based upon the existence of negative aspects, both of X itself
and its prohibition. The reason that the negative or "bad"
aspects are
examined is because the law enters the moral scene only through
negative commandment,
"Thou shalt not." Societies do not make laws prescribing
good behavior.
As the apostle Paul observed, "It was the law that made me know what sin
is. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, 'Do
not covet.'3
The analysis concludes with a subjective evaluation of all the reasons proposed
as to why X is bad and why its prohibition is bad. It may happen that
scientific
or objective data will he used in support of one or more of the
reasons examined.
This does not alter the fact that the final evaluation of the situation cannot
be a scientific one. However logical one tries to he in his analysis
of the situation,
he cannot automatically expect someone else who has followed the
analysis to arrive
at the same conclusions. As G. J. Warneck has observed, moral arguments suffer
the handicap that while an argument offers reasons to people, people
are not always reasonable.4 In spite of this difficulty, the exercise we are about
to go through
will still accomplish an important objective, namely, to force a subject which
is heavily cloaked with emotionalism to open itself up to the light of patient
inquiry.
Moral Propositions on Abortion
We must now get down to cases. X is going to be abortion and the prohibition of
X, of course, refers to the antiabortion laws on the statute books of
most states
in our country. Our methodology calls for the assembling of all the
major reasons
offered as to why abortion is immoral and then the reasons why the laws against
it are had for our society. This task is not
Our methodology calls for the assembling of all the major reasons offered as to why abortion is immoral and then the reasons why the laws against it are bad for our society.
made less arduous merely because there can be only a relatively small number of
ma/or reasons to assemble. The difficulty comes in stating these
reasons so that
they overlap as little as possible and still cover the necessary
territory. Some
indication of this territory is suggested by Daniel Callahan in his
book, Abortion:
Law, Choice, and Morality. He notes that, "Abortion is at once a
moral, medical,
legal, sociological, philosophical, demographic, and psychological problem, not
readily amendable to one-dimensional thinking." These category
labels merely
suggest the extent of the territory to be examined and are not
intended to define
separate areas of concern that are relatively isolated from one another. It is
important that none of these broad categories is overlooked in the process of
analysis we are undertaking.
This process can be continued by listing two separate sets of propositions. The
first set states the major reasons why it is claimed that abortion is immoral
or otherwise bad for a society. The second deals with the major reasons why it
is claimed that antiabortion laws raise moral questions.
In the first set I include four propositions which seem to cover the
moral, theological,
legal, and sociological aspects of the antiabortion side of the
issue. These are:
1. An abortion terminates human life.
2. An abortion interferes with the Divine Plan,
3. An abortion interferes with the rights of the fetus.
4. Abortion fosters sexual promiscuity.
In the second set are five propositions which relate to laws
prohibiting abortion
and which seem to cover the ethical, sociological, medical, legal,
and religious
aspects of this side of the issue. These are:
1 The law denies a woman authority over her own body.
2. The law forces unwanted children upon society.
3. The law discriminates against females and low income groups.
4. The law gives preference to one religion over others.
5. The law can he held responsible for unsafe medical practices.
I have arranged the order of these propositions to indicate roughly
my own evaluation
of their relative weights.
We now undertake an examination of each of the nine propositions stated above,
attempting in each case to see if a Christian perspective tends to support or
refute it.
Analysis of the Propositions
A. The Antiabortion Propositions
1. An abortion terminates human life.
There is no doubt that this proposition is used most frequently by
those who are
opposed to abortion. A pamphlet published by the Knights of Columbus expresses
this point of view rather succinctly: "The killing
The labeling of the blastocyst as a human being at this stage depends completely on the attitude and cultural religious background of the potential mother.
of human beings through abortion strikes at the common good so gravely that it endangers the fabric of society and so should he suppressed by law."6 With terms that home in on their emotional targets, this statement demonstrates that little progress is likely until the central issue is separated out from the proposition. This central issue can be east in the form of a question. "When does human life begin?"7
A variety of answers have been offered to this question over several centuries
of contemplation by theologians, philosophers, legal scholars, and scientists.
They range from the moment of conception, to implantation, to
ensoulment, to quickening,
to viability, to actual birth and possibly even beyond birth. I would like to
comment briefly on these various answers in order to provide an indication of
the wide variety of philosophies and opinions one can encounter in this study.
For those desiring a more exhaustive treatment of the question, Callahan's hook
snakes an excellent reference.8
a. Concepion
That the moment of conception marks the beginning of human life is the position
of most Roman Catholics9,10 A Catholic friend of mine, and
incidently a scientist,
remarked that lie accepted this teaching simply because the time of conception
was well defined-any later stage of development was too fuzzy to use
as a starting
point. Certainly there is no debate about the fact that conception
marks the beginning
of a developmental process which eventually culminates in a human
being. And there
is no debate about the fact that conception does take place at a definite point
in time. But when the definiteness of time is coupled with the indefiniteness
which is intrinsic in the word "human" the result is a concept which
has little pragmatic value.
The set of responses that are triggered when a person hears or reads the word
"human" are typically those resulting from his experiences with adult
persons, not from experiences with children or babies or fetuses and certainly
not from his experiences with newly fertilized ova. The application of the word
"human" to that which is potentially human is a perfectly legitimate
use of the figure of speech synecdoche,' or the
substitution of the part for the whole. Unfortunately, the use of this figure
of speech is not sufficient to convey the status of fact to that to which it is
applied. For example, the figure synecdoche would allow the term
"human being"
to be applied to an unfertilized ovum provided that the particular ovum in mind
was regarded as eventually developing into a full-fledged person. But to then
insist that the unfertilized ovum is, in fact, a human being is to debase and
degrade a valuable tool of language, the figure of speech.
It would be naive to suppose that the traditional Catholic teaching is adhered
to by all practicing Catholics. A typical liberal Catholic position
has been stated
by Father Joseph F. Donceel, S. J., Ph.D.:
Nobody can tell with certitude when a child is capable of performing his first free moral choice, but all of us are quite certain that, during the first months or years of his life, a human baby is not yet a tree moral agent. Likewise I do not know when the human soul is infused, when the embryo becomes human. But I feel certain that there is no human soul, hence no hum an person, during the first few weeks of pregnancy, as lung as the embryo remains in the vegetative stage of its development.11
In addition, Daniel Callahan, a Catholic and former editor of Commonweal, in which
lie published strong antiabortion editorials, after his four years of
exhaustive
study and research on abortion, is able to state, ". . . at no stage of
its development does the conceptus fulfill the definition of a
person, which implies
a developed capacity for reasoning, willing, desiring and relating
to others...12 These opinions are in stark contrast to
another statement in the Knights of Columbus pamphlet, "Biologically it is
clear that life is present from the first moment of conception and
all the evidence
is in favor of saying that the resulting fetus is a truly human
being."13
b. implantation
Implantation of the fertilized ovum in the uterine
wall occurs about a week after conception. This stage
of embryonic development is crucial, and there is a
probability of somewhere between 10% and 38% (depending on which authority is
cited) that a spontaneous abortion will terminate the pregnancy due to failure
to achieve implantation.14 Without implantation the hormonal changes
which signal
the onset of pregnancy so not take place and the fact of
fertilization would
go undetected. Paul Ramsey, a Protestant etheist, discusses the idea that the
human being begins at the time of implantation," The point made
is that the
growing mass of cells (now called a blastocyst), once implanted, begins the
development of its own "life support system " in the uterine wall. In
a sense, the mother merely supports the parasitic existence of a new liv ing entity within her.
In what sense is this entity "human"? The question now is a
little different
than it was at the moment of conception. here the existence of the blastocyst
is clinically detectable, and in a few days the potential mother will know of
its presence through her first missed period.
Once she becomes aware of the fact of her pregnancy, the whole
complex of attitudes
and expectations will begin to determine how she views this "new
development."
If the pregnancy has been hoped for, human status is attributed at once. If the
pregnancy is a disaster for her she may regard the intruder as human but she is
likely to develop a hatred for it.
The labeling of the blastocyst as a human being at this stage depends
completely
on the attitude and cultural-religious background of the potential
mother. Theologians
and philosophers may engage in eloquent debates over whether the
entity is human
or not, but they are not the ones that are pregnant. How can they, or
any outsider
for that matter, make the determination for this woman that she has
a human being
within her when "human" is such a subjective quality at
this stage?
c. Ensoulment
The concept of ensoulment or the "infusion" of the soul
has an important
hearing on the question we are exploring especially since we are interested in
a Christian perspective. Here we encounter what is purported to he a
Divine act,
the merging together of the human soul and body even though the body has only
the most primitive form. If it can be established that ensoulment is something
that indeed occurs in the womb of a pregnant woman, and not merely in the minds
of theologians, then we have the answer to the question, "When does human
life begin?"
In all the research I have done on the subject of man's nature 1 have
yet to come
across an elaboration of the process of ensoulment. Because of this deficiency
ill my resource material I am forced to extrapolate from the
implications contained
in the terminology and from widely held religious beliefs in the existence of
the soul.
Ensoulment, then, seems to imply a supernatural
process in which a preexisting or newly created entity
called the soul is somehow merged with or infused into or otherwise intimately
identified with the group of cells that is called the embryo. Whether
this merging
is done in the space-time realm of the embryo or whether it extends
beyond the
four dimensions of the physical world is a matter only for speculation.
However, as scientists who also have the conviction that the
Scriptures have something
authentic to say to
mankind, we can do more than speculate. The Bible
contains 859 occurrences of the Hebrew worn ne,ohesh
and the Greek word issue psuche (the words commonly translated soul). A
study of all
these occurrences has persuaded me that the Biblical writers do not set forth
a dichotomy or a trichotomy in man's nature. Instead, they see man
as a unity,
with the word soul describing this unity from the sentient point of
view. Nowhere
in tile entire Bible is there real evidence that an entity called the soul has
an existence separate and independent from the physical body. Any attempt on my
part to substantiate this assertion would take us far from our
subject so I shall
resist the temptation. Instead, may I observe that the pages of the Journal of
the American Scientific Affiliation have carried several articles past issues
which tend to refute this dogma.16
d. Quickening and Viability
These two terms are considered together since they have a close relationship,
medically and philosophically. Quickening, of course, refers to the
first movements
of the fetus that can he felt by the mother and takes place generally between
the Mill and the 16th week. Viability is defined as occurring near
the 20th week
when the fetus has a definite chance of surviving outside the uterine
environment.
FIle embryo announces its presence through chemical signals. As already discussed, these signals can be interpreted variously
by the mother will) may or may not attribute human status to the entity causing
them.
Fetal movements, on the other hand, provide signs of life which have more than
just symbolic content. The mothers interpretation of these signs of
life are still
highly dependent upon her attitude toward her preg
nancy. If the pregnancy is desired, quickening is ac-companied by joy; if not,
then anxiety is increased and could mount to desperation levels.
It can he seen that attributing human status to the fetus is still an arbitrary
matter depending on the attitudes of the observers. Outsiders, through common
law up to the nineteenth century, have generally regarded quickening as a point
beyond which the fetus should have the protection of law. 17 As
medical knowledge
increased and showed that no logical distinction could he made
between the fetus
before and after quickening, the religious climate of the times
prevailed to cause
legislatures to move this legal protection hack to the time of conception. The
current trend toward a liberalization of these legal restraints has recognized
that the concept of viability implies more than just the ability to
live outside
the womb.
e. Summary
Our examination has been sufficient to demonstrate that the concept
of human life
is a growing, a developing thing which roughly parallels the growth
and development
of the fetus itself. Of course, there are those who contend for its
full humanity
from the moment of conception, but their argument is based more on the sanctity
of life in any form rather than attributed human status.
The proposition that abortion terminates human life can then be said
to have increasing
validity with the length of time that has elapsed since conception.
2. An abortion interferes with the Divine Plan.
The analysis of this proposition requires knowledge of the Divine
Plan as it relates
to the existence of bnman life in general and individual human beings
in particular.
I have been able to isolate three reasons that are usually offered in
this category
by antiabortionists.
a. An abortion prevents a soul front entering the world.
This reason is based on a belief in preexistent souls that live in
some supernatural
realm prior to the preparation of a human body for them to inhabit.
Since I have
already dealt with the theory of ensoulment and its lack of support both in the
Scriptures and in science
It should not be necessary to comment further on this point. However,
it is interesting
to observe that the Mormons, who believe in pre-existence, are strongly opposed
to abortion and that India, where there is an almost universal belief
in reincarnation,
had restrictive abortion laws. Population problems in India have proved to he
of greater moment than religious tenets, and a much more permissive statute is
about to be adopted 18
b. An abortion deprives Cad of a potential worshipper.
The Bible ought to be a valid source of information on this point, but the only
passage I can find that deals with Cod seeking worshippers is john
4:23. It would
appear that quality of worship, not quantity, is of greater value to God.
Another passage that bears tangentially on this point is Matthew 3:7-9. If Cod
were being denied potential worshippers because of interrupted pregnancies, it
would seem that He is able to cope with the problem, resorting to
rocks if necessary.
3.
Abortion violates Carl's command to multiply and replenish the earth.
William Pollard has pointed out that the lot has fallen to the
present generation
to experience the fulfillment of the injunction of Genesis 1:28.19 We are now
hearing the pleas of the experts, "Please turn off the people
machine!"
With the doubling time of world populations now at about 35 years and with the
prospect that some of us here may have to live in a world of 6 billion people,
we can rightfully ask if the earth has not indeed been replenished to
Cod's satisfaction.
Since He has allowed nations to walk in their own ways, 20 it would appear that
man is forced to use his own best judgment on how many people he can stand to
have around him. Same nations, such as Japan and Hungary, have determined that
they have enough people for the resources available and allow abortions to he
practiced as a primary method of birth control. The argument that abortion is
wrong because it doesn't allow the population to grow would not be
warmly welcomed
ill such countries.
3. Abortion interferes with the rights of the fetus.
This proposition arises from the fact that law, tort law in
particular, recognizes
that the unborn fetus has certain rights. Abortion makes it
impossible for the
fetus to enjoy these rights and therefore must be immoral. The
argument is based
on the contention that law, being a distillation of what is in the public mind,
reflects at least a relative morality.
Noonan and Lonisell, in Nnonan's book The Morality
of Abortion, deal with this point at some length.21 The following
paragraph illustrates
the approach taken.
The tort law is not simply a guide to the status of the fetus in in one branch of the law. It is a reflection of how judges responding to changing medical knowledge and attempting to do justice have conic to regard the being in the womb. In the words of Dean Pl osser summarizing the revolution in tort law. ''all writers who have discussed the problem have joined in condemning the old rule and in maintaining that the unborn child in the path of an automobile is as much a person in the street as the mother." We shall see if the unborn child can become less than a person if he stands in the path, not of a negligent motorist, but of a surgeon who would take his life.
Apart from the fact that the supposed analogy in the last statement is grossly
deficient in its logical structure, the argument set forth above contends that
if tort law recognizes the fetus as a person then there is greater reason for
maintaining antiabortion laws.
The situations that arise in tort actions on behalf of a fetus,
however, actually
support roy contentions that the person status of a fetus is an
attributed rather
than an absolute quality. Let me illustrate with this example. Suppose a woman
is crossing the street on her way to get a legal abortion and she is struck by
a negligent motorist with the result that the fetus is killed. Now I
have no doubt
that any jury would award the fetus damages (payable to the mother) as a result
of a wrongful death. But what would the jury do if it knew the mother
was planning
on an abortion? Furthermore, if the mother were honest would there
even be a tort
action on behalf of the fetus?
4. Abortion fosters sexual promiscuity.
The public seems to he about equally divided on this proposition. In
a nationwide
survey conducted by Louis Harris 42% agreed with the proposition, 45%
disagreed,
and 13% were not sure.22 About the same time the survey results were published,
an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at University Hospital, San
Diego, Dr. Paul Brenner, noted that there had been a sharp increase
in the number
of abortions performed on girls under 21. He said, "Many more are getting
pregnant now, because fewer are taking the pill in concern over its
effects."22
The proposition could be stated as follows: Since abortion provides a sure cure
for the pregnancy problem, many more people will engage in illicit
sexual activities.
Whether the increase in the number of legal abortions is a direct indication of
an increase in promiscuity or reflects changes in other variables
such as a decrease
in illegal abortions, only further research can verify. Garrett
Hardin has pointed
out that people do not avoid committing a dangerous or wrongful act merely on
the basis of the risk of getting hurt or getting caught unless the
risk is better
than 1 in 10. This means that fear of pregnancy could reasonably deter illicit
sexual relations without responsible use of contraceptives if the
chance of becoming
pregnant were close to 1 in 10 or greater. However, studies show that
this probability
is more like 1 in 25, which is far smaller than the level needed to
he an effective
deterrent.
I am of the personal opinion that sexual promiscuity
I think the evidence is mounting to justify enlarging the scope of the phenomenon battered child syndrome by using the term "unwanted child syndrome".
has a deleterious effect upon the kind of human relationships that
are conducive
to a stable society. But I also believe that human nature is such that unless
a had effect follows a pleasurable activity in such a direct and forceful way
that the connection is unmistakable, it is unlikely that man will
cease that particular
activity on the basis of the bad effect alone. Until carefully
controlled research
studies indicate to the contrary I think it is more reasonable to attribute a
rising promiscuity (if indeed, this is the case) to a complex of
other pathological
social factors rather than to the availability of legal abortions.
B. The Anti-Law Propositions
When I use the term law in these propositions, I meal) that law which
would prohibit
abortion for whatever reason. Of course, no law is that prescriptive. Even the
states wills the most restrictive statutes make exceptions for the preservation
of the life of the mother. But I am referring to that overriding
philosophy which,
if it could prevail, would eliminate even the exceptions.
1. The lose denies a woman authority over her own body.
In the face of mounting feminine militancy, even the most ardent advocates of
male supremacy are beginning to acknowledge that a woman may have a few rights
over her own body. The fact that women have minds as well as bodies
is also being
recognized, as indicated by a small but growing number of state
legislatures that
have made provision for abortion on mental health grounds.
Even with abortion law liberalization there are those who contend
that the restrictions
on what is regarded to he a personal medical problem are demeaning to a woman.
As Alice Rossi put it, "A woman may have compelling reasons for not having
a churl, but if they are not pathological, she has the cruel choice
of hypocritical
feigning or seeking all illegal abortion, She must show her
'weaknesses' not her
'strengths.' "24 As a specific example of this, consider the
wording of the
mental health provision of the California Therapeutic Abortion Act:
25951, (e)(1) (An abortion is authorized it) there is substantial risk that continuance of the pregnancy would gravel)' impair the physical or mental health of she mother.
25954. The term "mental health" as used in Section 2,5951 means mental illness to the extent that the woman is dangerous to herself or the person or property of others or is in need of supervision or restraint.
The American Civil Liberties Union has taken the
position that, "It should not he deemed a crime for a woman to seek, and
for a doctor to perform, the termination of a pregnancy in accordance
with generally
accepted community standards of medical practice."25 The ACLU
views present
laws as unconstitutional because (among other reasons)
Whether we like it or not, our system honors the rich and dishonors the poor, and the law is the tool used to make this happen.
They infringe the Constitutional right to decide whether and when to
have a child,
as well as the marital right of privacy and the privacy of the
relationship between parent and physician. (Furthermore), they deprive women of their
lives and liberty
in the sense of deciding how their bodies are to he used, without due process
of law.26
The main argument that contradicts this proposition is that the rights of the
woman are not absolute and that they must be balanced against the rights of the
fetus she carries. Callahan pursues this line and finds that neither extreme,
the absolute right of the woman to abort or the absolute right of the fetus to
live, can accommodate the multitude of other dimensions that are
necessarily intrinsic
to the abortion decision."
2. The law forces unwanted children upon society.
A new term has recently thrust itself into medical, legal, and
sociological parlance.
It is "the battered child syndrome." Hardly a week goes by
without the
newspaper reporting on a child beating case or perhaps a child's death with the
cause still under investigation. I think the evidence is mounting to
justify enlarging
the scope of the phenomenon by using the term "unwanted child
syndrome."
This is not to suggest that all battered children were born unwanted, but the
etiology of these eases may show that being unwanted is a common factor in many
of them.
It is probably important to distinguish between an unwanted pregnancy
and an unwanted
child. The former may he the result of fear of childbirth or the embarrassment
or inconvenience of a protruding abdomen. Upon reflection or
counseling the woman
may grow to accept the prospect of having a baby even though still maintaining
negative feelings about her pregnant condition. The real problem of
the unwanted
child arises out of either the mother or father or both being unable,
for whatever
reason, to accept the longterm consequences of the pregnancy.
Evidence supporting the proposition comes from several studies done in Sweden
where a moderate abortion law has been in effect since 1939. One followup study
of 120 children born between 1939 and 1941 after an application for a
therapeutic
abortion had been refused, made assessment of their mental health,
social adjustment,
and eduetional level through age 21. Comparison was made to a control
group born
at the same time in the same hospital or in the same district. The results of
the study indicated that, "The unwanted children were worse off in every
respect ... The differences were often significant (statistically)
and when they
were not, they pointed in the same direction . . . to a worse lot for
the unwanted
child."28
Callahan discounts the implications of these studies suggesting that
the refusal
of the abortion in itself could have a tendency to produce a negative reaction
against the child. In addition there was a significant number of mothers who,
while having an abortion refused, nevertheless made a normal adjustment after
delivery.29 While Callahan may have a point in cautioning us not to
be too quickly
swayed by these studies, I feel that he is
sidestepping a major conclusion, namely, that a large number of
unwanted children
did indeed encounter a sufficiently hostile environment so as to
cause both them
and society a degree of anguish which is rather difficult to justify.
3. The law discriminates unfairly against women and
low income groups.
I have made a fine distinction between this proposition and the first of this
set on the basis that the first proposition deals with the woman's own personal
autonomy whereas the present one is concerned with class discrimination. Both
propositions come under the province of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Perhaps a woman's point of view could be allowed at this time. In an
essay entitled,
"A Woman Views Abortion," Marya Marines says:
Who decided that life began and was therefore sacred-when sperm and ovum met?
Men of the cloth, who never bore or suckled a child. Who drew up the laws that
determined in effect, that women had no control over the uses of her own body?
The inseminators, not the bearers. Who governed the states and nations, who saw
that these laws were sustained and enforced? Men, of course. And for
what reason?
In their terms, for the good of society. For the good of the soul.
For the preservation
of the family, the state, the agriculture, the economy, the wars of
conquest.
But whose society? Whose land;' Whose state? Whose markets? Vhose
wars? Not woman's.
Through all these thousands of years, with a handful of exceptions,
the laws that
governed the lives of women were never written by women; and the matter of life
never held subject to the decision of the hearers of life. That a man should he
issaster of his own body was never questiousd. That woman should be mistress of
her own body was out of the question. She was a vessel to be filled, a field to
be planted. Such was the natural law. Such was the will of God-such
was the convenience
(couched in the loftiest, most spiritual terms) of man.30
A Christian perspective on women's rights on abortion can hardly
avoid acknowledging
the controversy about the place of women in the Judeo-Christian
tradition. I have
no doubt that the present inferior status of women in our society can
he attributed,
in part, to this religious tradition.31 However, in other cultures
not influenced
by this tradition, women have even a less significant role. My own
tentative resolution
of this dilemma is that the apostle Paul was expressing prevalent
cultural maxims
when he dealt with women in public such as in I Cor. 11 and I Cor.
14:34. As far
as the marriage relationship described in Eph. 5 is concerned I have found no
reason for disagreeing with Paul. And in the final analysis, I believe that his
statement in Gal. 3:28, where he notes that, "So there is no
difference between
. . . men and women: you are all one in union with Christ
Jesus," describes
the foundation upon which Christian men and women can build a relationship of
mutual respect.
The defenders of the antiabortion laws do not deny that the laws discriminate
on the basis of sex. The defense is expressed in terms of the good of
the society.
As David Granfield expressed it,
A sound political decision would oppose the passage of
liberal abortion laws because they are against the public interest of
the community,
not merely because these laws are immoral but primarily because they undermine
the basic principle of our democratic structure, the equal dignity of all men
before the law and their legal right to equal opportunity for
personal fulfillment.32
I think it is interesting that Granfield uses the phrase
"equal dignity of all men;" one can only wonder whether lie would be
willing to include women.
The fact that the restrictive abortion laws discriminate against low
income groups
hardly needs documentation. Whether we like it or not, our system honors the
rich and dishonors the poor, and the law is the tool used to make
this happen.33
Any woman desiring an abortion, regardless of her state of residence, can fly
to New York and have it taken care of. All she needs is the plane
fare plus about
$400. This little matter of money plus the restrictive abortion laws of about
43 of our 50 states are quite effective in making sure that pregnant women of
less than modest means have their babies whether they want them or not. It is
true that Jesus said, "You will always have poor people with
you," but
this is not an excuse to deny them equal protection under the law.
4. The law gives preference to one religion over others.
In a pluralistic society it is not surprising that people of
different religions
view things differently. As far as abortion is concerned the Harris
survey cited above22 showed that the public is exercising its religious
preferences in typical
American fashion. The question asked was, "In general, do you favor laws
permitting abortion for almost any reason or do you oppose them?"
Favor Oppose
Not Sure
Protestant 39%
49% 12%
Catholic
30 64
6
Jewish 71 18
11
Many people of different religions have strongly held beliefs which
directly influence
their behavior: Jehovah's Witnesses will not submit to a blood transfusion even
to save life; a Sikh will not allow his hair or beard to be cut; an
Orthodox Jew
will not eat pork even if he is starving. While we may find these beliefs' arid
practices strange, we respect them because their adherents do not
expect outsiders
to engage in the practices or submit themselves to the beliefs. We also respect
the people who hold these doctrines because they have restrained
themselves from
pressuring legislative bodies
in an attempt to force other people to see things their way.
Such restraint is not evident among some Roman Catholics who seem to
want everyone
to subscribe to their belief that human life begins at conception and
that abortion
is murder. When the California Legislature was considering
liberalizing the State's century-old abortion law the pressure on the lawmakers to defeat the
liberal bill
was extreme, and came almost exclusively from members of the Roman
Catholic hierarchy.
34 It is somewhat mystifying to compare this activity with a
statement by another
member of the hierarchy, the late
Cardinal Cushing:
Catholics do not need the support of civil law to be faithful to their own religions convictions and they do not seek to impose by law their moral views cm other members of society ... It does not seem reasonable to me to forbid in civil law a practice that can be considered a matter of private morality.35
If the public good were truly placed in jeopardy by the removal of
abortion restrictions,
one would nominally expect a cross section of the public to be represented at
legislative hearings protesting the removal of such restrictions. In
view of the
fact that such is not the case one can only conclude that when lawmakers yield
to the demands of one religious group they are doing so in open
violation of the
First Amendment.
5. The law can be held responsible for unsafe medical
practice.
Abortion is said to he the most widespread, and the most clandestine, method of
birth control in the modern world.36 That the clandestine nature of
this practice
is directly responsible for a large number of maternal deaths each
year is widely
believed but difficult to verify. Between the years 1955 and 1960 most of the
socialist countries of Eastern Europe adopted legal abortion
primarily to protect
women from perilous and unhealthy illegal abortions. 37 In Chile
where abortions
can be performed only when a pathological condition makes it
absolutely necessary,
pregnant women in the lowest economic class, in order to get an
abortion, usually
induce hemorrhage by inserting anything from
rubber probes to knitting needles. They then can go to the hospital where the
abortion is completed under more antiseptic conditions.38 Callahan,
after reviewing
a variety of reports on the mortality due to illegal abortion, concludes:
Lacking any real accuracy, the data on illegal abortions can be used either way, by choosing to stress the high or the low estimates; but neither side can make a solid case. Significantly, however, even those who have complained about the constant citation of high, but unverified, figures on the number of illegal abortions have not tried to contend that illegal abortion does not constitute a problem. Even if the lowest cited figure, 200,000, is closest to the troth, it is a figure worthy of considerable concern. Similarly, even the low figure of 500 deaths each year from illegal abortion means that illegal abortions constitute a significant health hazard.39
Conclusions
We have reviewed nine propositions, four on one side and five on the
other, that
cover most of the important territory around the abortion question.
Our analysis,
while exhausting, has not been exhaustive; much more could have been
said on each
of the propositions, and even other less important propositions could have been
reviewed. As one who has had a glimpse of the enormous amount of
material in existence
on abortion, I shall be the first to acknowledge the deficiencies in
this paper.
But aside from the shortcomings, this research has enabled me to come to some
fairly definite conclusions on the abortion question. First of all,
the question
"When does human life begin?" has, I believe, an answer.
Perhaps "answer"
is an inappropriate term; "elucidation" might be better. As I tried
to demonstrate, one can no more designate a point on the continuum of
growth and
development as the beginning of human life than one can pinpoint a wavelength
in the color spectrum of the rainbow and say, "Red begins here." The
sensation of color called "red" cannot be defined objectively and no
one bothers trying. In like manner, the "sensation" that goes under
the label of "human" depends on the observer and is equally incapable
of objective evaluation. In spite of this uncertainty in the word when applied
to a fetus, the closer the fetus is to birth the more consensus there is about
its hu
manity and its right to live.
I am persuaded that God loses nothing in an abortion. While this
sounds terribly
assertive, I see no reason to put it any other way. To contend otherwise is to
place man's will above God's.
The sudden removal of restrictive abortion laws may result in a temporary rise
in sexual promiscuity. The extent to which this may happen, I
believe, is insufficient
to erode the general moral level of society and certainly not enough to justify
retaining the restrictive laws.
I agree with the five propositions that assert that restrictive abortion laws
have a much greater deleterious effect upon society through the abridgment of
fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and through the creation of
complex sociological and medical problems than the purported evil
they are supposed
to curtail.
This paper has concentrated on abortion to the excusion of any
mention of other
forms of birth control. Some may get the impression that because I
take a liberal
stance on this issue that I would advocate abortion as a perfectly acceptable
and normal form of birth control. Actually, quite the contrary is
true. Abortion,
in my opinion, is the last resort. Compared to the other methods available, in
our country at least, it is the worst method by almost any measure. Reliability
is about its only virtue. But since it is a last resort it must not be withheld
from those who need it.
In summary, I believe that abortion is a matter to be decided by a
woman and her
physician and should not be made a point of criminal law. Others close to the
woman may he involved in helping her come to a decision, but outsiders should
no more be a party to this matter than if she were seeking
sterilization. I believe
this position is in accordance with the evidence that can be brought to hear on
the question. Finally, I am persuaded that it is its accordance with
a Christian
understanding of love and life.
REFERENCES
1Time Magazine,
August 2, 1971, p. 42
2lbid., p. 31.
3Romans 7:7.
4Warneck, C. J. Contemporary Moral Philosophy, (New York: St. Martin's Press,
1967) p. 72.
5Callahan. Daniel. Abortion: Lair. Choice, and Morality, New York: Macmillan,
1970) p. 1.
6The Sacredness of Life, (St. Louis: Knights of Columbus, 1966) p. 23.
7Noonan, John T. Jr., led.) The Morality at Abortion, (Cambridge:
Harvard University
Press, 1970) p. 51.
8Callahan, op. cit., Section III, pp. 305-404.
9The Sacredness of Life, op. cit., p. 20.
10Callahan, op. cit., p. 417.
11Doiscccl, Joseph F., "A Liberal Catholic View," in Hall, Robert F.,
(ed.) Abortion in a Changing World, Vol 1. (New York: Columbia
University Press,
1970) p. 42.
12Callahan, op cit., p. 497.
13The Sacredness of Life, op. cit., p. 20.
14Callahan, op cit., p. 402.
16Ramsey, Paul, "Points in Deciding about Abortion." in Noonan,
op. cit., pp. 64-72.
ttSee, for example in the Journal ASA: Bube, Richard H., "The
Whole and the
Sum of its Parts," 18, 8 (1966); "Asking the Right Questions,"
22, 49 (1970); Stanley, Paul E., "Spirit: God and Man," 22,
148 (1970);
Brauer, Oscar L., "Source of Error in English Bible," (Letter) 23, 78
(1971).
17Louisell, David SW and Noonan, John T., "Constitutional Balance,"
in Noonan, op cit., pp. 223.226.
18HaIl, op cit., pp. 245-250.
19PoIlard, William C., "Man on a Spaceship," Journal
ASA,
21, 34 (1969).
20Acts 14:16,
21Noonan, op. ri 230.
22I'he Fresno Bee, June 22, 1970.
23The Fresno Bee, June 3, 1970.
24Rnssi, Alice, "A Behavioral Scientist's View," in Hall, op cit., p.
194.
25Croup for the Advancement of Psychiatry, The Right to Abortion, (New York: Charles
Svribner's Sons, 1970) p. 27.
26lbid., p. 28.
27Callahan, op. cit., pp. 460-468.
28The Right to Abortion, op. cit., p. 30.
29Callahan, op. cit., p. 77.
30Manoes, Marya, "A Woman Views Abortion," in Gnttmaelser,
Alan F. (ed.)
The Case for Legalized Abortion Now, (Berkeley: Diablo Press, 1967) p. 54.
31Life Magazine, August 13, 1971, pp. 40-55. op.
cit., pp. 226-230. The paragraph quoted is on
Abortion is a matter to be decided by a woman and her physician and should not be made a point of criminal law.
32Granfield, David, The Abortion Decision, (New York: Doubleday & Company,
Inc., 1969) p. 147.
335ee Chapter V, "Anatomy of the Corporate State," in Reich,
Charles A., The Greening of America, (New York Bantam Books, 1971).
34Pocijic Churchman, April, 1967.
35Ibid.
36
Tietze, C. and Lewit, S., "Abortion," Scientific American, 220,
21-27 (1969).
37Hall, op. cit., pp. 302-314.
38
Ibid pp. 226-237.
39Callahan, op. cit., p. 136.
The thrust of our more recent Civil Rights laws as well as the
Fourteenth amendment
are designed to make clear that its legal guarantees cannot he denied
any person within the jurisdiction of the States. There
are no categories in the Constitution such as slaves or free, black or white,
born or unborn ... in fact the constitutional guarantee of equal protection has
been applied to business corporations as persons. How can it be
denied to unborn
children who are in actual fact, living human beings?
To argue that abortion is a private matter is to put all of our rights upon the
uncertain ground of shifting sands. It is unacceptable to leave a
moral or ethical
judgment to any individual when the rights of a third party are at stake, There
is no room for tolerance when
human life is at stake. A basic, fundamental human right as -well as
a moral issue
is contained here and it cannot he satisfactorily answered by saying "you
may kill" but "I will not kill." There is no room for tolerance
here. We all admit that we have a pluralistic society . . . but that
society has
become a corrupt society when we can't agree on human life.
The idea that abortion should be elective is an outrage to the
conscience of hosts
of Americans and attempts to legalize it either by judicial decisions or acts
of the State legislatures or the Congress will polarize millions of Americans
against those who make
their laws arid those who interpret them.
To set aside the laws governing abortion could establish
"irresponsibility"
as the new norm for our society. If abortion becomes a right, shall the support
of a child by his parents, or the support of a family by its father,
also become
an elective for those who do not want to face all the consequences of
the decision
to marry?
Samuel A. Jeanes First Baptist Church, Merchantville, N.J. 08110
Member of the Board of Directors of the N.J. Right to Life Committee
POTENTIAL VS. ACTUALIZED HUMANITY?
Some opponents of abortion .. would claim that something may have a
right to life
not only in virtue of its present properties, but also in virtue of
its potentialities-the
properties that it will come to possess in the normal course of its
development.
Let us suppose that technology has advanced so that it is possible to construct
humans in the laboratory,
starting with just the chemical elements, Given
these technological advances, suppose that we put together an adult
human in the
laboratory, carrying
out the construction at s temperature at which it will be frozen . . . . If we
now allow the organism to thaw out, we will have a conscious, adult human being
with beliefs, desires, and a distinct personality.
But what if . . . we grind it up, (still unthawed)? Would our action be open to
moral criticism? In particular, would we have been guilty of
murdering an innocent
person? Surely not. Until the organism has been brought to
consciousness and until
it envisages a future for itself, and has hopes arid desires about
such a future,
one does not violate anyone's right to life by destroying it. This
example shows
that a thing does riot possess a right to life simply in virtue of
its potentialities.
Michael Tooley Department of Philosophy, Stanford University Stanford
Daily, November
17, 1972
For a great many Christians the answer to the question of the permissibility
of abortion depends on determining the time when the body comes to possess an
entity which survives beyond physical death. This question is very
much downgraded
in its significance by Dr. Shaeklett. Dr. Shaeklett asserts that this question
has no answer, contending rather, if I understand him correctly, that
being "human"
is not a state with sharply defined bounds, and thus there is no
precisely defined
instant when a fetus or a child becomes human. In essence, it would appear that
he would have us consider "humanness" within a purely
physical context.
I must take exception to his assertion. Not only am I unable to reconcile with
the tone of Scripture a proposition which would lead to assigning
different degrees
of moral rectitude to the taking of a life depending on the
"humanness"
of the victim, but, even more basically, I cannot conceive of an intermediate
answer to the question of whether some part of a person's being
survives the death
of his body. The silence of the Scriptures on the question of the precise time
at which such an immortal entity commences its existence in the body should not
lead one to conclude that this question is unanswerable.
Surely the Scriptures affirm the continued existence of those whose bodies have
died. (. . . absent from the
body present with the Lord (II Cor. 5:8). See
also II Cnr. 12:2,3; Phil. 1:23; II Sam, 12:23; Luke 23:43,46; Acts 7:59; Matt.
10:28.) I would certainly hope that our relatively meager knowledge
of the nonphysical
side of our existence would not be deemed a justification for neglecting it as
a consideration in confronting the issues of our day.
Gordon Brown Associate Professor of Mathematics University of
Colorado Bouldcr,
Colorado 80302