Science in Christian Perspective
Letter to the editor
Sorry, Dr. Ramm
S.C. Kennedy
Department of Pathology
Queen's University Kingston,
Ontario, Canada
From: JASA 27 (June 1975): 96.
Bernard Ramm's suggestion (Journal
ASA 26, 137 (1974),
that the ethical problems involved in decisions about abortion would
be simplified
if the question, "When does human life begin?" were to be replaced by
the question. 'What is human life intended to be?" was a good
try, but wins
no cigar. In theory, the use of such a question would permit abortion
of a defective
fetus but prevent abortion of a normal fetus. However, consider the following
problems. First, there is no general agreement on what constitutes a
"defect."
Dr. Ramm suggested that a defect might be anything which presented the fetus
from becoming a mature, rational, integrated adult. Others might add anything
which caused a physical defect. Still others night add anything which
transmitted
Jewish genes into the general pool, or anything which caused dark skin. Not so
long ago we had a whole country convinced that Jewish genes were a defect which
should be eradicated, and this idea is not yet extinct by any means. Remember
also that one branch of the "evangelical" church in South
Africa maintains
that negroes have no souls; it would he a small step indeed to accept the idea
that abortion of the "human-animal" hybrids produced by interbreeding
is not only acceptable but a duty to the "human" race. Miscegenation
laws are already strictly enforced in South Africa, for that reason. However,
obtaining general agreement on the type of defect which prevents a fetus from
becoming human is not the only problem: the degree of defect must
also be specified
so that a cutoff point can be established. What should be the lowest limit of
intelligence to be defined as "human?" When it comes to
physical defects,
are club feet sufficient justification for abortion? Cleft palate and hare lip?
Congenital heart disease? Blindness or deafness? Hydrocephalus? Lack of arms or
legs? Defects of bowel or bladder control? On what grounds (other
than arbitrary)
could one possibly set a cot-off point for either mental or physical
deficiencies?
The problems do not end here. If it is moral to kill a fetus which is not able
to become "a mature, rational, integrated adult," then it
is certainly
ethical to kill a newborn, a child, a teenager, or an adult who by
reason of accident,
infection, metabolic disease, or old age, (or psychological abnormalities?) is
judged to be incapable of ever becoming mature, rational and
integrated. The same
problems of deciding on the type and extent of the disability which justifies
killing such a person are again present. Sorry, Dr. Ramm, but I think it would
be better
to stick with the original question. At least that can be answered
biologically.