The abortion debate centers around the issue of rights: those of the child, the focus of the pro-life movement, and those of the mother, the focus of the pro-abortion, also called pro-choice, movement. By placing the issues side by side, the two sides are deadlocked, yet by only focusing on one side, no consensus can be reached. In order to make a valid decision, the rights of both parties need examination in their context.
The first and most common debate relates to the humanity of the child. Pro-life advocates have long based their arguments in this point, due to the existence of a full set of DNA. However, Morowitz compares the just-conceived embryo's DNA to the blue-prints of a building:
We do not ordinarily assign the date of the completion of blueprints a special place of honor in the construction of a building. In the same way, we argue, we should not assign the assembling of the DNA a special place in the development of a human being.
However, Morowitz's analogy is incomplete. While the DNA are similar to a blueprint, this cell, the zygote, is much more analogous to a cornerstone, the first brick in a building of millions of bricks, the laying of which is a marked event in the development of a structure, and this "brick" not only contains the plans, it also acts as the entire construction crew, actively drawing materials from its surroundings to build itself. The mother contributes the materials, but contributes no guidance to the project. The creation of something so simple yet so infinitely complex truly deserves "a special place of honor."
However, from an evolutionary perspective, conception is seen as only a chain of events, of the perpetuation of life, not creation of new life.
There is no time in the sequence...where new life is created. In fact, from the point of view of the biologist, at conception, two previously existing living things come together to form another living thing.
Yet Morowitz's own words betray him as he describes conception in a very Biblical manner, echoing "the two become one flesh," acknowledging that the child is alive at the moment of conception.
Still, acknowledging life falls short of labeling an embryo as "human," and although the embryo has 46 human chromosomes and has no potential of being anything but a human, evolutionary theory, which does not subscribe to man's creation in the image of God, defines humanity not by design, but by development.
The crucial point is what or who is exercising the respective rights. The woman, of course, is an adult human being, a person. The fetus, on the other hand, changes daily, rapidly acquiring new characteristics and properties all the time. Before is has acquired humanness, however, it does not possess those properties that distinguish humans from other animals. Therefore, the conflict of rights is between someone who has acquired the property of humanness and an entity that has not.
Ignoring the structures which distinguish the human fetus from those of animals, as well as the intrinsic potential of a human child, the rights of the child become dependent on its developmental age.
Joseph Fletcher, an Episcopal clergyman, has offered a behavioral means of determining the humanity of an unborn child, based on his idealized observations of adult humans. He offers a list of "characteristics...by which life may be recognized as 'human'," including "self-awareness," "sense of time," "self-control," "capability of relating to others," "ability to communicate," "concern for others," "control over existence," and "balance of rationality and feeling," (Fairweather, Grant, 18) If all of these are necessary for humanity, these criteria call all of our natures into question as all people fail in some or all of these at various times, and if only some need be fulfilled, anyone with a dog might file for adoption as not all of these characteristics are uniquely human. Also, based on the criteria, anyone who is unconscious, whether in a coma or asleep, loses his humanity and thus his human rights.
Thus humanity cannot be dismissed, so pro-abortion advocates have drawn a semantic distinction between "humanity" and "personhood."
Dworkin acknowledges that, as long as groups cannot agree on a definition of "personhood," they cannot agree on abortion.
Self-respecting people who give opposite answers to the question of whether a fetus is a person can no more compromise, or agree to live together allowing others to make their own decisions, than people can compromise about slavery, apartheid, or rape.
Dworkin offers this explanation suggesting that many people do not believe in the personhood of the fetus due to this unwillingness to speak out for human rights, ignoring the apathy of much of our society.
Still, given the inability to agree on the personhood of the child, Dworkin offers his own criteria for the determination of the infants' rights, determining the intrinsic value of the child based on its cognitive ability.
The crucial questions are the two moral ones...When does a human creature acquire interests and rights? When does the life of a human creature begin to embody intrinsic value, and with what consequences? We do not have to decide whether a fetus is a full human being at conception, or at what point it becomes one, or whether that process is gradual or abrupt, in order to answer those crucial questions.
Dworkin defines "interests" as desiring to continue to live. While lack of a central nervous system in the first five to six weeks logically eliminates desire, even amoebae pursue life, whether cognitively or not, and once able to attempt self-defense, anyone who has seen a saline abortion has seen the child's struggle for life.
Dworkin also cites as an issue the debate over the "sanctity of life." Pro-abortion supporters often cite a passage in the Law of Moses to deny the value of the infant. "That the fetus was not considered a person in utero is attested to by...Exodus 21:22." Yet a closer examination of this passage reveals three fallacies in the argument. First, the miscarriage mentioned is accidental, not deliberate. Second, it is considered a great loss, and no limit is imposed on the fine for the trespass. Third, the actual word used to describe the fetus is dly (yalad)," which means "child" and refers to children from conception until adulthood. The personhood of the child is implicit in the language.
Because of the lack of clear lines in the development of the child within the womb, abortion supporters, not willing to define personhood at conception, have sometimes moved it beyond the other major event, birth. Jackson expresses this idea, stating, "...the difference between the embryo and the newborn is one of degree, not kind."
Professor Michael Tooley of Stanford takes this even further, logically following through with the concept of delayed personhood. He states that no "morally relevant " biological differences exist between the fetus and the newborn, therefore if one is pro-abortion, consistency requires one to be pro-infanticide as well.
While this may be disquieting to many pro-abortion advocates, Tooley's logic is valid.
He then continues by stating that the right to life requires personhood, which Tooley defines as someone with a "concept of a self as a continuing subject of experiences and other mental states, "thus allowing infanticide up to six months or even a year if accurate testing could be performed.
However, this argument is moot if the right to life is a myth or unconstitutional, as proposed by Harriet Pilpel, an attorney of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Pilpel stated that it would be a terrible thing if the government were to establish a constitutional right to life, because then it would imply all sorts of other things. The government would then have to provide food, housing, medical care, pensions, etc.
Pilpel's argument is presently invalid, though, since those things are already provided by the government in the form of Social Security, Welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, and government-subsidized housing. Logically, the government should support at least protection from violent death.
In the discussion of the right to life, the question of quality often arises.
Every child should be a wanted child -- so destroy those that do not seem to be wanted. Only quality of life deserves our respect, not life itself -- so we deny rights to those who do not measure up.
This case puts the infant in the position of needing to prove its worthiness based on external and future factors. Also, the "quality of life" issue completely ignores the possibility of adoption, which generally increases the quality of life due to the screening process. Regardless, death is the lowest quality life can have, so those interested in quality of life issues need to work to increase quality of life, not decreasing life.
Often the "quality of life" issue relates to various handicaps to the children, suggesting aborting those who might be born with handicaps. This could have taken Stephen Hawking due to his paralysis, several members of the Dallas Cowboys due to behavioral issues, and Abraham Lincoln for economic reasons. Even in fiction, we can see the inherent problems. In Disney's recent adaptation of The Hunchback of Notre Dame, those who saw Frollo the priest hoist the infant Quasimodo into the air, intent on killing him for his deformed appearance, were appalled. "Here is a true villain," we thought, yet we think nothing of a doctor who would kill an unborn child who would be born with Downs Syndrome.
Finally, the most influential figure in history, Jesus Christ, was a prime candidate for abortion. His mother was young and unmarried, the child did not come from her betrothed, and had little economic support. Imagine what the world would be like had Mary aborted.
Still, the interests of the mother tend to outweigh the rights of the child.
Place an unborn baby and a woman on the scales, and the woman always wins. That's where the pro-abortion movement has a built-in advantage; It's most vocal members are women.
Smith quotes "Cabaret," which expresses the feelings associated with an unwanted pregnancy. "On one side is a baby who loves you automatically, but on the other side is ME." One mother stated her position more clearly, "I'm going to put my own happiness ahead of my children, even if it means having to kill them." Even though most wouldn't be so blunt, this mentality, often subconscious, lies behind abortion decisions.
However, abortion avoids an important responsibility: the baptism of the child. It hinders children from coming to Jesus, rejecting Jesus' words in Mark 10:14.
This raises the issue of what position the pro-life movement has taken and why. The first question, that of humanity, has traditionally been understood to begin at conception. Even Dworkin agrees with this position.
It seems undeniable that a human embryo is an identifiable living organism at least by the time it is implanted in the womb, which is approximately fourteen days after conception. It is also undeniable that the cells that compose an implanted embryo already contain biological codes that will govern its later development.
This position has been historically held and even appears in the Declaration of Geneva (1948).
I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use any medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.
Personhood closely relates to independence, which can be demonstrated in the development of the child. A hears beats within 18 days; by three and one half weeks, the beginnings of eyes, spinal cord, nervous system, thyroid gland, lungs, stomach, liver, kidneys, and intestine exist; by six weeks brain waves can be detected.
Regarding development, no logic can equate development with non-personhood.
We know too much about the unique identity of the unborn child to imagine that he can properly be called "a part" of his mother's body. He has his own genotype, his own developing body. The unborn child can and does respond to stimuli and is already beginning to relate to his mother. He is simply an unborn human being undergoing a period of development in the environment natural to him at this stage of his life.
Kissling tries to avoid the question of dependence, relying on the morals of the doctors, but viability has been proven to be a moot point in the recent partial-birth abortion debates.
An important issue in the religious community regards the issue of ensoulment. Feinberg suggests that twinning and mosaics preclude individuality until after the blastocyst stage, which lasts until seven to fourteen days. However, this make assumptions about the nature of the human soul of which we know very little, and the human soul may be more fluid than we expect, able to join and split. This fluidity clearly fits with traducianism, espoused by Luther, which holds that the soul is an offshoot tradux of the parents' souls, just like the body, at conception. This not only explains the problem posed, it agrees with the Scripture passage, "The two become one."
Once personhood is established, the next issue discussed needs to be the sanctity or intrinsic value of human life.
Blithely reject the sanctity of life and immediately you are thrust into bed with the proposition that not all human life is of equal worth. And then the door is wide open.
This raises the question, closely related to the "quality of life" issue, of whether degrees of value exist in human life. The answer, by necessity, is "No," as stated by Dr. Leo Alexander at the Nurenburg Trials:
The beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived.
If we establish levels of value, the effects could and have been seen to extend into other areas of life besides just the lives of the unborn.
All we have to do next is to decide which human life is less deserving of being saved -- or indeed, which human life is more deserving of being taken. First it is the unborn fetus, then the newborn handicapped, then the mentally ill, then the terminally ill, next homosexuals, and finally Jews.
The rights of the woman are often thought to be overlooked by pro-life advocates, but although de-emphasized, they are not ignored.
Legally, the right to choose is not a constitutional right. "...The course has specifically held in Roe v. Wade that abortion on demand is not a protected constitutional right."
Historically as well, choice in abortion was never an option. The Hippocratic Oath, sworn by most doctors, includes an "anti-choice" clause:
I will give no deadly drug to any, though it be asked of me, nor will I counsel such, and especially I will not aid a woman to procure abortions.
One are where pro-life advocates, especially Christians, can excel in women's needs is treatment of Post-Abortion Trauma (PAT) and forgiveness and reconciliation to God through Christ. "If pregnancy brings embarrassment, shame, and stigma, abortion brings remorse and moral recriminations from which few women can escape."
In the West, particularly in America, we argue and cry out for rights, yet we forget responsibilities which are inherent in those rights. Beckwith likens abortion to failure to pay child support, abuse, and abandonment. He notes that, beyond just withholding treatment (which is generally illegal), abortion is active killing, violence for the purpose of control against a "defenseless and dependent child." Feinberg argues that the right to choose has been used when a woman has intercourse, which grants implicit consent to the developing embryo to occupy the woman's body.
Finally, exceptions occur and need addressing, especially given that some try to make rules out of exceptions.
Rape and incest are commonly raised exceptions which account for less than .1% of all abortions. Smith wisely suggests that the innocent unborn in a rape situation should have at least the same rights as the rapist, who is protected from the rape victim, and an abortion would only add more victims: the unborn and the woman again due to PAT.
In cases of incest, assuming the girl's life is not endangered by the pregnancy (as may be the case with very young victims), the sanctity of life must outweigh other considerations. More practically, an abortion can help cover up and thus prolong the problem.
Often, danger to the mother's life is cited, and here is one of the few points where both sides agree, even if for different reasons.
If either the mother or the fetus must die, then the tragedy of unavoidable death and the loss of nature's investment in life is inevitable. But a choice in favor of the mother may well seem justified to a very conservative people on the ground that a choice against her would in addition frustrate the personal and social investments in her life..."
Finally, the most common argument in favor of abortion involves words like "rusty coat hangers" and "Back-Alley Abortions." During the years before legalization, one of the most popular illegal abortion clinic chains, "Jane," offers a perspective on the level of danger to those who insist on personal rights over those of others.
Jane members say their infection rate was about 3 percent, the same as that reported by physicians. They say none of their [11,000] clients died as a result of the illegally performed procedure.
Thus even the strongest emotional arguments for abortion appear to be fabrications, while the protections of the rights of both mother and child comes through responsibility and abortion alternatives.
For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Thy works, And my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from Thee, When I was made in secret, [And] skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth. Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Thy book they were all written, The days that were ordained [for me], When as yet there was not one of them. (Psalms 139:13-16, NASB).
Return to LCMS Pastors' Resource