There is No Consensus
By: Jon O'Brien (Catholics for Choice)
The Question is Not Whether Life is Present
The argument about when life begins is a diversion from the real issue, which is an examination of when personhood begins. Life does not begin at any specific moment in time, it continues. Does anybody ask whether the sperm and the egg are alive? No, they don’t, because the issue is not whether life is present, but whether personhood is.
In that context, it is understandable why Catholic teaching on personhood has changed over time. Currently, the Catholic hierarchy and its antichoice allies argue that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. This view first emerged in the 17th century, when scientists, looking at fertilized eggs through magnifying glasses and primitive microscopes, imagined that they saw tiny, fully formed animal fetuses.
Improved scientific investigations lead the church hierarchy to reject the notion that a fetus is a fully formed person, but the hierarchy retained its claim that life begins at conception to suit its political goals. In its last statement on abortion, the 1974 Declaration on Procured Abortion, the Vatican acknowledged that it does not know when the fetus becomes a person: “There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement.” This brought us back to a previous incarnation of church teachings, neither St. Augustine nor St. Thomas Aquinas, two of the most important theologians in the Catholic tradition, considered the fetus in the early stages of pregnancy to be a person. St. Augustine maintained that the soul was implanted at 46 days while St. Aquinas maintained that the souls of girls were implanted at 90 days and the souls of boys at 40 days.
It's Unethical and Immoral to Impose a Belief that Stems from Religion
As a Catholic, I believe in transubstantiation—when the bread and wine are consecrated in the Eucharist, they cease to be bread and wine and become instead the body and blood of Christ. While as a Catholic, I strongly believe this to be true; it would be ludicrous for me to start a campaign that sought to translate this religious belief into civil law.
Similarly, it is unethical and immoral to seek to impose on society a belief that stems from religious teachings—especially religious teachings that are not accepted by the majority of adherents to one faith, let alone those of other faiths. Hard cases make bad laws. In the absence of even the possibility of any scientific certainty on this issue, to seek to legislate this would lead to totalitarianism where the views of a small minority are imposed on the majority. This would lead us to situations like those that existed in China and Romania, where women are either forced to have abortions or forced to carry all pregnancies to term.
Individuals Should Not Turn Personal Belief into Civil Law
I would never suggest that freedom should be taken away for those who think personhood begins earlier. Individuals should always be free to act on their religious or moral beliefs in such matters. But they should not be able to turn that personal belief—even a deeply held personal belief—into civil law.
There Are Many Perspectives
By: Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
There Is No Answer In Law
On Election Day 2008, Colorado voters were asked to decide a question that theologians, ethicists, philosophers and parents from time immemorial have struggled with: when does life begin? A ballot initiative asked voters to expand the definition of “personhood” in the Colorado constitution to include any fertilized egg, zygote, embryo or fetus. If they decided that a fertilized egg is a person, then every fertilized egg would have inalienable rights, just like you—the reader.
But deciding “when life begins” is so much more complicated than a re-definition. In Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court refused to rule on the matter, saying that it was in no position to decide a question about which there was such great division: “When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), the court again rejected arguments that a fetus was a person, with Justice Blackmun writing: an abortion is not “the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection. Accordingly, a State’s interest in protecting fetal life is not grounded in the Constitution. Nor, consistent with our Establishment Clause, can it be a theological or sectarian interest.”
Religions Have Diverse Views
Religious views vary widely on this question, according to the Roe decision: “There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family.” The official Roman Catholic view—that abortion is the taking of innocent human life—derives from natural law, which, according to New Advent, a Roman Catholic encyclopedia, “is the rule of conduct which is prescribed to us by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed us.” Similarly, conservative and fundamentalist Christians who believe that “life begins at conception” appeal to the authority of Scripture. Non-western traditions also vary in their views, with some believing in reincarnation and holding that human existence is an endless cycle of birth, death and rebirth.
Science and Our Interpretations
Scientific and medical opinion regarding the status of embryonic life has not shifted in the last three decades, according to Christian ethicist Paul D. Simmons. New technologies enable viewing the fetus during various stages of development but there are no instruments to measure the presence of personhood. While there is agreement about the gestational facts (that there are four stages of gestational development: zygote, blastocyst, embryo, and fetus) and that each person began with conception and implantation, that does not mean that every step along the continuum has the same value. Science provides the data of biological development; religion and personal values provide our sense of morality and the worth we attach to various entities. Functional physiological and neurological developments are required for one to become a person, but there are stages during gestation in which there is inadequate development to constitute an entity that should be accorded full legal or even religious status as a person. A person is a complex creature that has moved from genetic individuality (DNA) through functional, behavioral, physical and social dimensions. A genetic formula is not the equivalent of a person, nor is it “a person with potential.”
Comments
Ummm.......In just what way do you Not consider yourself extremest? After reading this post I think that both sides on this debate would consider this rant totally extremest. Anyone who claims that their personal opinion, based on nothing but their personal opinion and that their personal moral beliefs are the only ones that are valid is the definition of an extremest.
by Another Guy on June 16th, 2011
You are welcome to point out where I've failed to support my position. Morality is no more a matter of opinion than physics. I've pointed out the absurdity of most "abortion is okay" arguments.
I completely agree with you that both sides of this particular "debate" would consider me extremist. Both sides of this "debate" favor abortion and jump from "we can't be sure when life begins" to "therefore abortion must be okay." It does not follow.
by Christine on September 27th, 2011