Fetal Life and Abortion: Human
Personhood at Conception
____________________
Displayed Responses 1999
Displayed Responses 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010
1999
December 31st: The Court and morality
December 28th: Social consequences of Roe v. Wade
December 26th: Biology redefined for abortion
December 16th: Roe v. Wade and the father's rights
December 11th: Morality and Religion
December 7th: Social environment of Roe v. Wade
December 5th: Ethics of "the double-effect"
November 30th: Philosophy as a science
November 23rd: Rights of the Creator
November 18th: Problem of twinning, after conception
November 10th: Fetal death in workings of nature
November 5th: Court's concern: Law/Ethics
In a previous Comment to your page, the writer agrees with your assertion that God's rights over his creation are infringed upon by abortion. I can understand that better now, from your Section #2, where you show that parents contribute only to their child's body, the soul having to come from God. I hadn't thought about this before, though I always knew that, in some way, God had a hand in making me. I wish that the Supreme Court would have thought about this. They would have seen that the offspring is not solely the mother's property to dispose of, if she wishes, but also belongs to God.
Reply: We appreciate your input! It is not apparent to me, as an individual, that the Court would be interested in our claim for God's right over the lives of human offspring. Most likely, this claim would be declared irrelevant in a court of law, whose business is limited to the tangibles of daily, physical and mundane existence... in a court where the tangibles do not include the right of the child's father to defend the life of his child.
You might ask why we propose claims which are not likely to impress the Court. We would reply that courts, sometime in the future, will be constituted from persons, such as yourself, who have thoughtfully learned the need for objective standards of individual and social behavior. These standards can be reestablished in our nation only when allowance is made for God's place in the every-day lives of our nation. If we can be of some help toward that eventuality, we will have fulfilled our purpose. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: After reading Sect. #7, about the commercialization of abortion in New York State, even before Roe v. Wade, I wonder why the Supreme Court was so blind to such consequences of legalized abortion. Should that not have deterred them from making this decision?
Reply: Even apart from the aspect of justice for those waiting to be born, it seems reasonable that the Court should have weighed the social effects of their decision, based on the experiences of states, such as New York, which had liberalized its abortion laws.
Editor's note: The New York state legislature, prior to 1973, had already repealed its liberalization of abortion, but the repeal was vetoed by the governor of the state. The same occurred in Pennsylvania. Also prior to the decision, two states, Michigan and North Dakota, by referendum, defeated attempts to liberalize their abortion laws.
Liberalizing of abortion is a failure of government, whether state or federal, in its obligation to teach well-ordered behavior of its citizens. (The government teaches by means of the laws which it enacts.) The consequences of this failure may be many, but one is outstanding. For those who equate legality with morality, the objective norms of behavior are denied in practice. The will of the ruler becomes the norm. This is a form of anarchy, with the government being the unjustified aggressor!
To validate your concern, may I suggest that many reasonable citizens feel that we, as a society of human beings, have been diminished by Roe v. Wade's having arbitrarily ignored the demands of justice and the not less significant norm of sensitivity to commonsense. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Comment: When I was a student of Biology, fertilization was defined as the uniting of sperm and ovum. Fertilization was clearly defined as the beginning of the new organism, whether of plant or animal, including placental mammals, such as we are. Recently I find, in defense of certain pharmaceuticals, the claim that humans don't begin to exist until the fertilized ovum is implanted in the lining of the uterus. It looks as though Biology is being distorted to serve the commercial interests.
Reply: This would not be the first time when truth has been trampled on. (See our Theme Verse.) In our recent history, the Nazi experiment would furnish instances, not only of propaganda, but deceitful practice. History itself, upon occasion, has suffered modification to fit the convenience of the government. In our own day, we see attempts to manipulate the truth in the discussion of "Evolution vs. Creationism," by putting them in opposition to one another, rather than entertaining the possibility that, properly understood as coming from different sources of truth, they might actually supplement one another.
Though your concern specifies commercial interests, I would guess that you perceive a deeper level of deception in the motivation of those who promote and defend the use of those "birth-control" substances which, by preventing implantation, cause the death of the developing human person.
It might be helpful here to note that it is the developing offspring who does the implanting, providing that he or she already exists, prior to implantation. It is an axiom in Obstetrics that the entire pregnancy, once begun at conception, is under the control of the "conceptus," that is, the one who had been conceived. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Comment: I do not understand how our federal government can take it upon themselves to deny the father of an unborn child his right to defend the life of that child against legalized abortion. And he does have that right, a right based upon his parental obligation to care for his child's welfare!
Reply: This is one of the many perplexing consequences of Roe v. Wade's near-sightedness. In what seems to be their eagerness to satisfy some women's desire to be free of involvement with pregnancy, the Court overlooked the rights of the other parties affected by abortion: the child, the child's father, and the individual states who, throughout the preceding century, had embraced their responsibility of protecting the unborn child and the child's mother, by criminalizing abortion.
Fathers of children waiting to be born have taken their cases to court, but without success. The Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, had decided that no one, individual or state, may hinder the woman's choice to rid herself of her pregnancy.
It might be of value here to weigh carefully the focus of that decision. The Court did not directly sanction the killing of the unborn child. The thrust of their decision is against any interference with that killing. The Court shifted the moral and legal responsibility of the killing from themselves to the women who would take advantage of the Court's protection.
During the decision-making process, it is not evident that the Court concerned itself with the rights of the child's father. After the decision, whenever legal questions concerning the father's rights were tested in court, whether by the father or by a concerned advocate of human rights, the court would resort to another consequence of the Roe v. Wade heritage, a denial of the child's personhood and, therefore, a denial of the plaintiff's standing in the court.
You can see that I am in sympathy with your position. Perhaps we, in company with others having the same concern, might raise the banner of fair-play to a higher elevation, enabling it to be seen by all! E.R.
____________________
Question: In this web page you speak of morality and even, sometimes, of God. I have found no mention of religion. Wouldn't religion be a strong defense against abortion?
Reply: Many thanks for your thoughtful observation! I readily agree with your suggestion that religion could be called upon to oppose abortion and, on the positive side of the coin, to promote respect for human life.
Religion, as commonly perceived, finds its persuasive force in revelation, truths revealed by God and accepted, through faith, by the believer. Our page is an attempt to show, not by revelation, but by human thinking, that respect for human life is reasonable in itself, and is good for us as individuals and as a society, whereas abortion is unreasonable in itself and affects us hurtfully.
Perhaps we have not expressed ourselves in these very words, but using them now might help you to understand why we are concerned with morality, rather than with religion. The human being's right-to-life pertains to justice, and we speak of justice as pertaining to morality. But the norm of moral conduct we propose here is that which is imposed upon us by our human intelligence, rather than by revelation. There is no conflict here, since truth, whether naturally acquired by the human intellect or supernaturally revealed, cannot contradict itself. We are speaking of two levels of reality which, though different, complement one another.
At this point, you might insist that justice and morality belong to the practice of religion. I would agree that they do! But they also belong to the exercise of good, old-fashioned commonsense, the process of reasoning, which all humans have in common, even those who are non-believers.
We do not speak of abortion as a religious problem, needing revelation for its solution. Yet, we do speak of God, because morality is the measure of human activity in terms of God's perspective, judging it conformable or non-conformable to the design imposed upon us by our Creator. We speak of "natural law," which is nothing other than that design presented to us through our human intelligence.
To add further light on this reply to your question, I leave you with an insight given us by Aristotle. I paraphrase his thought: The purpose of our intellect is to enable us to perceive the order which exists in the world of nature and, once we have perceived it, enables us to introduce order into our own lives. E.R.
_____________________
Guest Commentator: A view of the social and moral environment in which we find Roe v. Wade today.
After sleeping on the Roe v. Wade decision, it appears to me to be a symptom of an underlying cause, a long term "growing immorality" that is like a deadly cancer in our culture that is not painful or obvious at the onset.
The "cancer" has adversely affected the thinking and reasoning process of many otherwise intelligent people who choose to ignore it. Unfortunately, the "growing immorality" is evidenced in many ways. In general, it is evidenced by the acceptance or neutrality regarding constant lowering of standards of human conduct by much of the media and a large portion of the public. Unfortunately the "cancer" is evidenced by new forms of prostitution that can be sold through technological advances in communications and publications. It is evidenced by a growing lack of respect for commitments that led to easier "no fault" divorces that now end one out of every two marriages, a growing lack or respect for the institution of marriage and the traditional family, a growing lack of respect for the best interests of the child, that is, to have both a mother and father who are committed to family through marriage, a growing lack of respect for modesty in dress and proper language.
Older people who have lived through the changes are more likely to foresee the long term results. Younger persons, upon seeing the acceptance or neutrality by so many adults, may not as easily foresee irresponsible conduct, both to the individuals involved and to the culture of our country. It is a paradox that the standards of the physical sciences are rising, while the standards of the ethical and social sciences are falling!
Thank the Lord that every now and then a ray of truth has shined thru the man-made fog. Recently the ethics committee of the Illinois State Bar Association issued an opinion that lawyers are no longer free to stand idle while their clients lie and commit a fraud upon the court and the system of justice. Fortunately, the ISBA ethics committee decided that the lawyer's duty to the court and the system of justice was higher duty than the duty of confidentiality that the lawyer owed his client.
This result is good news! In my practice I never had a problem with the issue. I always felt that my duty to my personal integrity, and my duty as an officer of the court, were higher than my duty to my client, which was a close second. There were clients who would like you to do things that were not honest. I would warn my clients that they did not have to testify...but if they did, they had to tell the truth or I would be obliged to speak to the court in chambers. If they did not like that, they were free to hire a different lawyer - and some of them did. My law practice was successful with that philosophy, and I know it helped me to become a judge.
My prayers and best wishes for you and the unborn! D.H.
____________________
Question: In Sect. # 6, you mention a rule of Ethics called "the double-effect principle." Please explain.
Editor's note: We are distinguishing between abortion, which is a direct attack on the life of the unborn person, and surgical procedures to save the mother's life, which only indirectly cause the death of her child. (See Links: Double Effect)
Reply: When undertaking an action which results in two foreknown consequences, one helpful and one hurtful, we are guided by our intelligence to observe the following conditions in making our decision:
1. The action, in itself, must not be morally evil. (Surgery is neither morally good nor evil. The intention of the surgeon is requisite for determining its morality.)
2. The good effect must be primary, both in the order of intention and in the order of execution. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy and the mother is bleeding to death from a ruptured Fallopean tube, the surgeon must intend to save her life as his primary objective and his scalpel must be applied to the damaged tube, never to the child. In no case may the child be killed under the pretext of saving the mother's life. Modern Obstetrics, moreover, agrees that there are no cases which, medically, indicate the death of the child as a means of saving the mother's life.
3. The hurtfulness permitted must never exceed the intended good. This value judgment is not always easy but, in our example, it is simplified by the equality of each person's right to life, the mother's and the child's.
4. The hurtfulness must never exceed the minimum required for the attainment of the good effect. (If the mother's life could be saved by a procedure less hurtful to the child, the removal of the tube would not be ethically justified.) E.R.
Editor's note: It is easily presumed that in the State laws prohibiting abortion, the exception "except to save the life of the mother" was based upon this Ethical principle, and never to sanction the killing of the child in order to save the mother's life. It might be further noted that pro-life efforts to amend our Constitution for the protection of the unborn sometimes includes this exception. Surely, they intend this exception to be understood only in its traditional, Ethical meaning.
____________________
Question: You speak of the necessity of Philosophy for handling the non-material aspects of your discussion, such as life, person and nature. My question is: whose philosophy should be used, since all philosophies are not in agreement on these fundamental concepts?
Reply: We use the term "Philosophy" not as the invention and property of any one person. Philosophy is a science (organized , demonstrable knowledge) consisting of conclusions drawn by correct thinking, and should be common to all who reason about the nature of things, who attempt to understand things in light of their ultimate causes. Philosophy "stands on its own feet" and does not need to be "accepted on authority."
We are not speaking of anyone's " way of looking at life," which might or might not be truly philosophical in the above sense of being a science. E.R.
___________________
Comment: Your demonstration reveals a poorly designed economy in nature. Since some offspring die in early stages of gestation, it would seem to be more economical for ensoulment to take place only after early danger points have passed.
Reply: If economy in nature were the only consideration here, your observation might well present a problem. The time of ensoulment is not optional. The principle of human life, the human soul, is needed at the very beginning to direct the unique human development from that first moment, which is at conception.
As for economy in nature, death during gestation occurs within the ordinary workings of nature and is contingent upon the same factors as death after birth. These factors may be found active in anyone, at any time, in the individual's internal and external environments. E.R.
___________________
Question: I agree with your conclusion in Sect. #9, when you say that the Court acted unethically in deciding against the life of the conceptus, while being uncertain whether it is or is not a human being. Is Ethics a responsibility of courts, or are the courts concerned only with law?
Reply: Ethics is everyone's responsibility! We are all accountable for our actions. A reasonable norm of behavior is necessary for defining acceptable behavior on the part of individuals and society. Ethics is the rational proclamation of that norm of conduct.
Courts tend to make new decisions based on previously approved decisions (precedents.) But courts should be expected to examine those precedents ethically and apply them in a reasonable and fair manner. E.R.
Question: Why does our nation permit this Roe v. Wade decision to go unchallenged? When I first heard of it I could not believe that our government said that it is legal for parents to kill their own baby before it is born. I still think it is wrong to do that.
Reply: Roe v. Wade has been challenged right from the beginning. In fact two of the Justices, Rhenquist and White, dissented from the opinion of the other seven members of the Court. Constitutional lawyers, from the principles of Jurisprudence, have shown it to be a bad decision. States have tried to offset some of its harmful effects, by enacting laws. Individuals and groups of citizens have protested the decision and have reduced its effectiveness by aiding parents with distressful pregnancies, helping them to choose life for their offspring.
You seem to be asking why these efforts have not done away with Roe v. Wade. It might help you to remember that the nation is us, "We, the People!" It is likely that we, which means more of us, will have to improve our moral sense of respect for human life, before Roe v. Wade will be done away with. E.R.
____________________
Question: Your explanation helps me to think more clearly about the origin of identical twins (Sect. #3). To what extent does the biologist's explanation of identical twinning correspond with the conclusions which you present as philosophical aspects of twinning?
Editor's note: It is our position that the new human individual begins to live his or her personal life at the time of conception. Some biologists explain the individual existence of identical twins as beginning at some interval of time after fertilization (conception.) We do not see these positions, when examined carefully, as being contradictory.
Reply: The biologist explains identical twinning as starting with what is presumed to be the fertilization of a single ovum. Cell division follows, which is the basis of the presumption that fertilization had occurred. (The multiplication and differentiation of cells is a consequence of fertilization.) For us, this would be the conception, the origin, of a new human being.
The biologist sees what appears to be the commencement of normal development. After it has begun, a point is reached at which the material of the offspring is separated into two portions, each of which develops as a separate individual, the twins. The identical genetic make-up of the twins is given as evidence of their common origin.
The biologist may not see a need to explain how parts of the one individual could become parts of two other individuals. In the fission of one-celled organisms, the biologist has become accustomed to this manner of reproduction, knowing, however, that it does not apply to more highly developed organisms. Regeneration, likewise, does not apply. At the present time, despite much manipulation and observation in the field of reproduction, the biologist's understanding of identical twinning has not been adequately completed.
We suggest that the fertilization resulted in an offspring, who died early in the process of cell division, before extensive cell-differentiation had been accomplished. The resulting material, in two units, each already highly organized, were then vitalized by a separate human soul, each becoming a new individual human being. Thus, the twins.
What concerns us here is the wider assumption on the part of some biologists, that the individuals, even apart from identical twins, do not begin to exist until some time after fertilization. Confusion is added to the understanding of what is taking place at conception, by the unwarranted assumption that there are no instances in which any new individual results immediately at conception.
There is no evidence from Biology to claim that the final "individualization" of the offspring occurs on at some time later than fertilization. Even if identical twinning were given as a special case of "prolonged or delayed" fertilization, it does not follow that all cases would require a time interval before the original mass of material becomes vitalized as one individual or as two individuals.
In our discussion (Additional Reading #2, following Sect. #3) we consider the transmission of life and the many analogous uses of the term "life." We see a need to deduce adequate causes to explain the happenings involved in identical twinning. As biologists, we cannot pretend to know all the physical details of the event. But, with the help of the philosopher, we can know some of the necessary cause-and-effect relationships which are demanded in the life of any living thing. These we attempt to apply to the case in hand.
In this Reply, we state our readiness to see, within the understanding of the biologist and the philosopher, no real contradiction in our position that individual human life begins with conception. We attempt, however, to point out that Biology is not adequate for explaining the total effect of conception. The biologist does not question whether the material whose division resulted in the production of the twins was itself a product of fertilization (conception.) We say that a human being comes into existence at the moment of conception. The biologist says that, at some time after conception, two members of "Homo sapiens" appear on the scene, the twins. We must leave it to the reader to appreciate the need for attempting to "fill-in" the space between the fertilization and the twins.
We would not wish to presume, in our favor, that a biologist might explain the twins by invoking a "delayed" or "prolonged" fertilization, of which the twins are the immediate product. There would still be the problem of two offspring, rather than one. Biologists do not generally place a time interval, as though fertilization were a process rather than an instantaneous event. But even if they did, in the case of identical twins, it would not follow that all the other cases, which are in the majority, require a time interval between nuclear fusion of the reproductive cells and the beginning of the offspring's existence.
We invite the reader to review Sect. # 2 & # 3 to consider whether or not it is reasonable to explain identical twinning by the death of the initial "conceptus" and the revitalization of the resulting matter by two new souls, resulting in two new individuals, the twins. E.R.
_____________________
Comment: My comment might seem strange to your science-minded readers, but it makes sense to me. In Section #1, you speak of abortion as an infringement on God's rights over His creation. It seems to me that this is your strongest point in defense of the unborn person from the time of conception, since God is already at work in each of us at our conception.
Reply: Well said! For those who are conscious of God's prerogatives of authorship (his authority over what he had authored) and are disposed to accept the demands of that authority, this would be an all-sufficient argument in defense of the unborn from the time of conception.
In our presentation, we feel a need to explain God's reason why the life, begun with his help at conception, must not be interfered with. This is why we demonstrate that life to be the life of a fellow human being. And it is because of the unique, innate character of the human individual that his or her right to life is to be respected.
We would wish that even those who, for whatever reason, do not include the Creator's plan in their thinking, would attempt to see a need to protect a fellow human being. At the least, we would like to urge responsible caution against harming the conceptus on the part of those who have no evidence which could conclusively deny his or her human personhood, a situation which we see in the Roe v. Wade decision. (See Section #9) E.R.
____________________
Home | Displayed Responses 2001 | Displayed Responses 2000 | Links | Poems and Related Verses