Fetal Life and
Abortion: Human Personhood at Conception
____________________
Displayed Responses 2000
Displayed Responses 1999 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008
2000
December 30th: Human
cloning - Unlikely!
December 23rd: Cloning
and national policy
December 14th: How
"right" is right?
December 6th: Ethics and
the Absolute
November 30th: Diagram
- Partial-birth abortion
November 22nd: More on
"the double-effect"
November 11th: Ethics -
Conjoined Twins, Jodie and Mary
November 1st: Does the
Constitution back Roe v. Wade?
October 28th: Does
Roe v. Wade deny "Partial-Birth" as abortion?
October 19th: Does
it make sense!
October 11th: A consequence of choice
October 9th: Does
voting "the lesser of two evils" apply?
October 4th: RU-486
"begs the question!"
September 27th: Ethics
and the conjoined-twins
September 6th: If
you aren't sure its a deer, don't shoot, it could be a dear!
August 27th: Central
pro-life topic for campus
August 16th: In
reality - killing!
August 3rd: Who
"pulls the plug" on these babies?
July 29th: Will
future generations be ashamed of Roe?
July 20th: Does Court
= Justice?
July 10th: Does the
present Court have a "death grip" on Roe?
July 1st: What is
your vote on partial-birth-abortion?
June 24th: Elections
do make a difference!
June 17th: Contraception
prevents abortion?
June 13th: Technology:
a method for printing a single Response
June 7th: Could a
Clone be Human?
June 4th: Human
Being equals Person
May 28th: Is
emphasizing Roe v. Wade the answer?
May 22nd: Why not a
person?
May 13th: Chemistry
and Conception?
May 8th: "Potential
human being?"
April 24th: Legal
personhood - Human personhood
April 10th: Legal
insights on using the 14th Amendment
April 3rd: There
ought to be a law!
March 22nd: Aristotle
and the Church
March 18th: Are
human persons being killed by abortion?
March 15th: Abortion
Survivors, claim for damages?
March 4th: Roe v.
Wade, a doubtful decision?
February 28th: Women
are hurting....
February 24th: Is
our human culture declining?
February 21st: Do
you think Roe v. Wade will be reversed?
February 14th: Did
the Court resolve its doubt?
February 5th: Does
the decision deceive?
January 26th: A
person in the full sense!
January 23rd: Ways
of finding truth
January 19th: The
sadness of abortion
January 2nd: The technology of our page
Question: I would like to know more about cloning of human beings, and how it is related to the subject of abortion.
Reply: At the outset, I must alert you to my prejudice against the probability of cloning human beings, which I stated briefly in the preceding Reply. A quick review of cloning might be of some help to you, so let's begin with that.
Although the early experiments in animal cloning began with primitive organisms, it was not long until the more complex animals, Dolly, the sheep, for example, were cloned. The process of cloning begins with a mature ovum, from which the nucleus had been extracted. Into that enucleated, reproductive cell another nucleus is inserted. This new nucleus had been taken from a somatic (body) cell of an embryonic animal which is of the same species as the donor of the ovum. The artificially contrived cell is then placed in a maternal environment until it matures and is born, as was Dolly, to continue its otherwise normal life in the barnyard of the family farm.
The first significant feature pertinent to cloning is that the nucleus of an ovum possesses only half the number of chromosomes which are proper to its species. (In fertilization, the other half are given to the offspring by the male parent.) The nucleus of the embryonic, somatic cell, on the other hand, contains the full number of chromosomes proper to the species. The second feature to note is that the genetic parents of the clone, Dolly, for example, are the parents of the embryonic animal from which the implanted nucleus had been taken.
The third feature, which should be obvious, is that the clone is genetically identical to the embryonic animal whose nucleus had been implanted. The inherited characteristics of the clone are totally rooted in the chromosomes of that nucleus, since the ovum no longer had any genetic information to offer. This is the explanation of multiple, identical clones. The implanted, somatic nuclei used in their formation are all taken from the same embryonic animal.
There is a certain element of mystery in the origin of the lesser animal organisms, even when they result from the natural process of fertilization. Neither the sperm nor the ovum is an organism. Yet, they combine to produce an organism. Whence does the unifying, specific principle of the new organism's life (soul) arise? Neither parent, each having only its own soul, is able to supply a soul for its offspring. Their offspring's soul must come from the potency of matter, an endowment "built into" nature by its Author.
Speaking of clones, the individual life of the clone arises from the combined matter of the enucleated ovum and the nucleus of the embryonic cell, vitalized by an animal soul, which had been "resident" in the potentiality of the life-related matter contributed by the two cells. It must be noted that neither the embryonic nucleus nor the ovum, of itself, could be the matter of a new organism. It is only when combined and vitalized by an animal soul that they lose their own identities and become the new organism.
Finally, you must keep in mind that the vital activity manifest by the lesser animals is always totally material (physical.) What they know and what motivates them is always a material object. This indicates that their souls, the source of these activities, are material principles of life and belong to the natural world of material things. It is because nothing other than matter is involved in their reproduction that the lesser animals can be cloned, with the help of nature, by the biologist.
Although animal cloning has not been found in the undisturbed workings of nature, its biology and philosophy are not totally different from that of fertilization, wherein an ovum and sperm are combined by an animal soul to be a new individual. In cloning, previously organized, life-related matter is also combined and vitalized by an animal soul. The artificially devised cell contains the nutritive and structure-building materials of the ovum and the complete "genetic blueprint" of the somatic cell. In this sense, it is biologically the same as a fertilized ovum (zygote,) except that none of the genetic information had come from the ovum. The world of nature provides a vast variety in modes of reproduction, but Biology does not pretend to know all the possibilities which may yet exist. A primitive form of cloning might well be present even in the asexual reproduction of bacteria, under the phenomena of transduction and transformation.
May I now offer my reason for opposing the probability of human cloning: Humans, by contrast with the lesser animals, through actions which are proper to human beings, manifest a non-material principle of life, a uniquely human soul, which cannot be explained by any potentiality of matter. Human souls, then, must come directly and individually from the Creator of all living things. You might wish to consider whether the Creator would be inclined to "honor" the ill-advised dream of those who would attempt to clone human beings. They strive to distort His providential plan for giving life and destiny to all human beings, as He has given to us, each a unique person, born from and loved by his or her own parents.
You ask how attempts at human cloning are related to abortion. There is a physical similarity. Insofar as the required somatic cell is taken from an embryonic human being, causing his or her death, cloning involves the deliberate killing of a human being, as does abortion. But, even if the somatic nucleus could be taken from an already-born human, with only injury and not loss of life, there is another atrocity present here, common to cloning and abortion. It is a moral and psychological one, a wanton disregard for the rights and dignity of the individual human being and of his or her Creator. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: In England, the Parliament is debating whether to permit experiments on the cloning of human beings. I don't understand why our country permits the killing of human beings by abortion and why England wants to produce more human beings by cloning. Why should governments have anything to say about such things?
Reply: If I may speak from a world-view, I also am puzzled by one nation's need to kill, and another nation's need to produce, human beings. For countless generations, nature has been sufficient to handle the need for production and death of its humans. Why has it now become a prerogative of government?
I would suggest that it is not the government which initiates the demand for abortion and cloning, but rather self-interested individuals and groups within the nation. The government gets involved in such demands, because of its responsibility to see that justice will prevail for all the persons of the nation.
If you wish to be cynical, you might venture to assume that the welfare of the individual human being is no longer the concern of government. The individual will come or go at the bidding of the majority! But this is not good government; it is a form of anarchy, the many against the few.
Getting back to nature, abortion is countered by physical and emotional consequences, which eventually will destroy the nation which makes it to be a matter of public policy. Abortion, of course, would be only one symptom of the engine which drives the destructive process. The engine is fueled by irresponsibility and a grotesque acceptance of "toleration." Perhaps government should be doing something about that!
As for cloning of humans, you might read Section 2 to see that the works of nature are limited by parameters not of its own choosing. A human being requires not only the material contribution of his or her parents (their reproductive cells) but also a non-material principle of life (a human soul) to vitalize that matter. The human individual's soul must come from the Creator of all living things, who is not likely to accede to the whims of governmental persuasion.
Against the background of successful animal cloning, some one might object to a limit on the probability of human cloning. He or she might use "in vitro fertilization" as a case wherein the Creator does accede to artificiality (the manner of uniting the reproductive cells, in a glass dish rather than in a mother's body.) In reply to this objection, it is sufficient to note that "in vitro fertilization" is within the range of nature's limit, whereas the cloning of a human is not. The former artificializes the place of conception; the latter is not conception at all. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: In a recent reply you made it sound so easy for all of us to know what is right and what is wrong. If it is natural to our intelligence to furnish us with this ethical guidance, why is there so much dispute about abortion?
Reply: Your question is a fair one. My first suggestion is for you to remember that knowledge, even when it is true, is only one-half of what goes into our human actions. A person might have a clear vision of what is to be done or avoided, but lacks the necessary willingness to follow his intellectual judgment. Just as there must be a life-long effort to think and reason correctly, we must also discipline our wills. It is through the use of our free-will that we make choices, which is the other component of our responsible behavior.
Remember also that our clarity of vision and freedom of will can be dulled by neglect of discipline, and by emotional influences such as selfishness or fear.
As for abortion, it should not be difficult for most people to see that killing one's own offspring doesn't make sense. It openly challenges our generally accepted sense of responsibility for our actions. And it is so contrary to the natural instinct to nurture one's young, seen even in the behavior of the lesser animals. To use the reproductive faculties for anything other than reproduction doesn't make sense either. Yet, some people choose to act contrary to the guidance of "commonsense," which is the voice of their intelligence.
It is possible that some persons see abortion as something "morally right," but this is generally due to their unfair evaluation of their baby's life. They prize their own advantage more highly than that of their baby. This is a case in which both the thinking and the choosing are faulty.
Some who choose abortion confuse legality with morality. Our government, through Roe v. Wade, has declared that no one may hinder a woman from killing her unborn child, which makes abortion legal in our country. But this does not morally justify abortion, whose objective is always the killing of an innocent human being, which is always and everywhere morally wrong. It is wrong because it steals from an innocent human being not only his or her right to life, but life itself. This is a case of culpable ignorance, because any thinking person should know that a government's approval of something wrong does not change it into something right. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: How do you respond to someone who says there are no absolutes, especially in the moral realm? The presumption is that everything is relative. This is a philosophical question, not a medical question. Can you demonstrate that moral absolutes exist?
Reply: We appreciate your question and its significance in a society confused and short-changed by the assumption that there are no absolutes. If someone proclaims that there are no absolutes, he or she proclaims a contradiction, because the proclamation is itself an absolute. It says, without equivocation or exception, that there are no absolutes. What could be more absolute than that!
It is strange that the proclaimer would insist on putting gasoline into the gas-tank of his automobile, whereas water might be what others would prefer. Would it be idle conversation to ask what the engine requires, according to the design of its builder?
G. K. Chesterton, in his thoughtful book, Orthodoxy, speaks to an art student who had assumed that the drawing of a giraffe with a short neck would constitute a denial of the absolute. Chesterton replied, simply: "If, in your bold creative way, you hold yourself free to draw a giraffe with a short neck, you will really find that you are not free to draw a giraffe. The moment you step into the world of facts, you step into a world of limits. You can free things from alien or accidental laws, but not from the laws of their own nature. You may, if you like, free a tiger from his bars; but do not free him from his stripes. Do not free a camel of the burden of his hump; you may free him from being a camel." (Chap. 3 - The Suicide of Thought)
The denial of moral absolutes is equally ridiculous. If "right" and "wrong" are to have any meaning, they would have to mean two different things. They could not be used interchangeably. Each, then, must be something unique, something "in itself" and "of itself," in other words, something absolute.
The correct application of the concepts, "right" and "wrong," to human behavior is the subject matter of Ethics. Ethics is the product of intellectual intuition and human reasoning, both of which must be assumed to be reliable sources of truth. To possess truth, said simply, is to know things as they are. So, those who deny absolutes also deny truth or, at least, the ability to possess it.
If I may suggest something for your further thinking, you might ask yourself why do some persons discard the absolutes. They seem to be content with saying that the circumstances surrounding the human act are what totally determine its morality, the proponents of "Situation Ethics, for example. They are partly right in their in their assumption, since circumstances must be weighed during process of making moral judgments. However circumstances can never make "right" something which is intrinsically (by its very nature) "wrong." It is here that the absolute must be reckoned with.
What if someone were to say that telling a lie, under some urgent circumstances, is not "wrong?" You might ask that person whether telling a lie is ever "wrong" and, if so, why. Eventually it will be seen that a lie is driven by the intention of one person to deceive another, which by its nature is contrary to justice and, therefore, "wrong." A lie deprives another person of what is due to him, an honest statement. Without the expectation of honesty in one another, a society could not function, and would soon collapse. The legal "taking an oath" (calling on God to witness to the truth of a statement) is a solemn "back-up" to implement the necessity of honest communication. So important is the need for truth, the lie-detector, despite its debatable reliability, is sometimes thought necessary for the maintenance of justice.
Pertinent to this web site, abortion is never "right" under any circumstances, because it is a deliberate, direct attack against the life of an innocent human person, which is always "wrong" by its very nature. Circumstances often influence one's judgment, by way of one's emotions, but morality does not rest on circumstances alone. If you note carefully you will observe that the "double-effect" principle, which is applied only under specified circumstances, does not, itself, resort to circumstances for its ethical justification. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: Just what exactly is the argument in favor of partial-birth abortion? And are those arguments valid? I'm thinking of some real medical problem. Or are the probabilities so remote that there is something else going on?
Reply: There is no medical reason for partial-birth abortion! The American Medical Association, along with countless obstetricians, and the majority of the American people speaking through state and federal legislatures, are opposed to it. However, we must keep in mind that some of the opposition is based, not on the fact that it is the killing of a baby, but rather that it is a barbarous and cruel manner of killing babies.
It might help your thinking to ask why anyone, or any group, favors partial-birth abortion. If I may express what I consider a fair judgment, let me direct your attention to those who profit from its legalization. Although the abortionist might be indifferent to his manner of killing, this method is "easier" than, say, a hysterotomy (a Caesarian-section, to deliver a dead baby, previously killed by the abortionist.) For the mother, it is also "easier," unless there are complications.
Again, judging from the statements of national abortion leaders, it is fair to say that they are the ones who profit most from the legalization of partial-birth abortion. For them, it is proof-positive that their control over the lives of the unborn, "granted" by Roe v. Wade, is absolute. If this "procedure" were to be outlawed, they would feel less secure in their assumption.
For the ordinary person, partial-birth abortion is infanticide, but for the proponents of abortion it must remain abortion. We append a diagrammatic sketch for your further study of this matter. Also we suggest a review of the Nebraska case. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Comment: I have a question for you. I have only had time to glance at this website as of yet, but I noticed that in reply to a question about the English twins, you use the principle of double effect. I am no authority on the facts of the case, but I was under the impression that the weak twin's only blood supply was the other twin's heart (or some other circumstance that made it so that the weak twin had a zero percent chance of living after the surgery). In that case, the weak twin's death is a necessary result of the operation.
It is my understanding of the principle of double effect -- at least as I have seen it in Aquinas -- that the evil result cannot be a necessary effect of the action. I realize that the typical response is that "the death is not intended; what is intended is to perform a life saving operation." However, I do not think that Thomas predicates everything solely on the intent. If that were the case, he would not have discussed double effect with reference to necessary consequences. I don't have the text in front of me. and my question may not be written terribly well, but if you can discern my question I would be interested in hearing your answer.
Reply: Many thanks for your question; it gives us another opportunity for examining this important ethical principle, which governs an action having two foreknown effects, one helpful, the other hurtful. May I suggest that the problem of intention can be solved by making a distinction, in the Aristotilian-Thomistic tradition, between the "finis operis" and the "finis operantis." (what the action does by its very nature, and what it does in virtue of the operator's intention)
The foreknown, necessary (in the sense of "finis operis") hurtful consequence need not impede an action intended by the operator to produce the good effect. In order for this statement to apply, as you have observed, the action must not merely be intended to produce the good effect. It must be physically directed, at the outset, to produce that good effect. In the ectopic pregnancy, which I used as an example, the surgeon's scalpel must first be directed to excising the damaged tube, and never directed against the child. The rule: The good effect must be first in intention and also first in execution. Thus, one person may never be killed to save another.
Although I do not have all the anatomical details, I am under the same impression as you are, that Mary's body was being supplied by a single artery from the aorta of Jodie's vascular system and that the single heart "belonged" to Jodie. It would be evident from this that the cessation of that supply would result in Mary's death.
In my reply to the original question, I stated that I did not know the ethical reasoning employed in this case, nor the reason why the surgery was undertaken at that particular moment. In my attempt to distinguish Mary's death from death by abortion, I was assuming that traditional ethics had been followed in the case of the twins.
I used the ectopic pregnancy as an example of this tradition, on the assumption that one of the twin's life, at the moment of surgery, was at risk and that the surgery was chosen as a means of saving that person's life. The timing would constitute another problem. Suppose neither twin were dying. Would surgical intervention be justified now, rather than "leaving nature take its course," as the parents had wished? Or waiting until a crisis appeared? In the ectopic pregnancy the mother, without immediate surgery, would surely die. Her child, at this time, is healthy and does not need any life-saving intervention.
If both of the twins were in equal crisis, the discretion of the doctor would dictate the surgical procedure and the decision of which twin should be attempted to be saved first. It is likely that the anatomical differences of the twins would be a major factor in that decision of what could and what should be done.
Judgments of this kind are not mere academic exercises. They are necessary in everyday life, since situations arise wherein conflict of rights must be settled, and settled fairly. Ethical principles are formulated by human intelligence, based on intellectual intuition and sound reasoning. We welcome further discussion on the ethical principle, called "the double-effect." E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: The three-month's old, conjoined twins in England, Jodie and Mary, have been separated and one of them, Mary, has died, as was expected. Isn't this the same kind of thing as abortion? I am thinking of the case where several embryonic humans are developing in the same mother (as a result of fertility drugs or of "in vitro fertilization") and two or more of them are "selected" for death, for the advantage of the one or two who will remain.
Reply: Your question indicates that you hold to the ethical principle that no human being may be killed for the sake of another. That is a sound principle and it condemns the practice of "selective-abstraction," as you rightly infer.
I have not seen the ethical reasoning which was involved in the separation of the twins. But I can offer some insights which might help you to resolve your question.
Considering the twins, we start with two human beings, Mary and Jodie. They are equal in their right to life and in their human dignity. The difference between them pertains to their bodies, not their persons. Although Mary's nervous system had some deficiencies, the major difference consisted in the degree to which certain vital organs (principally circulatory) were shared by the two.
Using the ethical principle sometimes called "the double-effect," we ask ourselves: What was required by each of the twins in order that each may continue living? The shared organs become the focus of attention! If the organs are structurally and functionally more integral to one (as they are to Jodie rather than to Mary) and if those organs needed the kind of repair which automatically benefits one to the detriment of the other, could those repairs ethically be undertaken?
Again, the two persons have equal rights to life. However, for implementing the right of either one, the shared organs must be modified. The only possible modification enhances the probability of survival for one and diminishes the probability of survival for the other.
This is not the same as saying: "Neither can survive unless we get rid of one; to save one is better than to lose both," which cannot be justified ethically. Nor is it a case of choosing, arbitrarily, which one shall survive, as indicated above.
As the "double-effect" principle requires, the primary purpose of the surgical procedure is to save both. But, in the process of executing this intention, the unequal effect necessarily follows. It must be noted that there must never be a direct attack on the life of the disadvantaged one.
It is also ethically required that the surgery be the only means of producing the good effect, which seems to be evident in this case. (The least-hurtful procedure must be used whenever options are available.)
It should go without saying that the surgery must be necessary at this time, rather than delaying it into the future. This decision, of course, must be entrusted to the competency of the physicians.
A simpler example of "the double-effect" is seen in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, where gestation is occurring in a Fallopian tube, causing the tube to rupture, with consequent hemorrhage. To save the mother's life the tube must be removed, indirectly depriving her child of life.
In contrast to this, in the case of abortion, the primary and only intention is the direct killing of the person temporarily inhabiting the womb. E.R.
___________________
Question: I am writing an essay on abortion, and I can't seem to find any arguments from a strictly legal stand point on why abortion is unconstitutional. I am also trying to form my own opinion on this issue, and so far, taking into account moral and ethical considerations, and constitutional arguments supporting a woman's right to choose, I am pro-choice. I do feel, however, that I can make an informed decision either way with out knowing the specific national constitutional documents, and/or amendments, that deny or question, the legality of now legal abortions. If you know any of these legal facts I would be very much appreciative if you would inform me.
Reply: There are two problems involved in your question concerning the constitutionality of legalized abortion. The first problem: What is our Constitution? The second: Does our Constitution permit, or prohibit, abortion?
As to the first problem, our Constitution is a document composed by our Founding Fathers and properly amended by their legitimate successors, "We, the people." Although the Supreme Court is the interpreter of that document, the Court has not always been correct in its interpretation, as exemplified by their Dred Scott Decision. You might question whether Supreme Court decisions are automatically a part of our Constitution.
With reference to the second problem, the Roe v. Wade court has "found" in the Constitution a "penumbra" (a secondary shadow) which they interpreted as a "right to privacy" which includes abortion. The key to this "discovery" can be found in an earlier decision, known as Griswold, in which the purchase of contraceptives was declared to be "a matter of marital privacy." It should be obvious that the jump from contraception to abortion is not a logical transition.
In contrast with the findings of the Roe v. Wade court, I suggest that you consider the Bill of Rights, the companion-piece to our Constitution. It proclaims that "All men are created equal and have an inalienable right to life......." If you are in agreement with an obvious reality, that the offspring of human parentage, waiting to be born, are included in "all men," then you have found the answer to your question. The Constitution should not be in conflict with the Bill of Rights!
For further study, you may refer to: "Roe v. Wade - The Unconstitutional Decision". E.R.
____________________
Question: In your "Notable Quotations" you have the Roe v. Wade court excusing themselves from facing what seems to me to be the key question in this case: When does human life begin? Even if it were true that no one else knows the answer, how could the Court feel free from, themselves, attempting to solve the problem? It does not seem right that they should have rendered their decision on such an incomplete foundation of fact.
Reply: It looks as though the Court did not feel competent to handle the matter by themselves. However, their "research" into written and hear-say sources could not be called adequate in light of the seriousness of the subject of their deliberation.
To paraphrase their statement: they said that they should not be expected to know when human life begins. For a court weighing criteria for a life-and-death decision, this is a curious statement. Be that as it may, it is even more curious that the Court, admitting their ignorance about the beginning of human life, felt competent to sanction killing the offspring of human parentage, from conception until natural birth.
I agree with you that their ignorance, or their state of doubt, does not excuse them from their ethical responsibility of not being instrumental in the killing of innocent human beings. The Court was ethically wrong in making their decision in the face of ignorance or doubt concerning substantive and essential fact. Moreover, the Court could not have claimed any ethical or legal urgency demanding that they hear this case at that time. They could have refused the case until they were more prepared to handle it.
Twenty-seven years later, the present Court is continuing the moral blindness which is intrinsic to legalized abortion. In the Nebraska case, the almost-completely-born offspring's death is approved by the Court, despite the twice-given judgment of the people, through their federal legislature, in the Partial-Birth Ban.
It has taken twenty-seven years for the schizophrenia of the Court to be clearly demonstrated. Examine the Nebraska case in light of this interchange between Justices Marshall and Stewart and Mr. Flowers (defending the state of Texas) during the Reargument (the second and final hearing of Roe v. Wade:
MR. FLOWERS: (citing a statute of Texas law:) "Whoever shall, during the parturition of the mother, destroy the vitality or life in a child in a state of being born, before actual birth - which child would have otherwise been born alive - shall be confined to the penitentiary for life, or not less than five years."
JUSTICE MARSHALL: What does that statute mean?
MR. FLOWERS: Sir?
JUSTICE MARSHALL: What does it mean?
MR. FLOWERS: I would think that-
JUSTICE STEWART: That it is an offense to kill a child in the process of childbirth?
MR. FLOWERS: Yes, sir, it would be immediately before childbirth, or right in the proximity of the child being born.
JUSTICE MARSHALL: Which is not an abortion.
MR. FLOWERS: Which is not - would not be an abortion, yes, sir. You're correct, sir, it would be homicide.
Gentlemen, we feel that the concept of a fetus being within the concept of a person, within the framework of the United States Constitution and the Texas Constitution, is an extremely fundamental thing.
JUSTICE STEWART: Of course, if you're right about that, you can sit down; you've won your case.
You may refer to the entire Reargument. E.R.
____________________
Question: The more I look at Roe vs. Wade, the more it seems to be a cruel hoax against society and its individual members. It would be hard for me to believe that those of the majority opinion did not know they were giving legal approval for the killing of human beings. Even unlettered people have the strong sense of knowing that human reproduction produces human beings! The legalisms of the Court seem to be nothing other than a thinly improvised smoke-screen to distract our citizens away from their everyday use of commonsense.
Reply: Your observation will strike a sympathetic chord in the thoughts and feelings of many who view our web site. However I am not in a position to say whether or not those justices knew that their legalization of abortion would result in the deaths of human beings. They seemed content with stating that our Constitution gives women a "right to privacy" which includes the killing of whatever results from the use of their reproductive faculties.
It would be difficult, as you say, to believe that the justices overlooked the key question in their deliberations; They busied themselves with the secondary question: "Does the law protect the offspring of human beings who are waiting to be born?" But they neglected the primary question: "Is it not a human being, the one waiting to be born?" Had they tackled the primary question first, there would have been no need for the second.
Perhaps "hoax" is not the correct word, since it implies intentional deception. That the decision is poorly crafted, however, should be evident to most of its readers. After twenty-seven years and more than thirty million deaths, perhaps you, and the other concerned citizens, might take some action to remove that document from the future history of our nation. E.R.
____________________
Question: Would you care to discuss the recently approved "Morning-After Pill:" Those who will be taking this pill merely suspect, but don't really know if they are pregnant. What are the moral ramifications of this action vis-à-vis abortion?
Reply: The "morning-after pill," in distinction to RU-486, is publicized as a contraceptive. In reality, Preven is an abortifacient, preventing the newly-conceived offspring from implanting himself/herself in the spongy tissue of the uterine wall of the mother, which is essential for continuing the life begun at conception.
It should go without saying that its use is immoral, an attack upon the life of an innocent human being.
One should be reminded here that an individual's human life begins at conception. It is only recently, in the course of the abortion debate, that biology has been falsified by those who claim that human life begins at implantation.
If I read your question correctly, you are asking for the moral consequences of taking the pill when no conception had taken place and, therefore, no abortion resulted. The ethical principle here bears on the intention of the pill-taker, which is to kill the offspring, should one be present. Because an injustice is intended, a moral evil results, whether the killing is accomplished in fact, or merely intended.
If you wish to include the case of a pill-taker who believes that the pill does nothing more than to prevent conception, you might wonder whether her ignorance, in such a significant matter, is not worthy of blame. More blame could be attributed to those who market the product, labeling it incorrectly. E.R.
____________________
Question: I wish to defend the unborn through the political process. If no candidate is totally pro-life, would I be ethically justified in voting for the most restrictive candidate, as the lesser of two evils?
Reply: In your question you say that one candidate is thoroughly pro-abortion. The other candidate who has any possibility of winning the election is one who is pro-life, but has exceptions for rape and incest. You ask whether you may vote for the latter candidate as "the lesser of two evils."
I would preface my answer by saying that you would not be voting approval of the evil which results from his exceptions. What you would be voting for would be the lesser amount of killing which would result from this election, and that is a good, not an evil.
In this case, the expression "the lesser of two evils" does not apply. You are voting, not for an evil, but for a good! A helpful reference for you to read can be found in The Gospel of Life, by John Paul II, in section 73. He is speaking to legislators faced with a bill which would restrict the practice of abortion. If the bill is not passed, abortion-on-demand would continue to be the rule.
The Holy Father says that the legislator not only may vote for the restrictive bill, but implies that the legislator should vote for it. He adds only one condition for such voting. The legislator should make it known, publicly, that he/she is opposed to any and all killing of the unborn. This requirement is given for the avoidance of scandal.
It should be evident, morally speaking, that your case of voting for the candidate is an exact parallel to the legislator's voting for the partially-restrictive bill. E.R.
____________________
Question: With the use of RU-486, will abortions tend to increase in frequency and number?
Reply: In response to your question, I can offer only a few insights to assist your own thinking on this matter. Otherwise, it is a case of "Wait and see!"
First, may I express my dismay over the recent shift of focus in discussions such as this. There was a time when the key question was: What, or who, is being killed by abortion? Without having settled that question, the people of our nation are now absorbed in the question of what is the "easier" method of killing our unborn, the surgical or the chemical.
As a biologist, I want to make it clear that any deliberate interruption of a pregnancy is hurtful to the mother. Her body had carefully adapted itself to motherhood; all the delicate balances of her endocrine (hormone) and reproductive systems were in place and functioning beautifully when, suddenly, they are thrown into chaos. With Mifepristone and misoprostol at work, her baby is deprived of its vital necessities, and dies. And some of her own body goes into a condition similar to the "locked keyboard" on the computer, when incompatible commands are keyed in. The increased incidence of breast cancer following abortion might well be an example of such a consequence.
Presuming that you have studied the physical side-effects, the potential for malpractice suits and the other undesirable consequences of using RU-486, I will limit my observation to another area of probability.
I would like to suggest a factor that militates against the long-term popularity of drug-induced abortion. This method brings the mother into first-hand contact with the physical and moral reality of abortion. After having ingested the chemical substances, she knows precisely what is going on inside her body. And she knows that it is she, not a doctor, who is killing her baby. This element of reality-consciousness will be aggravated by the expectation of seeing, in the next stage of the process, the dead body of her baby.
The mother's experience may be "legally enjoyed," but there is nothing in the nature of a woman that will give joy to her choice! When women rise to this level of awareness, there will be fewer abortions of every kind. In this way, nature is likely to win out in the end, thanks to the cruel deceptiveness of RU-486 and its overly-eager proponents. E.R.
____________________
Question: Would you please suggest something for helping us students at Med School to learn more about Ethics. I am just beginning to see that doctors need moral guidance in making decisions when working with their patients. It is also evident to me that in these days of technology the doctor is expected to guide the public in formulating what is equivalent to life-and-death legislation.
Reply: If your school provides a course in Ethics, plan to take advantage of it. I would suggest that the course would be proper to your field of interest, and would be called Medical Ethics. Otherwise, check your library under "Ethics" to find a suitable textbook. For a good understanding of the subject, you might want to look at the Ethics of the Greek philosopher, Aristotle (circ. 500 B.C.) or study the "Hippocratic Oath", traditionally subscribed to by doctors at the beginning of their practice.
You are correct in seeing the need for objective principles of moral guidance in the practice of medicine. Take, for example, the current case, in England, of conjoined twins. Separation would cause the death of one, and the eventual death of both would be the consequence of non-separation. A person might be emotionally inclined to decide that it is better, even mandatory, to save one child, rather than to lose both. But human reasoning would say that it is not morally right to kill one human being to save the life of another; that each human is autonomous and has his or her own inalienable right to life. If this principle of conduct were to be disregarded, their would be no ultimate legal protection for anyone's life.
The parents of the children hold to this principle. Civil authorities feel that their judicial system must be involved in the decision-making process, since the social order demands conformity of individuals to reasonable behavior, for the common good. They are still deliberating. How would you, as the doctor in this case, counsel both the parents and the court? Would the principle of the double-effect help you here, or is it simply not applicable in this case?
There is need for Ethics in everyone's life, especially in the professions, in which the professional deals with other persons. Ethics is a part of the science of Philosophy, the part which considers human behavior under the aspect of responsibility and from the vantage point of human intelligence. Although each of us has the native ability to guide our behavior rightly, we should appreciate having "the wisdom of the ages" codified into the rational science of Ethics and made available to us in our schools. E.R.
____________________
Question: The Roe v. Wade court questioned the personhood of the unborn, but they never claimed to know, for sure, that the unborn is not a human being. Why did they protect abortion, knowing that abortion could be the deliberate killing of human beings?
Did any of the justices think about that? When capital punishment is used today, isn't there some responsibility to find out whether the prisoner is actually guilty of the crime? If there are some good reasons to assume that he isn't guilty, are those reasons to be disregarded in making the judgment?
Reply: The focus of your question is whether the justices were aware of their moral responsibility not to act hurtfully in the presence of substantial doubt concerning the personhood of the unborn. I would suggest your own reading of Roe v. Wade to find an answer to your question. From my study of the document, I do not recall any evidence of such awareness. However, it is not reasonable to assume that, therefore, none of the justices was aware of this responsibility. Such awareness is something that is self-evident to most people.
The decision evidences a brief discussion on the possibility of personhood, along with the disclaimer of Court's inability to decide the issue. But the moral awareness of acting in doubt about a substantial fact seems to be lacking. It is difficult to understand why, or how, this breach of justice could have occurred.
The Roe v. Wade justices should have foreseen the logical consequences of their action, for example, the recent Nebraska decision upholding partial-birth abortion. The Roe justices might have asked themselves: "Is there no point of development beyond which we cannot claim ignorance about the status of what it is that is developing?" Had they risen to that level of thought, the Nebraska decision would never have happened. That is why Justice Scalia, in his dissent on that decision, was so emphatic in saying: "Roe must go!"
To the casual student of history, the various puzzles concerning Roe v. Wade might be "swept under the rug" with the assumption that abortion was to be legalized "at any cost." To a more careful student of the times, ethical non-compliance could be accounted for by the lack of intellectual discipline which began surfacing in those careless days of material prosperity following the second World War. E.R.
____________________
Question: Classes are about to begin and I am getting ready to lead our Pro-Life Club this year. This is a college and I am a senior. I have been viewing your web site, to get some ideas. I like your frequent reminder that it is a human being who is killed by abortion. What do you suggest as a brief outline for teaching this at the college level?
Reply: You have chosen the key issue for any discussion of abortion. And your enthusiasm for the truth of "personhood at conception" will stimulate the students with whom you will be working. That is a good start!
Although your group will be engaged in various pro-life activities, I presume that you wish them also to have a firm grasp on the reality of the personhood of the unborn victim of abortion..... and that they will be able to defend their position intelligently.
In working with the students, try to remember that what you have in common with them is intelligence and, I'm sure, good-will. Each person brings into the discussion his or her own history of fact and prejudice, so it helps to start with a plea for objectivity. You might offer for discussion subjects such as these: What is a human being? What is meant by the expression: human beings have a right to life? What is a "right" and where do rights come from? How could you prove that you have a right to continue living, despite the wishes of others?
The first of these subjects is necessarily the first, and is the most important. Since you are already familiar with our web site, you can find many references that will be helpful here. I suggest these final paragraphs of Section 2 to demonstrate that conception is more than a physical happening..... that the new individual is the result of additional causality other than that provided by his or her parents. (Without this non-material dimension, the human cannot be distinguished from the lesser animals.)
The remaining subject of discussion should center on the moral responsibility of human individuals and their governments to respect the right to life of others. In this discussion you might attempt to evaluate the reasons commonly given for the practice of abortion (See Section 7). Here also it would be necessary to examine Roe v. Wade to evaluate its formulation and its consequences. Section 9.
I extend my best wishes to you and your group of students. The problem is in your hands, because you are the future of our nation! Do not hesitate to write again, should you feel that we can help you in this venture. Godspeed! E.R.
____________________
Comment: I was already convinced that every individual's human life begins at conception. Your thoughtful presentation reinforces that conviction. What scares me is that almost anyone should be able to see that abortion kills a human being, and that many go ahead with the abortion anyway.
Reply: It is difficult to know what any one person brings into an abortion. It is likely that emotional panic obscures the clarity of one's thinking. Perhaps the abortion providers offer some sort of counseling, since they profess "choice" as their slogan. The counseling, of course, should be morally and biologically factual, so that the mother is indeed assisted in making a truly free and informed choice. We would welcome a comment from any abortion provider concerning the counseling which is offered.
You assume that some parents know that they are killing a human being, and yet proceed with the abortion. If this is so, they might be supposing that the Court has given them the right to do so. Or they might grant themselves the right, as procreators of their child. Or, simply, they might think that their rights are superior to those of their child.
I must admit that it is not easy for me to put myself "into the shoes of" parents choosing abortion, whether they know, or are ignorant of, the reality involved. We would welcome comments from side-walk counselors, or others, who might wish to share anonymous insights on this matter. E.R.
____________________
Comment: Your Reply to the Supreme Court's decision against Nebraska's partial-birth abortion law is a condemnation of the Court. Why don't you become more realistic and put the blame where it primarily belongs, with those who have demanded legalized abortion, keeping it alive by their own use, or by their mistaken notion that it is beneficial for others. It's pretty much like drugs; so long as there is a market, there will be a supply. It is unfortunate that the highest court of our land has become a willing accomplice to this trafficking in human lives! I would say that any of the rest of us who is not working to restore justice for our unborn, he or she is also guilty of that recent decision.
Reply: You have selected an occasion which seems to validate your strong and sweeping statement. To deliberately kill a baby who is almost completely delivered from the mother, under the claim that the killing is an abortion and, therefore protected by law, is an atrocious action. Toleration, as well as approval, of such an atrocity, is itself an atrocity.
But partial-birth abortion is no more an atrocity than killing human offspring at any earlier stage of their development. If you were to admit that any abortion is morally permissible, you would have to admit that partial-birth abortion is permissible. And that infanticide is permissible. And that any other murder is permissible.
The people of our nation, through our federal legislature, have twice repudiated the practice of partial-birth abortion. A majority of the states have, individually, outlawed it. May I suggest that this rebellion against partial-birth abortion is not a rebellion against abortion, but against what it truly is, infanticide.
The tyranny of our government against its people, exercised by our president and our Court, has blocked this common-sense, moral judgment of our people. So long as this atrocity is called abortion, it will be protected by the Court. Called infanticide, it would, speedily and universally, be criminalized.
Because the proponents of legalized abortion insist that it is abortion, so that it is covered by Roe v. Wade, we have the shameful situation of legally approving infanticide in our nation. It is an indication of how desperately the abortion-minded fear that any concession against their Court-privileged holdings might eliminate their claims altogether. We can see now why Justice Scalia, in his dissent from the Nebraska decision, said that Roe must go. E.R.
____________________
Comment: As I read your web site, I can't help but wonder what, a hundred years from now, people will think about our legalized abortion. Even now, it doesn't make sense for parents to kill their offspring. Worse, I think, for the government to protect the killing.
When I read about the Second World War, more than half a century after its termination, and count up the deliberate destruction of life and property, I cannot understand how Hitler was able to start and continue that war. Why were so many people deceived by his atrocious scheme?
Even without being a lawyer, I feel justified in suspecting that Roe vs. Wade is no less a propaganda ploy for "social-engineering" than was the plan of the Nazis. I am dismayed to assume that our nation has been taken-in by this equally inhumane and unjust agenda of legalized abortion. More than a quarter of a century after its inception, some of our leaders seem to be unashamed by what future generations will think of this blot on our national record.
Reply: We would welcome assistance from an historian to explain for our visitor the genesis of a war of aggression, and to evaluate the possible similarity he proposes in the area of propaganda.
Speaking for the position of our web site, I offer this to think about: Just as patriotism must not betray a people into unjust behavior, so also agenda for social reform must never demand what the society does not have a reasonable claim to.
In this sense, whether the reform supposedly benefits individuals or the entire society, justice must be observed. Neither the one nor the many should be licensed to tread upon the rights of others, especially the most fundamental of all human rights, the right to life.
I am in no position to reinforce your suspicion that the Court was an intentional instrument of unjust social reform. However, I would be willing to suggest that their disregard of the presumption of human personhood from the time of conception is an indication that the unborn were not considered fairly by that court. In itself, the disregard cannot be judged intentional. Nevertheless, it is inexcusable. E.R.
____________________
Question: I wish you well on the purpose of your web site. And I would say you are doing a good job of showing that we are fully human persons from the time of our conception. What I wonder about is whether it makes any difference to the abortion-minded that a human being is killed by abortion.
Reply: I would guess that most proponents of abortion are aware that abortion kills human beings. Their problem is that they find excuses to "justify" the killing.
I would hope that efforts, such as ours, might eventually steer the Supreme Court into realizing that a court of law should have no "excuses" for sanctioning those killings. By demonstrating to the Court that humans are indeed being killed by abortion, a fundamental issue which they neglected, I would expect them to put a stop to the killings. After all, they are dedicated to justice, aren't they? E.R.
____________________
Comment: There is a growing discontent with the Supreme Court, because of their "death-grip" on Roe v. Wade. Reaction to the partial-birth abortion decision of this past week is an example. (See Justice Scalia's statement)
My own complaint is that the Court seems to disregard ethical principles in its deliberations. I agree with you that the Roe v. Wade court acted unethically when they approved (if that is the correct word) the killing of the unborn. They said they didn't know when human life begins. This is the same as saying that they knew humans might be killed because of their decision. They rendered the decision anyway.
Reply: Your expression "death-grip" is well chosen, considering the Court's unvarying favoritism for legalized abortion which has stemmed from Roe v. Wade. Casey (1992) demonstrates the extremes, almost ludicrous, of their expression of loyalty to Roe v. Wade.
It is not permissible that any human behavior be exempted from ethical responsibility, even that of the Supreme Court. Could judges, making judgments that concern people's lives, exempt themselves from the moral dimensions of such deliberations! The explanation might be found in the practice of applying precedents (previous decisions) rather than examining each new case in terms of its unique moral, as well as its legal, components.
Your term "approve" should be examined as to its legal meaning and its ethical meaning. Legally, the Court declared that no one may hinder a mother from killing her unborn child. That is not exactly the same as giving approval to kill the child, though it might be worse, as "aiding and abetting" in the killing. In the ethical sense, the Court shares the guilt of killing, in those instances in which the killing would not have happened if their decision had not been rendered. E.R.
____________________
Comment: From what I can see in Justice Scalia's dissent statement, the Court has "painted itself into a corner." But it is a comfortable corner for making judgments in favor of abortion!
Reply: Through the Casey decision the Court had excused itself from making any further decisions about abortion. Casey is their "one size fits all" version of justice toward the unborn. Their completely subjective scale for evaluating "undue burden" is a surrender of their role of making responsible abortion judgments on behalf of the people of this nation.
Two other sentiments expressed in Casey by the Court are of even more puzzlement: The nation's confidence in their justice system would be shaken if the Court were to overrule Roe. (To admit having made a mistake?) And, since women have become accustomed to having abortion available, the Court is not free to ask them to change their lifestyles.
As for further "justification" at their lifting the Nebraska ban against partial-birth abortion, the "vagueness" mystique was employed by the Court. The four dissenting justices were quick to point out the unmistakable differences between killing the child outside the womb and killing the child within the womb. There is nothing vague about that difference; the first-mentioned is infanticide.
Justice Scalia, very emphatically, concludes his dissent by saying that Casey must be overruled. If I may offer a schedule for executing that observation, may I suggest that we start with Roe. E.R.
____________________
Question: Abortion seems to be a predominant issue in this election year. Is it possible that the election will bring about some changes in legalized abortion?
Reply: The election could have an indirect bearing on the status of legalized abortion: The new president would be in a position of influence to determine the complexion of the Supreme Court, should replacements become necessary. The elected legislators could constitute a new majority for or against legislation aimed at regulating abortions.
Perhaps the most beneficial effect, considered over the long haul, would be to measure the depth of the peoples' growing aversion to legalized abortion. The Court, as the "Living Constitution," would have to take notice of that aversion and begin to rethink their decision. The federal and state legislatures would be encouraged to increase their efforts to align themselves with the peoples' sense of "liberty and justice for all, including those waiting to be born."
Again, we invite our viewers' thoughts on this very practical matter, in which we, as citizens, are all involved. E.R.
____________________
Question: It appears that the main objection here is the killing of the fetus. Then why not promote a "preconception" method of birth-control, such as he "pill?" It appears that this inhibits conception, rather than killing a fertilized ovum. This has been proven to have worldwide acceptance and would save countless lives.
Reply: Just for the record, I must point out to our viewers that some versions of the "pill" are not contraceptive, but rather abortifacient. These are the ones which prevent nidation (nesting) of the conceptus in the inner lining of the maternal uterus.
It is true that our focus is on the defense of the unborn, but we are also concerned with the manner of that defense. We are not convinced that artificial methods of birth-control, such as the "pill," constitute a defense against abortion.
At first glance, your suggestion sounds reasonable, but a deeper study shows it to be misleading. If you will allow me a moment here, I will explain our position.
The motive behind artificial birth-control is to be totally "in charge" of procreation. Unsatisfied with the natural cycle of female fertility and infertility as a means of regulating conception, some people resort to artificial means of control. In the face of contraceptive failure some of those people will resort to abortion to accomplish their initial motive, that of not giving birth to an offspring.
If you wish to give your suggestion more thought, you might be inclined to agree with the observation that the "abortion mentality" often finds its rise in the "contraceptive mentality." The logic, or lack of logic, is the same in both. E.R.
____________________
Comment: Since the Displayed Responses file has become so large, several have asked how they could print only one Q&A without having to download the whole 108K file.
Answer: If you are using the Netscape Browser (ver. 4.0+), the process is fairly simple: first, click on the File Menu, then click on Print Preview, when the file finishes loading, click on the magnifying cursor (the page then becomes legible); then look for the Q&A you want to print by pushing the Next Page or Previous Page buttons. When you find what you are looking for, scroll to the bottom of the page and note the page number, then hit Print. You will be prompted by a window that controls your printer function, and, depending upon what kind of printer you have, you may enter the starting and ending page number for the job; then finish by clicking the Print button in the window. If you are using the Microsoft Internet Explorer, I have some bad news for you. There is no Print Preview or any other way to equal the process described above without adding a program to your machine. I have recently found a respectable looking Shareware utility called SnagIt 5.0, that will do the printing and more. One reviewer described it as "the print utility Microsoft Windows forgot." The other popular browsers are not adequate because they are either light-weight, speedy versions (Opera), or are designed to plug-in on top of the Microsoft browser (NeoPlanet).
As of this date, both Microsoft and Netscape have new browsers offered as beta-test editions. One of the important updates they both list is print function. B.T.
____________________
Question: "Ensoulment" has been defined as "the point at which the soul vitalizes the matter contributed by the parents." If this is so, at what point during the cloning process of a human would ensoulment take place?
When a human being is successfully cloned, would it be a human being according to your definition of "personhood"?
Reply: Your definition of ensoulment is well put and is in agreement with the traditional usage of that term. Applying it to cloning, however, presents several difficulties.
Editor's note: Cloning is the process of removing the nucleus from a mature ovum and replacing it with the nucleus of a somatic cell taken from an animal of the same species. The ovum, being a reproductive cell (gamete) has the haploid number of chromosomes, whereas the somatic cell has the full complement of chromosomes proper to its species.
First, in fairness to our visitors reading this, I must state my bias against the possibility of cloning humans. Although I see some biological problems with that possibility, my main argument is in the order of reasoning: Cloning of humans is far from what we know to be natural, that is, the design of nature's Author. It is not likely that God would "go along with" it by creating the human soul necessary to complete the process. Section 3
"In vitro" fertilization demonstrates the Creator's willingness to accommodate somewhat to the intervention of experimenters (conception in a dish, rather than in the mother) but cloning is a totally different kind of thing, having no counterpart in nature.
In the cloning of sheep, Dolly, for example, the genetic parents of the clone are the parents of the sheep from which the implanted nucleus had been taken. Neither the sheep which furnished the enucleated ovum nor the surrogate mother is a parent to Dolly.
To answer your question, supposing that human cloning were possible, when would the suitable, material contribution of the parents occur, enabling the Creator to vitalize it with a human soul?
Remember, now, that the only parents involved are the parents of the human being from whom the nucleus had been taken. His or her parents' reproductive cells were the suitable matter, and were vitalized by his or her human soul, created for that purpose. From that point onward, there would be no further contribution on the part of any human parents of suitable material for vitalization by any other soul. Put simply, there would be no point, in the present scheme of things, for ensoulment to take place.
Your second question, again supposing that human cloning were possible, would demand a human soul to be created to vitalize the artificially-nucleated ovum. If, indeed, the Creator would furnish a human soul under these circumstances, the clone would be fully a human person. E.R.
____________________
A review of the documents reveals that equality of human beings is not a part of the U.S. Constitution. Yet, it is always assumed at law that the Constitution protects equality. The statement, from the Declaration of Independence which the law relies on, is that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life... etc."
Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary defines 'men' as the plural of 'man' and defines 'man' 2. as a 'human being'. Therefore, the Declaration of Independence actually says that 'human beings' have an unalienable Right to Life. All law in this country is based on this idea.
A 'being' is something that exists. A fertilized egg exists. Therefore it is a being. Such a being has the characteristic of the genus Homo-sapiens and therefore is a human being. It is not some other kind of being. No part of it is anything but human. Therefore, it is completely human.
It appears that the Law of the United States protect the life of all human beings. Please note that there is nothing religious about this position, except that all the rights that men have come to them from the Creator. This idea of human rights is the foundation of the law of this country. This is the first and most important right which this country was formed to protect.
Reply: Your argument is clear and straight-forward. We might speculate as to why the Court did not undertake this line of reasoning. Is it possible that it did not occur to them? If it did enter their consciousness, did they disregard it as having no strictly legal value? Or did they by-pass such rational considerations by having declared the unborn to be "not a person in the whole sense," and, therefore, not a human being? (Was the Court confused about the distinction between human beings and legal persons?)
A special thought might be given on the relationship of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Did the Court, in speaking of the Constitution, disregard the Bill of Rights?
We invite our visitors having legal or juristic backgrounds to help us shed some light on these problems. An historian could be helpful also. Please use our Comments---- facility for writing us. E.R.
____________________
Question: You appear to concentrate overly on "Roe v. Wade". Remember that there have always been abortions and unfortunately probably always will be. Other countries that do not have the RvW laws have easily procured abortions. Is it possible that the law itself isn't really that important?
It seems that the world's population growth, the inability of an international infrastructure to feed the hungry, social and governmental pressures to limit family size are insurmountable. Will reversing RvW really have that much effect on limiting abortions on macro scale?
Reply: Many thanks for having raised this question about the significance of Roe v. Wade in our attempt to obtain justice for those waiting to be born. We appreciate your holding for the possibility that there is a significance.
We propose, as an historical fact, that Roe v. Wade precipitated a major increase in the number of abortions in the United States. We are inclined to believe that many of those abortions occurred because Roe v. Wade had given federal sanction for abortion, and because it prevented the states from protecting their unborn.
The federal sanction, of course, over-ruled the states, but it had also another effect. Approval, in fact, a "Constitutional right," made abortion quite acceptable. This, in the face of a long tradition of opinion that a government teaches through its laws, which, supposedly, are based on moral principles. The deliberate destruction of offspring by their parents has no moral principle to uphold it.
It is true that many other factors are involved in abortions, as witnessed in those states which had "liberalized" their abortion laws, prior to Roe v. Wade. It is significant to note that less than a third of the fifty states are among this number. It is also significant that the legislatures of two, large states, New York and Pennsylvania, had voted to repeal their previously enacted "liberalization," prior to Roe v. Wade.
As for the influence of Roe v. Wade on the rest of the world; we need only suggest the propensity of other countries for absorbing the "culture" of the "States" in so many areas of behavior, our "media" for example.
Our small voice speaks strongly against the injustices of Roe v. Wade (see Section 9 ) even though we know that the elimination of that decision is not the total solution for restoring justice to the unborn of our nation.
We are convinced that a return to moral principles on the part of the majority of our citizens is where the solution lies. But we are also convinced that morally good conduct is not likely to develop in the face of legalized immorality, such as is evident in Roe v. Wade. Therefore, we strive to remove that contaminating influence from our political environment. We do this by inviting our visitors to examine Roe v. Wade for what it is, an unwarranted and destructive intrusion upon the well-being of our nation. E.R.
____________________
Comment: Your site makes a good case for personhood at conception, but it requires considerable thinking to follow your reasoning. I'm wondering whether it wouldn't be sufficient to show that a human being comes into existence at conception. I don't know of anyone who would deny that a human being is a person.
Reply: You raise an interesting question! Almost everyone would agree that a human being is a person, yet the Court finds this irrelevant to its way of thinking. This is strange in light of the fact that the Declaration of Independence proclaims that "all men" have the right to life, without defining "men" to be persons.
The biologist classifies "men" as Homo-sapiens, and establishes individuals of this class as coming into existence at conception.
The problem lies in the distinction between a human being, as ordinarily defined, and an individual whom the Constitution calls "a person" possessing rights and obligations of a citizen, that is, "a legal person." This legal establishing of "personhood" comes at birth. Roe v. Wade declares that human beings, prior to the moment of birth, are "not persons in the full sense," meaning "not legal persons." This is not to be construed as a denial of the real, human personhood of individuals, called in the Declaration of Independence "men." Yet in practice that is what it is, a denial of personhood in those human beings waiting to be born!
Yes, it should be sufficient to establish humanity, even as witnessed by the biologist, to know that offspring of human parentage, waiting to be born, are persons in the full sense. It is strange that some justices of the Court were not able to see the simple reality that they were sanctioning the killing of human beings, on the grounds that they are not "legal persons." And it is outrageous that forty million human beings have been deliberately killed because of their error. It is even more outrageous that the unconscionable situation continues today, because of their decision and, quite possibly, the indecision of our citizenry. E.R.
____________________
Question: I am a chemist and your reply on May 8th has started me thinking. I gather from your statement that neither the sodium atom nor the chlorine atom, in their chemical interaction, is said to have become sodium chloride. And so it would be incorrect to say that either of these atoms had had a potential to become the compound.
In some way, however, atoms are the "raw material" from which compounds are made. It must be that they lose their unique organization, releasing their matter into some kind of "common pool" to be reshaped into a new identity, that of the compound. From spectroscopy it is evident that atoms do not completely disintegrate, because the spectrum of sodium chloride shows some grouping of lines which are found in the spectrums of sodium and chlorine. It would be up to the workings of nature to initiate the change and to keep it within "pre-set parameters" as to its outcome.
I offer this explanation in response to my own question. At first reading, I was intending to ask you: "How can any human being come into existence if nothing has the potential to become a human being? (Which is the point of your Reply.)
Reply: Your explanation makes good sense! Both chemistry and conception are the workings of nature. The both involve changes in which the natures of things are changed.
An insight into the instrumentality of the sperm and the ovum is given in Section 2. In conception, we see the need for a third element for explaining the origin of the "conceptus," namely, the human soul. The soul is given from outside the material contribution of the parents. The soul causes the sperm and ovum to lose their own identities and to unite under the identity of the human being. The soul, from then onward, continues to organize and vitalize the "conceptus" until the time of his or her death.
It might appear easier to understand conception, in light of its distinctive third element, than to understand the origin of the compound, which has only the vague "workings of nature" to do for non-living things, what the soul does for the living. Yet, the explanation of either one is helpful for understanding the other. E.R.
____________________
Question: You speak strongly against the Court's use of the expression: "potential human being." Is it because you see this as a ploy for denying, or at least questioning, human existence at conception?
Reply: Our first objection to the expression "potential human being" is that it has no corresponding reality in the concrete universe. For a more detailed explanation, may I refer you to Section 3.
For this moment, keep in mind that a potentiality (capability) has to exist in, and be possessed by, a subject. This subject must be capable of possessing it. A doorknob, for example, could not have the capability of reproducing itself, because it is not a living thing.) To say that something has the capability of doing something, we would have to demonstrate compatibility between that something and the supposed capability.
There are two different situations in which potentialities can be considered. In the first, the subject having the potentiality continues to exist in its own nature after the potentiality has been actualized. An embryonic rabbit, for example, has the capability for reproduction. Time and further physical development will be required for that potentiality to become actualized. It is the same rabbit, individually and specifically, which in its embryonic condition had only the potentiality to reproduce, that is now actually a parent.
That which is possessed potentially must be rooted in the kind of thing which is capable of possessing its actuality. If something had the potential for acting, even in the distant future, as a human, it would already have to have been a human to possess that potentiality.
In the second situation, if it were possible for something to have the "potential for being a human," it would cease to exist as soon as the potential is actualized. (The something would have been replaced by a human being.)
But nothing in the natural world has the capability of becoming something of another kind, that is, having a different nature. Its only capability, in the realm of being, is to continue being what it already is. The biologist notes that there is no transition from one species to another. Even Darwin's observed changes were always from one variety to another, within the species. (When he spoke in "Origin of Species," despite its title, he was speaking of the origin of varieties within the species.)
A special problem enters into this second situation, wherein something of one specific identity (nature) is said to become something which has a different nature. Examined carefully, it can be seen that there are no examples of such a transition ever having taken place in our natural world. We must be careful not to assume that we have an example of a transition from the potential to the actual, by saying that "the first something" had a potential for becoming "the other something" (that the potential is in one subject and its actualization is in another.)
If it were said that sodium has the capability of becoming table salt (sodium chloride) we would see no basis for the claim. Left to itself, sodium never becomes table salt. It is only when sodium interacts chemically with chlorine that table salt is produced. In the process, both the sodium and chlorine lose their individual and specific identities in favor of the compound.
It has been suggested that the sperm and the ovum are "potential human beings." In the same sense as in the chemistry example, neither becomes a human being. At conception both lose their identities in favor of the new, single individual product, the "conceptus," which has a nature quite different for either of theirs.
Another problem: Those who assume that the product resulting from the natural fusion of the sperm and the ovum is "only a potential human being," must embrace the problem of how that potentiality is ever to be actualized. See how Aristotle-------- attempted to handle this problem.
It is our position that there is nothing in the world of nature which could possess the capability of becoming a human being. E.R.
____________________
Question: From your conversation of April 10th, I would conclude that the Constitution does not recognize the unborn as legal persons. Does this mean that the Constitution denies the unborn the status of human personhood?
Reply: I am not aware of any instance where the Constitution explicitly deals with the human personhood of the unborn. More than likely their personhood was "taken for granted" and no need was seen to formalize it by law.
The Constitution speaks of the person already born, granting him or her a legal status as a member of the political body, with corresponding obligations and rights. This is called legal personhood.
It should be noted that some of the states recognized by law certain instances of legal personhood on behalf of the unborn, such as granting them rights to inheritance and to damage (tort) claims. States which had criminalized abortion to protect the lives of the unborn, were doing more than granting them legal status. These states were recognizing the human personhood of the unborn. This can be seen from the fact that most of those laws resulted from the American Medical Association's insistence, in the 1850's, that human beings waiting to be born were being killed by abortion.
Since our federal government, through Roe v. Wade, has nullified these state laws, it might seem that it has now formally denied the human personhood of the unborn. We would like to think that our national government would not sanction by law the killing of human persons! Yet, they have sanctioned the killing of the unborn.
May I suggest that you continue thinking about your question (for which we thank you, because it has started us thinking also.) Ask yourself whether the Court was qualified to speak for our nation on the personhood of our unborn. Remember that they admitted ignorance as to the beginning of human personhood, yet "authorized" the killing, despite their doubt about what or who is being killed by the abortion which they were in the process of legalizing.
Ask yourself now, some 40 million deaths later, whether our government, "We, the people" are not remiss in our obligation to review that decision. E.R.
____________________
Comment: My honest opinion on the interpretation of the word "person" in the 14th Amendment is that the matter is authentically debatable. On the one hand, the amendment was specifically geared to confirm the legal rights and equality of a class of humans to whom that had been denied. The Amendment's framers had an unspoken notion of a "person" as being a creature that has the nature of a rational animal. If confronted with the question, I suppose that a strong majority, with some trepidation, would conclude that personhood certainly exists before birth, perhaps from conception. On the other hand, they had a salient notion of legal personhood being another concept--a relational one that would embrace humans as subjects of the state. There was a prevailing assumption that the unborn had no representation in society distinct from their mother. This idea was analogus to coverture or entirety, where the legal personhood of one was subsumed into another while certain circumstances existed. The unborn were had yet to debute in society and therefore were not congnized as individuals by the law. It's just like today. We still don't name or paper children prior to birth--even if we know the sex prior to birth. There is an assumption that one has yet to be vested with an independent social status. While there are exceptions--even at common law, fetuses were treated as persons for some special purposes--and some people do name their children and even talk to them prior to birth--but you see my point. It's the whole en ventre sa mere concept.
I tend, with reservations, to assume that only born people are 14th Amendment persons. What this means is that legalized abortion, while unjust, is nevertheless constitutional--just as slavery was prior to the civil war amendments.
Roe was wrong in holding
that (1) the constitution protects people's right to make procreative decisions
[it simply does not,] and (2) that the state's interest in protecting the unborn
was less than compelling, or otherwise inadequate. Error #1 caused the
Court to apply a strict scrutiny, "compelling interest"
standard. If error #1 is cured, error #2 would give way, since the
"rational basis" standard would easily be met in nearly all cases.
Reply: We are grateful for your analysis of the Court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment, in reference to those included in its scope. You have struck upon the Court's peculiar selection of those persons covered by the 14th Amendment, namely those already born. This unwarranted limitation might as well have prohibited non-slaves from inclusion under that amendment.
Robert Byrn, in Fordham Law Review, Vol. 41, cites the Court on using criteria for inclusion in the amendment which are impossible for the unborn child to meet. He points out a procedural error which led them into this untenable position. You have touched upon it also: The Court, practically speaking, by-passed the necessary starting point of establishing legal personhood, namely establishing the individual human personhood of the one upon whom legal personhood would be granted by the government.
It would be helpful here to insist that two different realities are involved in this discussion: (1) the person as a human being and (2) the "stamp" of incorporation into the civic society." If such an "official stamp" demands that the person be already born, well and good, but it should not deny his personhood as a human being at any time prior to the "stamping." In fact, it would be ridiculous officially to "stamp with legality" something not already a person in the sense of being a human individual. ("Corporate persons" and "inanimate things personified" are not relevant here.) Surely there is no validity in the fiction that declaring someone a "legal person" causes him or her to become a human being.
Robert Byrn further stated that the framers of the 14th Amendment could not have wanted unborn persons to be excluded. The time of framing was immersed in the flurry of states' enactment of laws criminalizing the destruction of unborn children.
We would welcome other visitors with legal concern about Roe v. Wade to join us in attempting to bring about a juridical review of that decision. E.R.
____________________
Comment: This might not be what you are looking for, but it seems to me that abortion could be reduced considerably if our culture were not so thoroughly immersed in sex. There should be some laws that limit the public exposure of things sexual, especially when used as a "come on" by the advertisers. I was recently saddened by hearing someone say that sex is something which cannot be governed by law.
Reply: If you should have occasion to meet this person again, you might ask him for the origin of the word "sex." He would be surprised to learn that "sex" is the number representing one of the Ten Commandments, the one which, in the Middle Ages when Latin was popular, governed the use of the reproductive faculties. Moral Theologians and medical doctors referred to human reproduction with the Latin expression "ad sextam," (those things pertaining to the Sixth Commandment) which at a later time became merely "sex." So, there is at least one law that governs sex!
If I may suggest putting our thoughts together, wouldn't it be great if we, as individuals of a society, would learn to govern our actions interiorly, in obedience to that Sixth Commandment? Then there would be no acceptance of public display, and it would soon disappear for lack of financing. E.R.
____________________
Question: In your reply to a recent Comment, you attempted to classify the claims of some who deny that human persons are being killed by abortion. You say that their position stems from their assumption that human personhood does not being with conception.
I am puzzled by knowing that even some of the churches, because they subscribed to the teachings of Aristotle, at one time were mistaken about the beginning of human personhood. I have read your explanation of Aristotle's theory and I appreciate having it. But now I wonder how the churches could have been misled by the teachings of a biologist-philosopher on something as important as the beginning of our lives.
Reply: You seem to be asking, and rightly so, why do churches have to know when human life begins and, additionally, where they should go to obtain this information.
Churches should be teachers of good moral conduct. To respect a human being's right to life should be one of their doctrines, whether the source of the doctrine is divine revelation or human reason, or a combination of both. Faced with the practice of abortion, the churches would need to proclaim respect for human life prior to birth, since he or she begins to be a human being at some time before birth.
Prior to modern Embryology, little was known about the biology of conception and intra-uterine development. Although the Bible spoke, in several places, of life before birth, the churches would have to depend on the developing science of Biology to know the finer details. Aristotle's primitive biology, coupled with his philosophically established principle of life, the soul, was the most attractive source of information available for many centuries.
It is important to note that there never was a time when the early Christian Church condoned abortion. Even to see it as a disruption of what the Creator had begun, abortion had always been condemned as an immorality. ("You shall not slay the child by abortion." - from "The Didache", c. 80 A.D.)
Confusion enters into our understanding of history, unless we recall the basis of penal sanctions against abortion, as imposed by the Church. Greater penalties were assessed against abortion after ensoulment, following the schedule of animation as proposed by Aristotle, and lesser one, prior to ensoulment. Yes, it is fair to say that, at one time, the Church was mistaken about the beginning of human personhood, but it is also necessary to say that the Church was never lax in exposing the moral and social evils of abortion. E.R.
____________________
Comment: From reading Section 3, I am beginning to see why it has been possible to legalize abortion - the assumption that personal, human life does not begin until some time after conception. If this assumption becomes "fuzzy" enough, anyone's abortion can be made to fit into the space between conception and whenever personhood is thought, by various individuals, to begin.
Reply: Your observation is well put! The Court seems to have contented itself by saying that nobody knows what is being killed by abortion but, never the less, mothers have a "Constitutional right" to abortion. It is quite likely that most of those who undergo abortions or who are party to them do not feel that they are killing a fellow human being. This was the obvious selling-point of the early abortion advocates and abortion providers: "just a blob of cells" - "a tissue" - "products of conception" and so forth.
There came a time when abortion-minded people had to face up to the evidence of science and its technology, for example, the sonogram. The physical sciences themselves cannot prove personhood (See Section 2) but Biology and its pictorial presentation was making it increasingly difficult for any reasoning individual to deny fellowship with what his own eyes were showing him.
There were some who begrudgingly admitted that abortion kills human beings, though some would add, in this context the meaningless phrase: but not human persons. (See Section 4)
Among those conceding the death of human persons were a few devotees of Existentialism who, claiming experience to be the greatest of human values, thought it only fair that the experienced woman's convenience should outweigh her non-experienced child's right to life.
Your comment reminds me of a simple answer to what, by misdirection, had become a complicated problem, such as the one which we have been discussing: "A bullet, sped into the head, is not called back by thinking that a lethal cup, once hoisted up, is rendered safe by drinking." E.R.
____________________
Question: I was struck by your suggestion that persons born in this country since Roe v. Wade have a justifiable complaint against our federal government - for having withdrawn protection of their lives prior to their birth. I would like to go one step further and ask what measures can such persons take to sue our federal government for this breach of its responsibility? And, possibly, for complicity in personal damage?
Reply: It is likely that our federal government would disclaim any Constitutional responsibility for the lives of those waiting to be born. And it would do this on the basis of Roe v. Wade's "fiat:" The unborn are not persons "in the full sense." Even without an academic credit in Logic, the ordinary citizen would see in this neatly packaged "argument" nothing but a "vicious circle."
Apart from the Court's perspective, it would seem reasonable that those killed by abortion ought to have some claim for damages to their person. It is possible that their fathers, who had been denied their natural right of defending their unborn offspring, might have standing in the courts to sue for the loss of their children. Even some mothers, feeling betrayed by the thoughtless sanctioning of abortion by the Court, might sue for the loss of their children, and for the consequent suffering of post-abortion syndrome.
Getting back to your question, it seems reasonable that the survivors, the two-thirds of their generation, who escaped death by abortion, ought to have a claim to reparations for having had their lives placed in jeopardy by their federal government, through Roe v. Wade. Their claim would be similar to that of our citizens of Japanese origin who were interned by our government during the Second World War.
In a court of law where justice and commonsense are welcome, these Survivors of the American Holocaust, even beyond any statute of limitations, might find a sympathetic ear. Probably, however, not until great numbers of them would rise up, in a body, and protest the injustice which had been imposed on them.
If such an uprising were to come about, it could have a secondary value, that of giving States the required "compelling interests" which would enable them to stand against Roe v. Wade, in defending their own unborn. Roe v. Wade denied that any "compelling interests" on the part of the States existed at the time of that decision.
I do not find it difficult to imagine a youngster saying to himself: "Before I was born, the government said that it would be okay for my mother to have killed me." And, especially to a youngster, that would not seem fair!
The Court might protest by saying: "It was only before you were a person that we okayed your killing." The youngster might reply: "But isn't that the same thing; how could I have ever become a person if I had been killed before I was a person?" Even as an old man, I don't think I could have a better answer than that!
It seems strange that the Court, despite its difficulties about conception as the beginning of human, personal life, did not see that they were condemning what they would eventually have to admit are unmistakably persons in the full sense, the late-term babies, such as we see in partial-birth abortions.
Many proponents of legalized abortion have been awakened to the absurdity of their loyalty to Roe v. Wade when they see the tenacity with which the abortion community "hangs onto" the claim of "no exceptions allowed," as demonstrated in the bitter, political debate concerning partial-birth abortion. E.R.
____________________
Question: It is interesting that those who favor legalized abortion are unable to prove that a human being is not killed in every abortion. It is frightening that the Supreme Court, by its own admission, could not prove that a human being is not killed in every abortion.
It is your opinion, with which I agree, that the Court acted unethically when it "granted" to mothers a "Constitutional right" to abortion. Not knowing whether that which had been conceived is a human being, and granting the possibility that it might be, they should not have given "approval" to its killing. (Certainly the Court did not feel competent to "authorize" individual human beings to kill one another!) That was about fifty-million "legal" abortions ago.
My question concerns justice. Is there no concern in our country to address this obvious injustice toward the offspring of human parents while they are waiting to be born? Legalizing abortion should be seen as a crime against humanity. Where are the "Nuremberg Trials" on behalf of the unborn?
Reply: Your question is a thoughtful one, not merely speculative in content, but very practical. I would dare to guess that if enough members of our society were asking themselves the same question, legalized abortion would soon disappear from our land.
I would speculate, further, that if your question were one concerning an engineering problem, the world's engineers would agree on its resolution. The problem of abortion, however, is one which demands a "personal involvement" which, unlike the engineering one, is supposed not to have a "right or wrong" solution. I would guess that this is why you have brought up the subject of justice.
The Nuremberg Trials were demanded by justice toward, not only the direct victims of Nazi terror and killings, but to society at large, to preserve the sense of human decency. I think that your comparison here is a fair one. Thanks for having submitted it! We welcome visitors who might wish to help us evaluate this or any of our other discussions. E.R.
____________________
Comment: I understand why some of you have been very "anti-abortion" and can say a lot of emotional things that you DO BELIEVE in......
I respect that, but have you ever gone thru a situation where a child has been conceived and it seems there is no option???? Oh my gosh, how I would do things differently now that I am older and have more wisdom...... pileeezzeee, don't condemn the people who have abortions.....it is a scary time and it's very hard to make rational decisions at that time. I had an abortion 3 yrs. ago and I will fight for any unborn child today...but I don't come down and criticize the woman who makes the choice to have an abortion..... sometimes we don't think about the consequences before we act.....and I think we all can say that about anything in our lives. I will tell any woman to think hard about this, as I am suffering very much and want to hold my little baby that would be almost 3 yrs. old now, but I would also wrap my arms around any woman who did this for ANY reason, because it is easy to sit and say something bad about other people's choices when we don't experience them ourselves. TRUE??? Most of you who are so ANTI-ABORTION have never gone thru the experience of having a pregnancy that is very inopportune...I know you will probably get mad at me for saying THAT, but that's just what I mean, until you know it, you can't preach. I don't condone abortion....I would talk anyone out of it if I could, but I have to respect that everyone is going thru something....and I love everyone no matter what they do.........call me crazy....but I don't judge people the way everyone seems to do these days....until we have all the facts, etc. (and we'll NEVER know the feeli