76. From:Neal at 1:09AM on Feb 3rd 2008

Having been a former fettus, I'm totaly against abortion.

V -So don't have one.....no one is forcing you.

We do still have freedom of choice in the country....if only barely.

Ventrue at 11:25AM on Feb 3rd 2008

77. 58. The Bible clearly teaches that abortion is wrong.

xxx

I don't think it does at all. In fact quite the opposite. Abortion is not murder in the bible. A fetus is not considered a human life.

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23

The Bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old.

And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. -- Leviticus 27:6

Fetuses and infants less than one month old are not considered persons.

Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16

God sometimes approves of killing fetuses.

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. -- Numbers 31:15-17
(Some of the non-virgin women must have been pregnant. They would have been killed along with their unborn fetuses.)

Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. -- Hosea 9:14

Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16

Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. -- Hosea 13:16

God sometimes kills newborn babies to punish their parents.

Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. -- 2 Samuel 12:14

God sometimes causes abortions by cursing unfaithful wives.

The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

God's law sometimes requires the execution (by burning to death) of pregnant women.

Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. -- Genesis 38:24

Apparently jesus thought abortion was ok if the abortee was going to betray the Son of Man..from Matthew:

26:24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.

Clif Kuplen at 3:56PM on Feb 5th 2008

78. Abortion is wrong.It involves the killing of unborn babies.

And Cliff,the verses in the bible you just quoted giv,with all due respect,an understanding of what happesn when people sin.And just because God apparently does not order the death penalty for the death of a fetus,does not mean it is not life.

Infact the punishment was left to the husband's discretion(which could mean death).

As for the apparent cruelty of God,the jury is still out.Suffice it to know that God appears wicked so as to deter people from commiting sin,which could lead to even worse consequences.

Anyway,assuming if there was no religious basis for anti-abortion,I will still oppose it.Because it still remains an attempt by some to evade responsibility for a life they created.Hey,i still think it is necessary to save life of the woman,as in placental abruption,but not when it is inconveinent,when it is not the right sex,when it is retarded,if it is gay,etc.

Let's protect life.
And one thing,Abortion may reduce crime,but also kills people with cures for cancer,AIDS,ETC.

aniekan thomas at 3:09PM on Feb 6th 2008

79. Abortion: Genocide in the Womb
by
Jason Dulle
mailto:jasondulle@sbcglobal.net?subject=IBS%20Question


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statistics

Every second 87.5 babies are being aborted somewhere in this world. Annually, that adds up to more than 46 million babies who never see the light of day. Here in the United States 2.5 babies are aborted every second, totaling 1.3 million per year. Nearly 50 million babies have been aborted in the United States since 1973. Currently, one out of every four babies is aborted in this country.1

Who gets abortions? Common knowledge tells us it is young, unwed single females who are not ready for children. Not exactly. Since 1990 the majority of women obtaining abortions are mothers.2 Less than one in five is a teenager (19.3%).3 A full 56.1% are in their twenties. It is true that most women seeking abortions are single: 64%. Only 18% are married.

Why do women obtain abortions? One out of four wants to postpone having children (25.5%). One out of five cite financial reasons (21.3%), while one out of ten do so to avoid disrupting their job or education (10.8%). One out of nine aborts their baby because they are having relationship problems, or their partner does not want the baby (14.1%). One out of ten say they are too young to have children, and/or their parents want them to have an abortion (12.2%). One out of eleven simply does not want any more children (7.9%). Only 1% of all abortions are due to rape or incest, 2.8% are due to maternal health concerns (including mental health), and 3.3% are due to fetal health concerns.4

The Real Issue

It is often said that abortion is a very complex issue with no easy answers. I disagree. While abortion may be emotionally complex, the moral answer is quite simple. The abortion issue hinges on the answer to one question: What is it? Is the unborn a human being, or not? If the unborn are not human beings, no justification for abortion is necessary; however, if the unborn are human beings, no justification is adequate. I am going to argue that the unborn are human beings, and as such they are entitled to the same right to life shared by all other human beings. My argument is as follows:


It is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being
Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being
________________________________________
Abortion is wrong

If the premises are true, the conclusion logically follows. Anyone who will deny the conclusion, then, must deny the veracity of at least one of the premises.

Most people agree with the first premise. It is a universally accepted moral premise. Those who argue for abortion rights usually take exception with the second premise, namely that the unborn are human beings.5 It is claimed that no one knows when life begins, but this is not true. The disciplines of science and philosophy are decisive on this matter. The unborn are human beings from the moment of conception.

The Scientific and Philosophic Evidence

Science

The answer to the question of when a human being comes into existence is primarily a question of biology (science). The philosophy of religion and ethics come into the debate to answer the question of how we ought to treat human beings. Put another way, whether the unborn are human is a scientific question; whether they are valuable is a philosophic question.

The scientific data is conclusive that a zygote (the one-celled organism resulting from a successful union of a male sperm and female egg) is a (1) complete, (2) individual (3) living (4) human (5) being.

Consider the following statements from prominent embryology textbooks:6

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology: "[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."7

In the seventh edition of the same book we find the following:

"Zygote. This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm during fertilization. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo)." (p. 2)


"Embryo. The developing human during its early stages of development. The embryonic period extends to the end of the eighth week (56 days), by which time the beginnings of all major structures are present." (p. 3)

"Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell - a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." (p. 16)

"Human development begins at fertilization." (p. 18)

"The zygote is genetically unique because half of its chromosomes come from the mother and half from the father. The zygote contains a new combination of chromosomes that is different from that in the cells of either of the parents." (p. 33)

Essentials of Human Embryology: "In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. ... Fertilization takes place in the oviduct ... resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."8

In the second edition it states, "The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."9

Human Embryology & Teratology: "Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed... Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments... The zygote ... is a unicellular embryo... "The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo, which includes the embryonic disc, is said either to end with the appearance of the primitive streak or ... to include neurulation. The term is not used in this book."10

"Although human life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed. ... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."11

Before We Are Born: "Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zygtos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being."12



Additional embryology sources:

Patten's Foundations of Embryology: "Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote). ... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."13
Human Embryology: "It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatazoan and the resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that...marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."14
Medical Embryology: "The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."15
Essentials of Human Embryology: "Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."16
The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary: "Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."17
Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant: "Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite, a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."18
Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia: "Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."19
Life Before Birth: "Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."20
Biology of Gestation (a medical textbook): Dr. Louis Fridhandler refers to fertilization as "that wondrous moment that marks the beginning of life for a new individual."21
The testimony of geneticists and biologists is equally clear. Consider the following testimonies from geneticists and biologists before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee (April 23-24, 1981) on the question of when life begins:

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth of Harvard University Medical School said, "It is incorrect to say that the biological data cannot be decisive…. It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception, when the egg and sperm join to form the zygote, and that this developing human always is a member of our species in all stages of its life."22
Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman of the Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, added: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."
Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, testified: "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence." He added, "Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."
Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor at the University of Tennessee testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."
Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, concluded, "I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.... I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life.... I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty ... is not a human being. This is human life at every stage."
Dr. Landrum Shettles noted, "Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind."
Dr. Watson A. Bowes of the University of Colorado Medical School: "The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter-the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals."23
The conclusion of the Senate subcommittee was that "physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being-a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."24

Why do all of these biologists, geneticists, and medical doctors affirm that human beings come into existence at conception? What is the scientific basis? There are two scientific principles that make the humanity of the unborn clear:

Law of Biogenesis

The Law of Biogenesis states that (1) life only comes from life, and (2) that everything reproduces after its own kind. A rock cannot produce a living thing, and a cat cannot give birth to a dog. The second prong of the law of biogenesis has bearing the subject of abortion.

We know a newly conceived zygote has being; i.e. it exists. To determine what kind of a being the unborn is, we need only look at its parents. If the parents are human, then the zygote is human as well.

Genetics

We can also determine what kind of being something is-even if we do not know who its parents are-by looking at its genetic code. What kind of being is a zygote? The genetic fingerprint of a zygote is distinctly human (human DNA; 46 chromosomes); therefore, its being is necessarily human. The zygote's genetic signature gives it away as a human being.

The scientific data is conclusive that a complete, individual, living, human being comes into existence at the moment of conception. Everything a human being needs to develop itself toward maturity is there from the moment of conception. Scott Klusendorf writes, "What the facts of science make clear is that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. True, they have yet to grow and mature, but they are whole human beings nonetheless."25 The second premise of my argument, then, is firmly established by science. The conclusion of the argument stands.

Philosophy

The philosophic data is just as clear on the humanity of the unborn from conception onward. The law of identity informs us that the distinct being brought into existence at conception has an identity that remains the same from the moment it begins to exist, for as long as it continues to exist. Simply stated the law of identity affirms that a thing is itself and not something else. Whatever a thing is, it will remain that thing for as long as it exists.

Every living thing is something when it comes into existence as a living thing. It isn't nothing that becomes something.26 What that something is remains that something throughout its existence. Philosopher Dianne Irving said, "Scientifically, there is no point from fertilization (or cloning) to death when the human nature of that human being changes at all; it keeps on continuously creating specifically human enzymes, proteins, tissues and organs -- which only a human being can do."27

Beings don't change from one kind to another. That is why there is no such thing as a full or potential human being. "Fetuses and embryos are not potential persons who with time and the right environment could become full persons. Rather they are persons with the potential to mature according to their kind."28

What does change is one's properties: size, hair, etc. These changes continue from conception to death. For example, you were once 10 pounds, whereas now you are much larger. But you are not more human. There's more of your physical body, but not more of you. That is why it is a serious mistake to define humanness based on some outward appearance, level of development, or ability. These things are always changing, and arbitrary. Furthermore, the minute we do so we will arbitrarily "define out of meaningful existence all sorts of human beings" we normally consider valuable.29 When human value is based on some acquired characteristic rather than their participation in the genetic lineage of human beings, all of us become dispensable. As Maureen Condic wrote, "Once the nature of human beings as organisms has been abandoned as the basis for assigning legal personhood, it is difficult to propose an alternative definition that could not be used to deny humanity to virtually anyone. Arguments that deny human status to embryos based on form, ability, or choice can be readily turned against adult humans who have imperfect form, limited ability, or who simply constitute an inconvenience to more powerful individuals or groups."30

Some insist that the unborn are not human because they do not look like human beings. But appearance is not a reliable way to define humanness. Humanness is not a quantitative kind of thing, but a qualitative kind of thing. It's a be-like thing, not a look-like thing, or a do-like thing.31 "To insist that the unborn at six weeks look like the newborn infant is no more reasonable than to expect the newborn to look like a teenager. If we acknowledge as 'human' a succession of outward forms after birth, there is no reason not to extend that courtesy to the unborn, since human life is a continuum from conception to natural death."32

Evidence from Reason

There are only four differences33 between us and the unborn, none of which are morally relevant:

1. Size -- Men are generally bigger than women, but that does not give us the right to deny them their life. Shaquille O'Neil is bigger than me, but that does not make him more human, or give him more value.

Does an adult female have the right to terminate the life of a 1-year old baby boy because she is bigger than him? Of course not! So why can an adult female terminate the life of a 1-month old human being? Is it because humans at that stage of development are sooo small? Exactly how big does one have to be before they are protected from being killed with impunity? What is it about that size that magically transforms someone from something that can be killed into something that is valuable and worthy of our protection?

2. Level of Development -- Newborn babies are less developed than four year old children, and four year old children are less developed than 20 year old adults, and yet all have the same value. Why is the unborn denied that same value? What level of development must one achieve before they are valuable, and who gets to decide that?

The unborn differ from the born in their degree of development, not their kind, in much the same way newborns differ from adults in their stage of development, not their kind. If we can recognize the latter, why don't we recognize the former?

3. Environment/Location -- How does where you are have anything to do with what you are? How is it that being in a womb robs a human being of his/her value/rights? Are there any other places humans might reside where they cease being the subject of basic rights? Maybe Washington D.C.?

Virtually everyone agrees the unborn gains the right to life once s/he is born. But how does one's travel down an 8" birth canal give them value? "Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal (before birth) and postnatal (after birth) periods, birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment."34

4. Degree of Dependency -- Newborns are entirely dependent on their parents. Does this mean they have no value? Adults on insulin and the elderly are more dependent than healthy teenagers. Does this make them less valuable as a person?

Having demonstrated that none of the differences between the born and unborn are morally significant, we must conclude that our right to life begins when we come to be, not when we come to be born.35

Human Being vs. Human Person

While we have thoroughly established the humanity of the unborn from conception onward both scientifically and philosophically, some pro-abortion advocates are not satisfied. They seek to undermine the conclusion of the argument by taking exception with the first premise of the argument, rather than the second: It is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being. The part they dispute is not the moral claim itself, but the object of the moral claim. They argue that it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human person, not a human being.

These abortion advocates make a distinction between being a human being and being a human person, and argue that only the latter are valuable and the subject of human rights. Human beings can be killed, whereas human persons cannot. Value belongs to personhood, not being (existence). On this view there are two stages of human life: the stage at which we come to be (exist), and the stage at which we become valuable (attain personhood). I am going to argue that such a distinction is philosophically untenable, and as such, the argument still stands.

It is important to note a few things about this argument. First, it is not new. People have made this same distinction in the past to discriminate against other human beings who were considered undesirable for one reason or another. The personhood argument was used to justify enslaving the black man. It was used to subjugate women to men. It was used to justify killing Jews and Indians. When an idea has been used to promote such evils as slavery and the Nazi death camps, we should evaluate it very carefully. Millions and millions of people have died because of this philosophy, so to make such a radical distinction between two types of humans that have such radical consequences, we had better be very certain that the difference is genuine. Given the fact that we have come to see its application to blacks, women, Indians, and Jews was mistaken in the past, it is not unreasonable to think it is equally mistaken when applied to the unborn.

The second thing to note about this argument is that it is philosophical, not scientific in nature. Personhood is a philosophical notion involving metaphysics that cannot be justified scientifically. It must be justified philosophically. This is important because pro-abortion advocates often accuse pro-lifers of unjustly bringing metaphysics into the debate, when in fact they do the same. The question is not whether one has metaphysical assumptions that come to bear on the abortion debate, but whose metaphysical assumptions are better supported philosophically.

When someone makes the claim that there is a difference between a human being and a human person, an honest question would be, What's the difference? Many abortion advocates would be unable to provide an answer. Others, however, will provide a list of differences.

This brings me to my third observation about this argument. All of the supposed differences are functional or psychological in nature. A human person is someone who exhibits and/or exercises those functions, whereas a human being does not. It's interesting to note that the advocates of personhood theory each have different lists of criteria that demarcate a human person from a human being. Some, such as Peter Singer, consider rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness to be the sine qua non of personhood. Singer writes in Practical Ethics, "The fact that a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather, characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings."

Jan Narveson says persons are those with an immediate capacity to "make conscious, deliberate choices."36 They are "individuals with complex personal consciousness", sentient, "able to think in the subjective sense," have "genuine experiences," an awareness of himself as an individual, an articulate grasp of his surroundings, be aware of their own history as a thinking subject, possess values and "thoughts, plans, hopes, and interests."37

Philosopher Mary Ann Warren suggests a person is one who possesses consciousness, self-awareness, rationality, self-motivated activity, and an ability to communicate by whatever means on many possible topics. Joseph Fletcher asserts that a person is one who possesses self-awareness, self-control, a sense of the past and future, the ability to relate to others, the ability to communicate, and curiosity. Ronald Bailey says that the criteria for death (brain death) might be a clue as to the criteria for valuable life.38 Steven Pinker, professor of psychology at Harvard, suggests that we need a clear boundary to confer personhood on a human being and grant it a right to life. . . . [T]he right to life must come . . . from morally significant traits that we humans happen to possess. One such trait is having a sequence of experiences that defines us as individuals and connects us to other people. Other traits include an ability to reflect on ourselves as a continuous locus of consciousness, to form and savor plans for the future, to dread death and to express the choice not to die.

In response, we might ask these individuals, Where did you get your list from? Given the fact that they have different lists doesn't bode well for the objectivity of their criteria. The fact of the matter is that the lists are quite subjective. Given the arbitrary and subjective nature of the lists, why can't we invent our own list of personhood criteria? How about we say a person is one who has white skin? If they object to our list, we can ask them on what grounds their list is justified but our list is disallowed.

The philosophical question pro-abortionists and pro-lifers disagree on is what gives humans their value. There are only two possible answers. Either (1) human value is derived from some intrinsic, unchangeable quality that is rooted in human essence/nature, or (2) human value is derived from our participation in some extrinsic, degreed quality. Put another way, humans either possess valuable in light of their shared humanity, or they acquire value when they can exemplify some additional requirement. The former view is called essentialism, and the latter is called functionalism.

What constitutes personhood? Is personhood to be defined in functionalist, or essentialist terms? Is personhood a degreed property, or something that inheres within the essence of a human? Essentialists argue that "being a person is not a result of acquired accidental attributes; rather, it is being a certain type of individual, an individual with a rational nature."39 All things that exist have being. But being is subdivided into two categories: personal and impersonal. Rocks are impersonal; humans are personal. Given what we know about the law of identity (anything that exist will remain itself so long as it exists), it is false to assert that humans can start off as impersonal beings, and then acquire personhood at some later point in time. While our properties may change, our essence remains the same. If humans are personal beings at any point in their existence, then they are personal beings throughout their entire existence, including in the womb.

It is true that we cannot express our personal nature until the apparatuses necessary to express such personality have developed, but the unborns' inability to exercise certain personal characteristics at an early stage of development does not change their personal nature. Indeed, given the law of identity, if they were not personal beings to begin with, they would never be able to exhibit personal attributes. A tree, for example, can never become personal no matter how long it lives to be because personalness does not inhere within the nature of a tree. Personalness, however, does inhere within the nature of a human being. It is not a quality added later. Surely it is more reasonable to value the one possessing the potential for personal characteristics than the full expression of that potential itself.

Critique

Where is the Objective Standard?

All functional definitions of personhood suffer from the problem of authority: how do we determine which functions are valuable and define human worth, and who gets to decide that? Why is consciousness decisive for personhood rather than some other characteristic-say, for example, the ability to direct one's own internal growth toward maturity? The fact of the matter is that value-laden functions are invented by the pro-abortion advocate out of thin air. Not only are the criteria themselves subjective, but so is their application. After all, how can we be sure when someone begins exercising the value-laden functions of personhood? How can we know when they begin to make plans and conscious decisions? How developed does one's psychology need to be before they can be considered a person of right, and who gets to decide that? How many of the various value-defining criteria do they have to exhibit to be considered a person? One? Three? Five? Anyplace we might settle on seems to be just another subjective stopping point. "When human life and human dignity are granted only when an individual passes certain 'tests,' human dignity is put on the auction block for constant reevaluation."40

Jan Narveson recognizes, and even admits the arbitrary nature of personhood criteria. He writes, "One possibility, therefore, would indeed be to draw a line that, while arbitrary in its precise location, is still in roughly the right place." Since we're talking about someone's life or death, "roughly the right place" is not good enough. Or consider Peter Singer. In response to a question regarding his position that it is morally acceptable to kill a one-month old newborn, Singer responded, "You have to ask yourself, does a baby have a right to life as soon as it's born? Or does its right to life come into existence gradually? Of course it's gradual, but that doesn't help the policy makers. If you're trying to shape policy, you need to try and draw lines somewhere. So I came up with an arbitrary point, as a way of demonstrating the fact that babies, unlike older children, don't yet have the capacity for seeing themselves as independent beings."41

"Arbitrary" says it all.

Functionalism Values the Wrong Thing

A functional view of humanity treats the full expression of a capacity as more important than the capacity itself; and a function as more important than the being that has it. We should value the being who possesses the capacities because apart from the individual possessing those capacities they could never develop into the states functionalists value so much. This leads us to value the one possessing the qualities from the moment he/she begins to exist.42 Patrick Lee and Robert George wrote,

It is true that an embryo or fetus (or infant) lacks the immediately exercisable capacity for self-awareness, rationality, or free choice. Yet, the embryo or fetus does have the basic, natural capacity for such actions as consequent to its nature, that is, as entailed by the kind of entity it is. The embryo or fetus, precisely in virtue of the kind of entity he or she is, has the capacity to develop himself or herself to the point where he will perform such actions. And no one has been able to give an intelligible reason why we should base full moral rights on immediately exercisable capacities - which can come and go - rather than on the basic, natural capacities that a human being at any stage of development has in virtue of the kind of entity it is.43

A dog has a particular nature, part of which includes barking. If the dog never develops the ability to bark, we would not say it failed to become a dog. It is a dog so long as it exists "even if it never acquires certain functions that by nature it has the capacity to develop. In contrast, a frog is not said to lack something if it cannot bark, for it is by nature not the sort of being that can have the ability to bark. A dog that lacks the ability to bark is still a dog because of its nature. A human person who lacks the ability to think rationally (either because she is too young or she suffers from a disability) is still a human person because of her nature. Consequently, it makes sense to speak of a human being's lack if and only if she is an actual person."44
Circular Reasoning

Personhood theorists define personhood based on the characteristics of post-natal humans, begging the question in favor of abortion. It's quite convenient to define a person in such a way as to exclude the very group you want to discriminate against in the first place, and then conclude that because those in that group are not persons it is morally acceptable to kill them.45

In defining personhood using characteristics unique to post-natal human beings, they propose that this particular stage of human development can be used to define and evaluate the worth of all previous stages. But how do they justify making this the benchmark for the paradigm, rather than some other stage?46 Can one arbitrary stage of life be used to define the value of all other stages? Who determines which stage is the ideal stage of personhood?

Some personhood theorists are explicit that they are defining person in such a way so as to exclude the unborn. Peter Singer admitted to doing so in an interview with Robert Brennan; a correspondent for the National Catholic Register. Brennan said, "You separate the species part of human beings from the personhood of humans through standards such as being able to plan for the future, having an understanding of one's environment and having a pronounced sense of self-awareness - that is why you have the position that newborn infants do not possess a complete personhood." Singer responded, "Yes. I'm looking for what it is that might make a morally significant distinction between beings who have the fullest right to life, if you want to put it that way, from those who don't have such a serious right to life. I don't think that distinction can be just whether you happen to be a member of the species Homo sapiens or not, irrespective of the characteristics or capacities that you might have. I think there's something wrong with assuming that every member of the species Homo sapiens is somehow a more morally significant being than every member of every other species."47

Inconsistent

If the ability to exercise particular psychological functions are the sine qua non of valuable persons as functionalists assert, many counter-intuitive examples come to mind that should cause any proponent of functionalism to re-evaluate his/her philosophy of personhood. I shall examine three examples: infanticide, those in a coma, those who are asleep.

Infanticide

Newborn infants do not exhibit the psychological functions that define one as a person according to personhood theory. Given the tenants of personhood theory, then, what prohibits us aborting newborn babies in the same way we abort unborn babies? Most abortion proponents have a moral intuition that infanticide is immoral, but some abortion advocates who take personhood theory seriously believe infanticide is morally justifiable on the grounds that newborn babies are not yet persons.

Peter Singer is perhaps the most notable proponent of infanticide. He rightly notes that birth is an insignificant dividing line for evaluating human value. Singer wrote, "Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons"; therefore, "the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee."48

Philosopher, Michael Tooley, is not bothered by infanticide either. In 1972 he said a human being "possess[es] a serious right to life only if it possesses the concept of a self as a continuing subject of experiences and other mental states, and believes that it is itself such a continuing entity."49 Since only those capable of recognizing themselves as a self have the right to life, and infants do not recognize themselves to be selves, they can be killed just like the unborn. He is not clear when it comes to firmly establishing the exact point one gains interests, but he is sure that infants under one week of age do not qualify as persons.

John Harris-professor of bioethics and law at the University of Manchester (UK), founding member of the International Association of Bioethics, and official ethics consultant for British physicians-declared before the British Parliament's Commons Science and Technology Committee:

I don't think infanticide is always unjustifiable. I don't think it is plausible to think that there is any moral change that occurs during the journey down the birth canal. … People who think there is a difference between infanticide and late abortion have to ask the question: What has happened to the fetus in the time it takes to pass down the birth canal and into the world which changes its moral status? I don't think anything has happened in that time. … There is a very widespread and accepted practice of infanticide in most countries. We ought to be much more upfront about the ethics of all this and ask ourselves the serious question: What do we really think is different between newborns and late fetuses? … There is no obvious reason why one should think differently from an ethical point of view, about a fetus when it's outside the womb rather then when it's inside the womb.50

Professor Jonathan Glover of King's College, London, has argued that infanticide is morally justifiable and that the "sanctity of human life" is a fallacious concept. According to Glover "questions about killing should be decided by considering the autonomy of the person whose life is at stake, the extent to which his life is worth living and the effects of any decision on other people." In Causing Death and Saving Lives Glover argues that what is needed is a "coherent policy" that would begin with the idea that "infanticide is sometimes right."51

Not all personhood theorists are comfortable with infanticide. They recognize it to be morally problematic, even though the principles of their personhood theories justify it. For example, Jan Narveson admits that his personhood theory (based on libertarianism) excludes newborns just as it does the unborn. Concerning the border of personhood he said, "We are being amply conservative in this respect if we draw our line at birth or even several weeks beyond."52

This will not do, however, because the fact of the matter is that a newborn baby does not have cognition or self-consciousness. There is no functional difference between the unborn and the newly born-just a difference in location. "If the immediate capacity for self-consciousness makes one valuable, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. According to the scientific journal Nature, infants do not acquire conscious memories until nine months after birth.53 Best case scenario, infants acquire limited self-awareness three months after birth, when the synapse connections increase from 56 trillion to 1,000 trillion."54

According to Narveson, infanticide is not so much a moral wrong as an unnecessary practice, at least in an ideal world.55 While infanticide might be justifiable under his personhood criteria, it is not preferable for the following reasons:

1. Given the availability of abortion-on-demand, it is practically unnecessary
2. Given the above, ideally all children who make it out of the womb should be wanted children.
3. There is an overwhelming social interest in treating children well, including newborn children.
4. Infants are no longer naturally dependent on their mothers.
5. Infants are readily portable, allowing them to be given to others who may want them.
(He is asserting that newborns have value if and only if they are loved and/or wanted by genuine persons. Why should we accept that?)
6. Newborns will have the capacity to make deliberate choices "very soon."
(This is true of fetuses as well. If we can wait for newborns to develop deliberate choice, why can't we give the unborn a few extra months as well?56 Besides, why is sooner rather than later relevant to the issue?)
7. Infanticide is a rather odd concern to begin with because those who carry their fetus to term do so because they want the child, and thus would not kill it.
(This abandons moral philosophy in favor of social science. Furthermore, it misses the point. The question isn't why would parents want to destroy their newborns?, but rather why shouldn't parents destroy their newborn in light of his view of human value? The unpopularity of infanticide does not speak to this question.57)

Notice how all of these reasons run contrary to Narveson's personhood principles. If infanticide is wrong for reasons unrelated to personhood, could it not be that abortion is also wrong for similar reasons? In abandoning his personhood criteria for human value to argue against infanticide, Narveson demonstrates the bankruptcy of personhood criteria for determining human value and rights.

Mary Ann Warren is also troubled by the problem of infanticide for personhood theory. Like Narveson, she discards her functional criteria for personhood to argue against infanticide on the grounds that newborns are "so close" to being human persons. Furthermore, it would be wrong to kill newborns when there are so many infertile couples who would want the child. In extreme conditions of hardship and in the presence of severe genetic deformities, however, infanticide is justifiable.

Those in a Coma

Humans who are in a coma do not exhibit the value-defining characteristics offered to us by personhood theorists. Someone in a coma, then, is not a person, and has no human rights such as the right to life. Why can't we kill them, then?

Functionalists argue that it would be wrong to kill an individual in a coma because the situation is only temporary. But why does this matter? To even "make such an objection the functionalist must appeal to some other criteria for personhood and protection of that patient besides the particular functions deemed necessary for personhood. But in doing so one must admit that the functions are not the sine qua non for personhood. One must appeal to some essential quality, which may or may not be expressed at any given time."58

Those Asleep

This counter-example is similar to the former. It differs primarily in that we are dealing with a shorter duration of time. Humans who are sleeping do not exhibit the value-defining characteristics offered to us by personhood theorists. Someone who is asleep, then, is not a person, and has no human rights such as the right to life. Why can't we kill them, then? Narveson addressed this issue in Moral Matters: "Of course, we are not conscious when we are asleep or stunned, and we suppose that we continue to have rights when in those conditions…[T]he sleeping body you see before you is mine. Before going to sleep, I had extensive plans about what to do when I awake, and I'm not about to allow others to make incursions on my body while asleep. The owners of sleeping bodies are the active nonsleeping persons that precede and follow the sleeper, and in whose service the sleeping body sleeps. It is those owners who have rights - among them the right not to be killed or damaged while asleep."59

While much could be said of Narveson's explanation, I will limit myself to two points. First, if we can consider a human being valuable because they exhibited valuable properties in the past, why can't we consider a human being valuable because they will exhibit valuable properties in the future? The fact of the matter in both cases is that they are not exhibiting valuable properties right now. If value is tied to personhood, and he ceases to be a person while sleeping, then he ceases to have rights. Whether someone had plans to do some X upon waking, prior to sleeping, is simply irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that they fail to meet the criteria for personhood at the moment, and thus we have no reason not to kill them unless we resort to some sort of an essentialist view of human value. Ironically, Narveson has to borrow from essentialism to protect his own hide from being killed while asleep-the very view he is speaking against. If one must borrow from his opponents' worldview to correct the problems created by his own, maybe he has the wrong worldview to begin with.

Either sentience, consciousness, personal interests and the like are necessary for personhood and human rights or they are not. If they are not always necessary-as in the case of newborns, those in a coma, and those asleep-then we cannot selectively enforce them when we choose and forego them when it suits our fancy to do so.60

Secondly, how can one own his sleeping body if he ceases to exist while sleeping?61 The owners who have rights cease to be when they begin to sleep. As such, those who are sleeping are not persons, and there is no logical justification for why they cannot be killed. Narveson's explanation for the counter-example of sleep is incoherent.

It will not do to make a list of criteria that excludes the unborn, and then disregard that criteria to make exceptions for a host of groups one wants to protect, but make no exception for the unborn. When a view of human value is so defined that it excludes groups of humans we intuitively understand to be valuable, it should alert us to the fact that the view itself is flawed at its core.

Equal Rights

A functional view of humanity cannot ground the notion of human equality and equal rights, for there would be nothing equal about us. Many of the acquired properties functionalists assert as value-defining properties are had in degrees. If human value is determined by acquired characteristics, and those characteristics come in degrees, then it follows that human rights come in degrees as well. "Secular bioethics cannot account for human equality or human dignity. If humans have value only because of some acquired property like self-awareness or sentience and not in virtue of the kind of thing they are, then it follows that since these acquired properties come in varying degrees, basic human rights come in varying degrees. Do we really want to say that those with more self-awareness are more valuable than those with less?"62 Greg Koukl makes explicit the danger personhood theory poses to human rights: "The danger is, when value is functionally defined, there is no basis for inalienable human rights. Whatever can be functionally defined, can be functionally defined away."

If we are to take functionalism as a viable alternative to essentialism, the functionalist must explain why we should be treated as equals if there is nothing we share equally. Given functionalism, the notion of equal rights is ignorant, if not immoral. The only way to ground equal rights is to acknowledge that there is something all human beings share equally: human nature. This requires essentialism.

Conclusion

Functionalism is a deficient form of philosophical anthropology in that it is subjective, suffers from the problem of authority, is incapable of grounding human equality and equal rights, and is required to resort to some form of essentialism to justify excusing certain groups of people from being killed.

Functionalism cannot be applied consistently. One must abandon their personhood criteria to prevent the killing of infants, those who are sleeping, those under anesthesia, or those in a coma. While functionalism makes exceptions for these groups, mysteriously they are unwilling to make the same exception for the unborn. This sort of unjustified inconsistency makes the whole theory suspect.

Personhood is not something that instantiates when certain functions are realized; personhood is what grounds those functions even when they have not been actualized. "A human person does not come into existence when human function arises, but rather, a human person is an entity who has the natural inherent capacity to give rise to human functions, whether or not those functions are ever attained. And since the unborn human being has this natural inherent capacity from the moment it comes into existence, she is a person as long as she exists."63

Frank Beckwith sums up well, all that has been said so far:

The unborn-from zygote to blastocyst to embryo to fetus-is the same being, the same substance, that develops into an adult. The actualization of a human being's potential, e.g. her "human" appearance and the exercise of her rational and moral powers as an adult (which abortion-choice advocates argue determine the unborn's intrinsic value), is merely the public presentation of functions latent in every human substance from the moment it is brought into being. A human may lose and regain those functions throughout her life, but the substance remains the same being.

Moreover, if one's value is conditioned on certain accidental properties then the human equality presupposed by our legal institutions and our form of government…is a fiction. In that case, there is no principled basis for rejecting the notion that human rights ought to be distributed to individuals on the basis of native intellectual abilities or other value-giving properties, such as rationality and self-awareness. One can only reject this notion by affirming that human beings are intrinsically valuable because they possess a particular nature from the moment they come into existence. That is to say, what a human being is, and not what she does, makes her a subject of rights.64



Objections and Responses

Having established scientifically and philosophically that the unborn are human beings from the moment of conception, and having established philosophically that there is no distinction between a human being and a human person, let us turn our attention to various objections raised by pro-abortion advocates against the pro-life view. The following objections will be answered:

Nobody knows when life begins.
You are denying women the right to choose what to do with their own bodies.
You are denying women their right to privacy. If we outlaw abortion women will be forced to seek dangerous back-alley abortions, putting their lives at risk.
When mothers are forced to raise unwanted children they often abuse them.
Many poor women cannot afford to raise a child (or more children).
I don't think unwanted children should come into the world.
What are we going to do with all these unwanted children? If you will not take personal responsibility to care for them, you should not condemn those who get abortions.
Embryos are just a clump of cells.
No one is certain when conception occurs, and thus no one can be certain when a human being comes into being.
If you will not kill human embryos simply because they possess human DNA, then you should not scratch your arm either, for in doing so you kill thousands of cells containing human DNA.
I am opposed to abortion, except in cases of rape and incest.
Pro-lifers want to force women to carry a child conceived by rape or incest.
While I am personally opposed to abortion I don't think it should be illegal.
While I am personally opposed to abortion, I don't believe we ought to legislate onto others what is for ourselves an article of faith.
Your view that the unborn have a right to life is a religious view, disqualifying it from the public square.
If Mother Nature spontaneously aborts 25-40% of all embryos, why would it be wrong for us to do so as well? Do you honestly believe all those embryos are children that die?
Human embryos have the ability to twin up to 14 days from conception, so while the embryo is genetically human, no individual human person who is the subject of rights can be said to exist until after 14 days.
Outlawing abortion will not stop abortion.
A fetus is not a human, so it can be aborted.
Pro-life rhetoric causes violence against abortion providers.
Women should have the right to abort children who will be born with terminal, debilitating, or genetic handicaps. It is best for the child, and for the family.
Objection: "Nobody knows when life begins."65
Response: For the sake of argument, let's assume this is true. If our lack of knowledge about the temporal origin of life justifies a woman's choice to abort her unborn child, does it equally justify her choice to kill her born child? No? Why not? If the fact that no one knows when life begins gives a mother the right to determine that her unborn child is not a life-and subsequently kill him/her-why doesn't that same agnosticism give her the right to kill her children this side of the womb? After all, who can know if they are a life or not, given the fact that no one knows when life begins. Maybe life has not begun for her newborn baby. Maybe life has not begun for her two year old. Who are we to tell her when their life began, given humanity's universal ignorance on this matter?

Of course, only the most extreme pro-abortion advocates would accept this line of reasoning. Most assume to know when life begins. At the very least, it begins at birth. Some might say earlier. The problem is that no matter where you might draw the line, that line is an arbitrary, biological fiction. If they draw the line at six months, I would ask, Why six months? Why not five and a half? Why not six months and three days? What is the objective basis on which you arrived at this particular demarcation line? What sort of change occurred from five months and thirty days to six months that magically changed the unborn from a piece of valueless tissue that can be killed at the mother's discretion, to a valuable human being worthy of protection, even from its mothers desire to kill it? If they say birth, I would ask them the same question pro-abortion advocate John Harris asked: "What has happened to the fetus in the time it takes to pass down the birth canal and into the world which changes its moral status?"66 To think an eight inch journey down a birth canal can magically transform one into a valuable human being is fanciful metaphysics indeed.

The bottom line is that pro-abortion advocates choose to draw the line in such a place so as to justify killing those human beings they want to be able to kill, while protecting those they don't. The fact that this objection cannot rationally explain why a mother cannot kill her two year old, without contradicting its own assertion of truth, demonstrates that this objection is fatally flawed.

But there are even deeper problems with this objection. Given such agnosticism, could it not be the case that pro-lifers are right-that life really does begin at conception, and abortion unjustly robs an innocent human being of his/her life? Given your confession of agnosticism, why take the risk? The fact of the matter is that something is being killed here. Should we not proceed with extreme caution when so much is at stake? Would it not be more prudent to err on the side of life until such a time when we can be sure when life begins? After all, if we wanted to demolish a building, we would not proceed with the demolition until we were absolutely certain that no one remained in the building. Likewise, we should not abort the unborn until we are sure that doing so does not abort a life. Given what is at stake, we would do well to apply our best thinking to the issue, rather than settling for shallow slogans like "choice" and "no one knows when life begins."

The foolishness of proceeding to kill something before fully knowing what it is that is being killed is not all that is wrong with this objection. The objection itself is scientifically false, and utterly foolish on its face.

It is scientifically false in that it assumes there is a period of non-life from which life suddenly springs forth into existence at some later point in time. There is never a period of non-life. Life is a continuum. It began once, and has never ceased since then. The real question is when does the life of an individual human being begin? At what point did the chain of continuing life pass from the previous generation to the unborn? The biological answer is conception. Life is characterized by (1) metabolism, (2) growth, (3) reaction to stimuli, and (4) reproduction. All of these are present in the unborn from the moment of conception. Our own personal life, then, is a continuum from conception to death.67 Human embryologist, C. Ward Kischer wrote, "At any point in time, during the continuum of life, there exists a whole, integrated human being."68 So we do know when life begins.

The objection is foolish on its face because even apart from scientific knowledge, it is clearly evident that the unborn are alive. If they were not alive, abortion would not be necessary. Abortion is only needed because the unborn is alive. Abortion terminates that life.

It seems rather clear that those who offer this objection are not referring to life in a biological sense, because even the most scientifically ignorant individual recognizes that something can grow without being alive. They must be referring to life in a philosophical sense, equating "life" with "value." The real objection, then, is not that no one knows when biological life begins, but no one knows when valuable biological life begins. No one knows whether human life is valuable from conception onward (intrinsic value), or whether human life becomes valuable at some time after conception (extrinsic, or acquired value) after certain identifiable characteristics are exhibited. If humans are valuable, and yet that value is not intrinsic to them in virtue of their identity as a member of the human species, then that value must be conferred on them. Who confers that value? Upon what authority do they do so? What is their criteria for conferring value? Do they have an objective basis for this criteria, or is it subjective?

Since the question of when life begins is settled, the only thing left to dispute is the philosophical question of whether all human life-regardless of size, location, degree of dependency, or level of development-is equally valuable because of its shared humanity, or if human value is obtained at some later time when some particular function/state is instantiated. As we have already seen, essentialism is better supported philosophically. It does not fall prey to the many weaknesses inherent to functionalism.

Objection: "You are denying women the right to choose what to do with their own bodies."
Response: No one in this debate is opposed to choice in the general, abstract sense. But choices do not hang in mid-air. We choose particular things: where to go to college, who to marry, how to spend our money, who to associate with, where to work, etc. When it comes to abortion, what is it that is being chosen? It is the choice to kill something. Our right to choose to kill depends on what it is that is being killed. In the case of abortion, we are either killing an innocent human being, or we are merely removing excess tissue. As previously demonstrated, the unborn are human beings. Abortion, then, is not about choice in some abstract sense, but about the concrete choice of killing an innocent human being.

The abortion debate is not about choice, but about whether the unborn are genuine human beings with the right to life despite what some may wish to do with it. It is the status of the unborn, then, that decides the abortion question. Freedom of choice is only a relevant issue once we have answered this question. And this question has been answered. The unborn are human beings with the right to life from the moment they come to be. That being so, the right to choose an abortion is no more a right than slavery was a right to choose property rights or segregation was the right to choose free association.

While the ability to make free, personal choices is a good thing and must be protected by law, that does not mean there are no limits to choice. None of our choices are entirely sovereign. The very existence of our legal system is evidence of this fact. Laws serve to restrict freedom in one manner or another (we don't have the choice to molest children, torture others, slander others, drive 100 mph, etc.). They must limit the spectrum of choices we can make for the good of the individual making the choice, and the good of those affected by the choice. In the case of abortion "no one's right to personal autonomy is so strong that it permits the arbitrary execution of others."69

Not only is freedom of choice not decisive in the abortion debate, the issue isn't about the woman's body either. The unborn baby is not part of the woman's body. It is a separate living being, evidenced by its own unique genetic fingerprint. The fact that the baby lives inside of its mother's body is irrelevant. Just because you may own a house does not give you a right to kill its tenants. The act of abortion is not directed at the woman's body, but the distinct human being who is living inside of her body. As such, the argument from bodily autonomy fails.

Objection: "You are denying women their right to privacy."
Response: Privacy, like choice, is limited. There are times at which we are justified to intrude into someone's private life and personal choices: when those choices are inhumane and violate the well-being and freedoms of another, particularly when that other is defenseless against such abuse.

Privacy is limited by morality, particularly when what one is doing in private results in social harm. We do not have the right to beat our child so long as it is private, nor do we have the right to kill our neighbor in private, so the real issue here is not privacy per se, but whether the unborn are human beings, and thus worthy of government protection. Ironically, that is the one question that Roe vs. Wade admitted they could not answer: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."70

Retired Judge Andrew Napolitano was asked in an interview: "You talk, in a few spots, about the right to 'be left alone.' And when you refer to it in most cases, you refer to a right to privacy as it pertains under the Fourth Amendment with regard to unreasonable searches and seizures. But do you think the rights being talked about there extend to abortion, which is the justification given for legalizing it in Roe v. Wade?" Napolitano responded:

Well, of course it doesn't, because the right to privacy does not give you the right to commit a crime. Most murders are committed in private. The right to privacy has to do with government intrusion into your private decisions, into your private thoughts, into your papers and into your home and your dresser drawer. I mean, even many of the strong pro-abortion people in the country dislike Roe v. Wade; they wouldn't have grounded it in the right to privacy because it doesn't make sense. The right to privacy lets you kill a baby but it doesn't let you kill an adult? That's the illogical extension there.

However, there is a natural right to privacy -- whether it was in the Fourth Amendment or not. … Everybody desires to be left alone at some point; no one desires a cop in the bathroom or the bedroom or the kitchen or the office. Those legitimate natural yearnings -- speech, travel, thought, religion -- those are natural rights which the government must protect. According to (former Supreme Court Justice Louis) Brandeis, the greatest of those rights is the right "to be left alone. Today we call it the right to privacy.71

Objection: "If we outlaw abortion women will be forced to seek dangerous back-alley abortions, putting their lives at risk."
Response: First, no one is forced to break the law; they choose to break the law. Secondly, are you saying that the government has a responsibility to protect people from negative consequences that might result from breaking t

aniekan thomas at 3:12PM on Feb 6th 2008

80. On Exodus 21 vs 22-23


Answering the Theological Case for Abortion Rights

by Scott Klusendorf

My local newspaper had a headline last week that read, "President Clinton Says Bible ‘Ambiguous’ on Abortion."

The President alleges that Scripture and church history are largely silent on the issue. Hence, pro-life Christians should pause before condemning a practice the Bible does not expressly mention, let alone forbid. A liberal cleric quoted in the article agrees, arguing that no where in church history is abortion condemned until the religious right began forcing its views on the public around 1980. When abortion was proscribed, it was only to ward off pressing social problems like under population. The moral question of abortion, the cleric insists, was never at issue.

Does Silence Equal Permission?

What are we to make of the President’s remarks and those of the cleric? Does the alleged silence of Scripture and church history give license to elective abortion? The short answer is no. While the President is correct to say the word abortion does not appear in Scripture, he is wrong to suppose that this in anyway justifies abortion on demand. In fact, just the opposite is true, as I will argue below. The cleric, meanwhile, is wrong about the motive behind church teaching on abortion. From the beginning, abortion restrictions had nothing to do with practical concerns such as under population, but moral concerns for what is arguably the taking of human life.

Let me begin with a general observation. The Biblical documents (as well as the writings of the church fathers and the reformers) do not expressly condemn many things, including drive by shootings and the lynching of homosexuals. But that hardly proves we are morally justified doing these things. Hence, my question for abortion advocates is this: "Are you saying that whenever the Bible does not specifically condemn something, it condones it?" When they say "no" (and they must), I ask, "Then what is your point?"

Clearly, if the Bible treats the unborn as human persons, commands forbidding unjustified killing of other humans would apply to fetus as well. The issue, then, is not "Does the Bible expressly condemn abortion?" but, "Does Scripture teach that the unborn are human?" I will take up that question in a moment.

For now, my purpose is to argue that the theological case for abortion rights, a case based almost exclusively on the alleged silence of Scripture (and church history), is flawed for at least three reasons:

1) Even if the Bible says nothing about abortion, it does not follow that it's authors approved of the practice.

2) Those few Biblical texts that are cited by abortion advocates to discredit the humanity of the unborn do not support their case.

3) Church teaching on abortion throughout history is clear and incontrovertible: abortion is a serious moral wrong.

Can "E.T." Give Us a Clue?

The Bible's alleged silence on abortion does not mean that its authors condoned the practice, but that prohibitions against it were unnecessary. Here is why I know.

If a visitor from another planet were asked to examine the Biblical documents for clues on abortion, he would have to admit that the word does not appear. But a visitor with a sense of history might say, "Tell me what the laws, beliefs and customs were when the Bible was written and from these I shall infer whether or not its authors ever intended to condone abortion."

Turning first to the Old Testament, our visitor would find:

that the concept of "life" was regarded as the highest good, while "death" was seen as the worst evil. Hence the challenge found in Deuteronomy 30:19--"Today I have set before you life and death, blessings and cursings. Now choose Life, so that you and your children may live"
that man was not a chance or a mere assemblage of cells, but that he was created in the image of God. Hence, the shedding of innocent blood was strictly forbidden (Genesis 9:6; Exodus 23:7, Proverbs 6:16-17)
that children were never seen as "unwanted" or as a nuisance (unless later in life they became wicked), but as a gift from God--the highest possible blessing (Psalms 127:3-5, 113:9, Gen. 17:6, 33:5, etc.)
that immortality was achieved through one’s descendants. God's "promise" to Abraham to make of him a great nation was passed on to Isaac, Jacob, etc. "Sons are a heritage from the Lord, children a reward from Him," writes the Psalmist (127:3; See also Gen. 48:16)
that sterility and barrenness were seen as a curse, a source of great shame and sorrow. Hence, Peninnah's harsh ridicule of Hannah, the prophet Samuel's mother, because of the latter's initial barrenness (1 Samuel 1:6; see also Gen. 20:17-18, 30:1, 22-23,etc.)
that God was at work in the womb fashioning a human for His purposes (Ps.139:13-16, Isa. 49:1,5 , Jer.1:5)
Among a people who saw life as the highest good and death the worst of evils, who saw man as being created in the image of God, who saw children as the highest possible blessing, who saw immortality as being achieved through one's descendants, who saw sterility and barrenness as a curse, who saw God at work in the womb--among such a people, the concept of induced abortion was extremely unlikely to find a foothold. Hence, the Old Testament's silence on abortion indicates that prohibitions against it were completely unnecessary, not that the practice was tacitly approved. (See Germain Grisez, Abortion: the Myths, the Realities, and the Arguments, Corpus Books, 1970, pp.123-127 for a lengthy discussion of this point.)

In short, liberals who argue for abortion rights from the alleged silence of the Old Testament are committing a gross hermeneutical fallacy. Basic to good Biblical interpretation is the rule that "a text can never mean [to us] what it never could have meant to its authors or his readers. " See Gordon Fee, How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth, Zondervan 1982, p. 60.) In other words, it is important to interpret Scripture within its own intellectual and cultural framework without reading into it a foreign world-view. The idea that the absence of a direct prohibition meant that women had a God-given right to kill their offspring would have been utterly foreign to the Hebrew culture of that day for the reasons cited above.

Turning to the New Testament, our visitor would quickly observe:

that the first Christians, including all but one of the New Testament authors, were Jewish Christians with an essentially Jewish morality. Hence, if there was a Jewish consensus on abortion at the time, the early Christians most certainly would have shared that consensus.
that early Judaism was, in fact, quite firmly opposed to abortion. As Michael Gorman points out in his excellent article "Why Is the New Testament Silent About Abortion?" (Christianity Today, Jan. 11, 1993), Jewish documents from the period condemn the practice unequivocally, demonstrating a clear anti-abortion consensus among first century Jews:
-- The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides (written between 50 B.C. and A.D. 50) says, "A woman should not destroy the unborn babe in her belly, nor after its birth throw it before the dogs and vultures."

-- The Sibyline Oracles includes among the wicked those who "produce abortions and unlawfully cast their offspring away" as well as sorcerers who dispense abortifacients.

-- 1 Enoch (first or second century B.C.) says that an evil angel taught humans how to "smash the embryo in the womb."

-- Philo of Alexandria (Jewish philosopher, 25 B.C. to A.D.41) rejected the notion that the fetus is merely part of the mother's body.

-- Josephus (first-century Jewish historian) wrote, "The law orders all the offspring be brought up, and forbids women either to cause abortion or to make away with the fetus." A woman who did so was considered to have committed infanticide because she destroyed a "soul" and hence diminished the race.

As Gorman points out, no contradictory texts exist! Given this consensus, the most logical conclusion is that the Jewish Christian writers of the New Testament shared the anti-abortion views of their Jewish heritage--even if they never expressly mention the word "abortion" in their writings.

that the theology of the New Testament is primarily task theology written to address specific issues in specific churches. In other words, the New Testament as a whole does not constitute a comprehensive code of ethics (although we certainly can derive many principles of right and wrong from what's written), but rather each document deals only with those moral and theological issues which had become problems. Two examples will help here. First, the Apostle Paul does not mention infanticide, a practice common among Romans and other pagans of the time. Why? Because the Christians to whom he was writing were not killing their children. Nor does Paul provide direct teaching on the historical career of Christ (he mentions it only indirectly for the purpose of underscoring the importance of the resurrection in 1 Cor. 15), but this does not mean that he questioned its truth. Rather, it means that a discussion of this sort never became necessary. Writes theologian George Eldon Ladd:
"Many studies in Paul have worked with the implicit assumption that his letters record all his ideas, and when some important matter was not discussed, they have assumed it was because it had no place in Paul's thought. This is a dangerous procedure; the argument from silence should be employed only with the greatest of caution. Paul discusses many subjects only because a particular need in a given church required his instruction.…We would never know much about Paul's thought on the resurrection had it not been questioned in Corinth. We might conclude that Paul knew no tradition about the Lord's supper had not abuses occurred in the Corinthian congregation. In other words, we may say that we owe whatever understanding we have of Paul's thought to the "accidents of history" which required him to deal with various problems, doctrinal and practical, in the life of the churches." (A Theology of the New Testament, Eerdmans, 1974, pp.377-8.)

Hence, the New Testament's silence on abortion does not mean that its authors approved of or tolerated the practice, but that a discussion of the issue never became necessary. In other words, there was no deviation from the norm inherited from Judaism. The early Christians simply were not tempted to kill their children before or after birth.

that many of the texts used by early Christians did condemn abortion. Although these early Christian works eventually lost their bid for canonicity, they do express how the first Christians felt on a variety of issues--including abortion. As Gorman points out, these early writings were read and preached in many congregations throughout the Roman Empire up until the fourth century. Examples include:
-- The Didache : "You shall not murder a child by abortion nor shall you kill a newborn."

-- The Epistle of Barnabas: "You shall love your neighbor more than your own life. You shall not murder a child by abortion nor shall you kill a newborn."

-- Apocalypse of Peter [describing a vision of Hell]: "I saw women who produced children out of wedlock and who procured abortions."

These texts, writes Gorman, "bear witness to the general Jewish and Jewish-Christian attitude of the first and second centuries, thus confirming that the earliest Christians shared the anti-abortion position of their Jewish forebears." (Christianity Today, January 11, 1993)

Given this overwhelming consensus against abortion by early Jewish Christians, our "visitor" would reason that what Jewish morality condemned, the writers of the New Testament never intended to legitimize.

What Did Moses Really Teach?

Some abortion advocates recognize the folly of arguing from the alleged silence of Scripture to justify abortion. Instead, they appeal to Scripture directly in order to prove 1) that fetuses are not human persons, and 2) that abortion is not a serious moral wrong.

The text most often cited is Exodus 21: 22-25.

The passage reads in the NASB as follows: "And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no [further] injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges demand of him. But if there is any [further] injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Liberals argue that this Scripture proves the unborn are not fully human because the penalty for accidentally killing a fetus is less than that for killing its mother. But this argument is flawed on several counts.

First, assuming the pro-abortion interpretation of this passage is correct (i.e. that the unborn's death is treated differently than the mother's), it does not follow that the unborn are not fully human. The preceding passage presents a situation where a master unintentionally kill his slave and escapes with no penalty at all (the lack of intent being proven by the interval between the blow and the death.). Yet few liberals would argue that Scripture considers the slave to be less than human. Likewise, it does not follow that the unborn entity is non-human simply because the penalty for its death is less than that given were its mother to die. It might be argued that both the slave and the unborn child had a lesser social status in Hebrew society, but it cannot be demonstrated from this that a lesser social status meant that one was less than fully human.

Second, even if abortion advocates are correct about this passage, it cannot be used to support abortion on demand. Liberals argue that any woman should be able to kill any baby at any point in the pregnancy for any reason or no reason. This passage, however, does not even remotely suggest that a woman can willfully kill her unborn child without justification. At best, it only shows that there is a lesser penalty for accidentally killing her unborn offspring than there is for accidentally killing her. "To move from this truth to the conclusion that abortion-on-demand is justified is a nonsequitor," writes Dr. Frank Beckwith in Politically Correct Death. (Baker, 1993, p.143)

Third, the pro-abortion interpretation of this passage (that a person who kills an unborn child only incurs a fine) has come under heavy fire from many Biblical scholars. In fact, it may be more reasonable view the passage as affirming the humanity of the unborn rather then denying it, as abortion advocates suppose. R.C. Sproul points out that the crux of the debate centers around the phrase, "no serious injury." The question is "No serious injury to whom?" Liberals, of course, argue that the phrase only applies to the mother. But only a few translations, such as the Jerusalem Bible, actually interpret the verse in this way.

When read in the original Hebrew, the passage seems to convey that both the mother and the child are covered by the lex talionis --the law of retribution. The Hebrew term 'ason' (harm/injury) is clearly indefinite in its reference, and the expression 'lah' (to her), which would restrict the word "injury" only to the mother, is missing. Hence, the phrase, "no serious injury" seems to apply equally to both mother and child and if either is harmed, the penalty is "life for life, tooth for tooth, hand for hand," etc. According to Hebrew scholar Dr. Gleason Archer, "There is no second class status attached to the fetus under this rule. The fetus is just as valuable as the mother." (Cited in J. Ankerberg and J. Weldon, "When Does Life Begin," Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1989 pp.195-6. See also, Meredith Kline, "Lex Talionis & the Human Fetus," Simon Greenleaf Law Review 5 [1985-1986] pp.73-89)

Furthermore, we should not presume that the miscarriage of Exodus 21 produces a dead child, as does abortion. Greg Koukl makes an excellent point: the Hebrew word for "miscarriage" in this context is 'yasa’--which almost always refers to the emergence of a living thing. (See, for example, Gen. 1:24, 8:17, 15:4, 25:26, 1 Kings 8:19, 2 Kings 20:18.) In this case, the passage can be translated "the child comes forth."

The point is simply this. If the miscarried child is not injured, the penalty is merely a fine. But if it is harmed, the penalty is life for life, tooth for tooth, etc. Read this way, the passage treats the unborn with the same value it does the mother. The penalty for harming either is the same. (Note also the text calls the expelled fetus a "child"—a fact abortion advocates cannot easily get around.)

Silent? Hardly.

The assertion that prohibitions against abortion are relatively recent is utterly false. In addition to the non-canonical documents cited above, the following sources underscore the consistent teaching of the church on abortion.

The Witness of the early church fathers:

-- Athenagoras (A.D. 177--while defending Christians against murder charges): "What reason would we have to commit murder when we say that women who induce abortions are murderers, and will have to give account of it to God? For the same person would not regard the fetus in the womb as a living thing and therefore an object of God's care [and then kill it]." (A Plea for the Christians, 35.6)

-- Tertullian (A.D. 197--while defending Christianity against charges of child sacrifice): "In our case, murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in the seed." (Apology, 9.6)

-- Clement of Alexandria (A.D.150-215). "But women who resort to some sort of deadly abortion kill not only the embryos but, along with it, all human kindness." (Paedagogus, 2.10. 96.1.)

-- Basil the Great (374 A.D.). "Moreover, those, too, who give drugs causing abortion are [deliberate murderers] themselves, as well as those receiving the poison which kills the fetus." (Letter, 188.2)

The witness of the Protestant reformers:

-- John Calvin (1509-64). "The fetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being and it is a most monstrous crime to rob it of the life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man's house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light" (Commentarius in Exodum, 21,22)

-- Martin Luther (1483-1546). "Even if all the world were to combine forces, they could not bring about the conception of a single child in any woman's womb nor cause it to be born; that is wholly the work of God." (Luther's Works, VII, 21)

-- John Donne (English poet and preacher). "The sin of Er, and Onan, in married men; the sin of procured abortions, in married women, does in many cases equal, in some exceed, the sin of adultery." (Sermon preached Easter, 1625)

Modern opposition:

-- Dietrich Bonhoeffer (German pastor and theologian hung by the Nazis in 1945): "Destruction of the embryo in the mother's womb is a violation of the right to life which God has bestowed on this nascent life...And that is nothing but murder. (Ethics, pp.175-176.)

-- Pope John Paul II: "No word has the power to change the reality of things: procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence." (Evangelium Vitae, Section 58)

To sum up, a survey of Scripture and church history does nothing to support the case for unrestricted abortion. Biblically and historically, the message is clear: the unborn are human persons, hence, abortion is a serious moral wrong

aniekan thomas at 4:19PM on Feb 6th 2008

81. that was a lot of wasted verbiage that i certainly wouldn't waste time reading.

First, you are wrong about the posts defining anything regarding sin. in numbers god says don't count infants. And you're apparently saying it's ok to abort the babies of sinners or a baby who would become a sinner? That's what the quotes say.

next, life begins at meiosis and any individual has two beginnings, not one. If it's wrong to take life, it's a sin to ejaculate or ovulate. If you object to taking life only after the next stage you either lose the argument or concede that killing a living half person is acceptable. That's absurd, and quoting a 200 level embryology text thirdhand will not budge that fact one micron. Life begins before fertilization at meiosis. dead sperm and eggs don't make babies.

Clif Kuplen at 1:24AM on Feb 7th 2008