Except for the pro-choice argument, there are only two basic
questions to be answered when one considers the abortion controversy.
THE FIRST QUESTION IS: When
does human life begin?
The controversy swirling about the first question can be explained
by the fact that different people use different standards of measurement by which to
define "human life." Some would define it through a theologic or religious faith
belief. Some would define "human life" using certain philosophic theories and
beliefs. Others define "human life" by using biologic, scientific facts. Let us
briefly explore the three methods of measurement.
THEOLOGIC OR RELIGIOUS FAITH
BELIEF |
 |
This is best explained by considering three people
who might state their respective beliefs as follows: a) I believe in God. I believe He
creates a soul. I believe the soul is created at conception. Therefore, I believe that
human Life begins at conception.
b) I also believe in God and a soul but I don’t believe the
soul is created until birth (or some other time). Therefore, I believe that human life
begins at birth (or some other time).
c) I don’t believe in God or a soul.
Comment
- The above are statements of religious faith or its absence.
- None of the above religious faith beliefs can be factually proven.
- Each individual has a right to his or her own religious beliefs.
Human life can be defined by using a wide variety of
philosophic beliefs and theories. These use social or psychological rationale which can
involve biologic mileposts. Examples of philosophic definitions of when human life begins
include the following: When there is consciousness; when there is movement; when there is
brain function, or a heartbeat; when viable; at birth; when wanted; when there has been an
exchange of love; when "humanized"; when this is a person (how-ever
"person" is defined); if mentally or physically normal, etc.
Comment
While admittedly arrived at through a certain reasoning process, all
of the above remain theories. None can be proven factually by science.
Each individual has a right to hold his own philosophic beliefs.
People of good will can and do differ completely on the correctness
of any or all of the philosophic beliefs and theories mentioned.
Biologic human life is defined by examining the
scientific facts of human development. This is a field where there is no controversy, no
disagreement. There is only one set of facts, only one embryology book is studied in
medical school. The more scientific knowledge of fetal development that has been learned,
the more science has confirmed that the beginning of any one human individual’s life,
biologically speaking, begins at the completion of the union of his father’s sperm
and his mother’s ovum, a process called "conception,"
"fertilization" or "fecundation." This is so be-cause this being, from
fertilization, is alive, human, sexed, complete and growing.
Comment
- The above is not a religious faith belief.
- The above is not a philosophic theory.
- The above is not debatable, not questioned. It is a universally
accepted scientific fact.
Note: Detailed biologic facts are in Chapters 11 and 12.
Must the question "when does human life begin" be
answered?
If there is one absolutely essential function of a nation or state,
it is to protect the lives of those who live within its boundaries. In order to carry out
this solemn duty it must first ask and answer when the life of its people begins.
What intellectual discipline, what method of measurement can we (should we)
use in making this fateful definition?
The question of when human life begins is a scientific question.
Therefore, we should look to scientific facts rather than philosophic theories or
religious beliefs for the answer. We must conclude then that each individual human life
begins at the beginning, at fertilization, and that human life is a continuum from that
time until death.
What simple measure would you use to define Human Life?
We would ask:
Is this being alive? Yes. He has the characteristics of life.
That is, he can reproduce his own cells and develop them into a specific pattern of
maturity and function. Or more simply, he is not dead.
Is this being human? Yes. This is a unique being,
distinguishable totally from any other living organism, completely human in all of his or
her characteristics, including the 46 human chromosomes, and can develop only into a fully
mature human.
Is this being complete? Yes. Nothing new will be added from
the time of union of sperm and egg until the death of the old man or woman except growth
and development of what is already there at the beginning. All he needs is time to develop
and mature.
But what if a person would still sincerely doubt that this is
human life in the womb?
Even if a person did doubt the presence of actual human life in the
uterus at a particular time, what would be the fully human way to go? Perhaps a guide
would be how we have always treated other human life when there has been a doubt that it
exists. Would we not resolve a doubt in favor of life? We do not bury those who are
doubtfully dead. We work frantically to help rescue entombed miners, a child lost in the
mountains, or a person under a collapsed building. Does a hunter shoot until he knows that
it is a deer and not another man? We suggest that the truly human way of thinking would be
to give life the benefit of the doubt.
But
isn’t "conception" different from "fertilization?"
Ever since its discovery 150 years ago, both words were
used to mean the union of sperm and ovum. In the 1960s the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration and the American College of OB & GYN agreed to attempt to redefine
"conception" to mean implantation. "Conception is the implantation of the
blastocyst. It is not synonymous with fertilization." E. Hughes, ed., "OB & GYN Terminology," Philadelphia: F.
A. Davis,1972
This made it possible to call an intrauterine device a
"contraceptive" even though it was an abortifacient (see chapter 29).
This "American" semantic distortion is not accepted in
many other nations where "conception," "fertilization," and
"fecundation" are all used interchangeably.
But when is it a person?
"Person" is defined in our dictionary in 14 different
ways. Yellowstone Park is a person. So is General Motors. So are you. But the Supreme
Court of the U.S. in 1857 ruled that black people were not persons, and in 1973 that
unborn people were not persons. You answer this question by first inquiring what the
questioner means by "a person."
Did Dr. Liley, the "Father of Fetology," think the tiny being was
human?
Dr. Liley, who did the first fetal blood transfusion in the womb,
said that seven days after fertilization: ". . . the young individual, in command of
his environment and destiny with a tenacious purpose, implants in the spongy lining and
with a display of physiological power, suppresses his mother’s menstrual period. This
is his home for the next 270 days and to make it habitable, the embryo develops a placenta
and a protective capsule of fluid for himself. He also solves, single-handed, the
homograft problem, that dazzling feat by which foetus and mother, although immunological
foreigners who could not exchange skin grafts nor safely receive blood from each other,
never the less tolerate each other in parabiosis for nine months.
"We know that he moves with a delightful easy grace in his
buoyant world, that foetal comfort deter-mines foetal position. He is responsive to pain
and touch and cold and sound and light. He drinks his amniotic fluid, more if it is
artificially sweetened, less it if is given an unpleasant taste. He gets hiccups and sucks
his thumb. He wakes and sleeps. He gets bored with repetitive signals but can be taught to
be alerted by a first signal for a second different one. And, finally, he determines his
birthday, for unquestionably, the onset of labour is a unilateral decision of the foetus.
"This, then, is the foetus we know and, indeed, we each once
were. This is the foetus we look after in modern obstetrics, the same baby we are caring
for be-fore and after birth, who before birth can be ill and need diagnosis and treatment just like any other patient." A. Liley, "A Case Against Abortion," Liberal Studies,
Whitcombe & Tombs, Ltd., 1971
THE SECOND QUESTION IS:
Having answered the first question, we now must ask the second one.
The first was a question of scientific facts. The second is one of values. It is:
Should
all human life be given equal protection under the law, or can certain human lives be
discriminated against, and, if so, on what basis?
The charter of the United States, the Declaration of Independence,
is guiding here. "All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain
unalienable rights, among these are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness."
The first right is "life," for without it there are no
other rights.
But
there are conflicting rights; who is to judge?
The ethical principle is that there is a hierarchy of rights, but
that the right to life itself is supreme. There is a right to free speech, but not to
shout "fire" in a theater. A man has a right to swing his fist, but that right
stops at your nose. We all have the right to the pursuit of happiness, but we cannot
achieve it by discriminating against, stealing from, injuring or killing others. Laws
enforcing civil rights are of this nature.
Abortion is a civil rights, a human rights issue, and the basic
right to life of all humans must be protected. But equal protection?
Every government has the right and duty to protect the lives of all
living humans in that nation regardless of degree of dependency, degree of perfection,
age, sex, or place of residence (living in or out of the womb). This protection should be
guaranteed by its Constitution and should be enforced through due process of law.
The alternative to this is to allow, legislate or adjudicate a
system in which there is discrimination against certain classes of living humans. In the
case of abortion there is discrimination against an entire class of living humans, on the
basis of age (too young) and place of residence (still living in the womb). Such laws
created by the U.S. Supreme Court and by other nations’ Parliaments have granted to
one living human (the woman) the legal right to kill another (her developing baby) in
order to solve her own personal social problem. Should this fatal discrimination against
an entire class of living humans continue? That is a question still before each nation,
and one that will simply not go away.
A civilization will ultimately be judged by how it treats the
smallest, the most dependent, the most innocent among its members. Did that nation
cherish, protect, love and nourish them — or kill them?
But what of the pregnant woman?
It should be obvious to everyone that there are two living humans
involved: the unborn child and his mother. For this nation to once again protect its
unborn babies, but not to do everything humanly possible to help the mother would be
immoral. The woman with a problem pregnancy must, at the same time, be offered aid in
solving her problems, to help her through that distressing time.
If in fact, her very life is threatened physically, then, the ideal
is to save both. But if, in treating her, the fetal baby is lost, such may be an
unfortunate result. Your authors have traveled nationally for 30 years lecturing on this
subject, and we have yet to hear of a directly induced abortion needed to prevent her
death. There are, of course, good reasons to deliver the baby and end her pregnancy in its
late months, but here hopefully the baby is saved. Never in late pregnancy is it necessary
to directly kill the baby by abortion. If her problem is something less than a threat to
her life itself, then we cannot solve it by the ghastly violence of killing another
innocent human life. The solutions for helping any individual woman are often many and
complex, but they must be found and they must be used. Why can’t we love them both?
