(Excerpts, Ethics and Human Dignity, 2010)
When does life begin? Conception happens when a male cell (spermatozoon) fertilizes the female cell (the ovum). It then becomes a zygote. This zygote contains the full genetic code of twenty-three pairs of chromosomes. Afterwards, the zygote undergoes the process of cell division. The zygote then grows then moves through the fallopian tube and gradually implants itself in the uterine wall.
When does life begin? Conception happens when a male cell (spermatozoon) fertilizes the female cell (the ovum). It then becomes a zygote. This zygote contains the full genetic code of twenty-three pairs of chromosomes. Afterwards, the zygote undergoes the process of cell division. The zygote then grows then moves through the fallopian tube and gradually implants itself in the uterine wall.
Later, up until the end of the eighth week, the zygote will be called an
embryo. During this period of embryonic growth, the process called
organogenesis occurs. This is the time when organic systems of the human being
develop, including the formation of the brain. At the end of the eighth week
until birth, while developing a recognizable human form, the life inside the
womb is called a fetus.
What is
abortion?
Abortion refers
to the spontaneous or induced expulsion of an embryo or a fetus from the womb
of a pregnant woman. Abortion is spontaneous when the causes are natural.
Normally called a miscarriage, it can be a result of environmental factors or
trauma on the part of the pregnant woman. It usually occurs during the very early
part of the pregnancy. On the other hand, abortion is induced when there is the
intentional expulsion of the embryo or fetus from the womb, usually by medical
means.
There are
various procedures used in induced abortion. One of these is called the Manual
Vacuum Aspiration or the MVA method. It involves the manual utilization of a
syringe or an electric pump in suctioning the embryo out of the womb. It is
employed only up to the 12th week of the pregnancy. Another method is Dilation
and Curettage (DC). It involves the dilation of the cervix and the use of a
suction curettage to remove the embryo from the womb.
If the abortion
occurs after the 12th week of pregnancy, another method
employed is the use of prostaglandin to induce premature delivery. Abortionists
inject the amniotic fluid with either a strong saline solution or urea. The
solution kills the developing entity inside the womb and forces premature
delivery. If the abortion occurs at the later stage of a pregnancy, the method
used is Intra-Uterine Cranial Decompression (IDX) or “partial birth abortion”.
Partial birth abortion or IDX would require the decompression of the skull of the fetus before it is evacuated from the womb. When abortion is also done during the very late stages of a pregnancy, such will require a surgical procedure known as hysterectomy. The surgery is similar to a caesarian section. It requires an abdominal incision to evacuate the fetus. All of the above are the procedures that abortion clinics use.
The Position of the Church
Partial birth abortion or IDX would require the decompression of the skull of the fetus before it is evacuated from the womb. When abortion is also done during the very late stages of a pregnancy, such will require a surgical procedure known as hysterectomy. The surgery is similar to a caesarian section. It requires an abdominal incision to evacuate the fetus. All of the above are the procedures that abortion clinics use.
The Position of the Church
The Catholic
Church argues that abortion is morally wrong because “the one eliminated is a
human being at the very beginning of life”[1].
The position of the Church is that human life begins from the very moment of
conception. This means that no period from the moment of conception and along
the very path of the embryonic and fetal development can be drawn to merit a moral
justification for abortion on the basis of the right to privacy or freedom of
choice of the mother, unless the life of the mother is in danger.
One basis of the
Church in saying that abortion is morally wrong is the fact that a fertilized
egg already has the full genetic code of a human being right after the moment
of conception. Thus, it can be said that it is already human. As such, it must
be endowed with the dignity of a human being. According to the Catholic Church,
“some people try to justify abortion by claiming that the result of conception,
at least up to a certain number of days, cannot yet be considered a personal
human life. But in fact, from the time of that the ovum is fertilized, a life
is begun…”[2] Abortion
thus violates the right to life of the unborn. For the Church, this life is
simply a victim of a kind of violence. Pope John Paul II speaks of the
innocence of the unborn:
No one more absolutely innocent could be imagined. In no way could this human being be considered an aggressor, much less an unjust aggressor! He or she is weak, defenseless, even to the point of lacking the minimal form of defense consisting in the poignant power of the newborn baby’s cries and tears.[3]
For the Catholic
Church, the unborn, even in their silence, being human, deserves respect as a
person. This also means that the unborn must be protected from harm. If the
unborn child does no harm to any person, if this child is innocent and
powerless, why sacrifice the life of that child? It is morally plausible to
argue, even without the basis of faith, from the point of view of our moral
intuitions, that the life inside the womb has a moral value. The value of human
life is not as such because it is what the Church stands for. The basis of such
is the reality that something of moral value is developing. It has a life. It
is a life brought forth by a kind of relation between two human persons.
Whether or not it is a result of an acceptable or an illicit affair, such is
not the point. The moral point is that there is a human life inside the womb.
Pope John Paul II summarizes the position of the Catholic faith and makes a
moral evaluation of the same:
In the case of abortion there is [some] widespread use of ambiguous terminology, such as ‘interruption of pregnancy,’ which tends to hide abortion’s true nature and to attenuate its seriousness in public opinion. Perhaps this uneasiness is symptomatic of the uneasiness of conscience. But 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, extending from conception to birth.[4]
The position of
the Catholic Church regarding the issue of abortion, a moral stand that has
influenced the 1987 Philippine Constitution because of the country’s deep
Catholic tradition, tells us that the unborn possesses the same dignity as any
mature adult. In this sense, the unborn has a right to life. The State, thus,
protects not only the life of the mother but the life of the unborn as well.
This means that the unborn must be given all the rights and entitlements
necessary to be given birth. It is a gross violation of the unborn child’s
right to life to interrupt any pregnancy and consequently, this means that the
no resource of the state should be utilized in support of abortion rights. To
say that the unborn has the same moral status with that of an adult means that
killing the unborn is not different from killing a mature person. Thus, for the
Catholic Church, abortion is direct killing or murder.
The
legalization of abortion in the United States
Let us discuss
the landmark Roe v Wade case (1973) in the US Supreme Court
which gave women in the US the right to an abortion. According to the US
Supreme Court:
In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when rights are contingent upon the live birth.[5]
This means that
the US Supreme Court does not believe that there are plausible reasons to say
that human life begins at the moment of conception. And because no human life
exists, subsequently no right can be given to the unborn. Morally, this means
that full autonomy, which is the capacity of persons to argue for the moral
good, is not conferred by the US Supreme Court on the unborn. This also means
that the Court subjects the full development of the unborn to the decision of
the mother and the State.
Mary Anne Warren
argues for instance, that “it is possible to show that, on the basis of
intuitions which we may expect even the opponents of abortion to share, a fetus
is not a person, and hence not the sort of entity to which it is proper to
ascribe full moral rights”.[6] On
this note, clearly for Warren, rights are conferred only to persons. To deny
the right to life to an unborn child legally means that personhood is the
necessary and essential basis of one’s right to life. The US Supreme Court
decision concludes:
A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of a mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[7]
The US Supreme
Court says in the ruling that any law prohibiting abortion should consider the
interests of the mother. Otherwise, the rights of the mother, i.e. right to
privacy, and other important State interests, i.e. health care, are violated.
Impliedly, since the subject state law from Texas violates the Due Process
clause as deemed by the Court, the ruling meant to manifest that the mother has
the legal right to terminate the pregnancy.
What the above
means for us is that it assumes that the unborn fetus is an alien entity using
the body of the woman. Being an alien entity, the continuation of the pregnancy
should require the consent of the mother. Judith Thomson echoes this when she
says that “for what we have to keep in mind is that the mother and the unborn
child are not like two tenants in a small house which has, by unfortunate
mistake, been rented to both: the mother owns the house”.[8] The
point of Thomson is to demonstrate that, in defense of women’s rights, she says
that “at least some and perhaps most cases, a woman is under no moral
obligation to complete an unwanted pregnancy”.[9]
Consider for
instance Thomson's argument that compares the unborn to a violinist. Hypothetically, Thomson
says, consider that you have given a violinist the right to use your kidneys in
order for him to live. But what if you decide to unplug him from your kidneys?
No one could have given him such a chance. But it is your kidneys and you have
made your decision. Is it unjust? Thomson says that it is not unjust because
you own your kidneys. She says that, “the right to life consists not in the
right not to be killed, but rather in the right not to be killed unjustly”.[10] Thomson
holds the same against the fetus, suggesting that “you are not morally required
to spend nine months in bed sustaining the life of that violinist…”[11]
The right to
privacy tells us that women are autonomous subjects. Thus, it is said that they
deserve respect with regard to their decisions as mature consenting
individuals. The right to privacy includes the right to choose, i.e. on how to
use one’s body. It is a right flowing from a woman’s being an absolute holder
of moral value, i.e. being an autonomous subject. Thus, it is a right which
goes on to mean that the mother has the moral power to decide as to whether or
not she would allow the fetus to depend on her. Justice Blackmun also notes
that "for the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester,
the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment
of the pregnant woman’s attending physician."[12]
Concerns
regarding public health are thereby invoked in the decision. It clearly
stipulates that after the first trimester, the different states in the United
States may regulate abortion, with the general compelling reason of protecting
and preserving maternal health. This stipulation rules that pregnant women do
not have the absolute right to procure an abortion after the first trimester.
It dictates that US States do have some form of regulatory power on abortion
after the first trimester.
The decision
does not mean that the US Supreme Court has acknowledged the right to life of
the unborn after the first trimester. The ruling sidesteps the question on the
personhood of the fetus. It is essential, but the Court rules that it is not
legally possible to have any plausible argument to determine substantially if
the fetus is a person. The decision on Roe v Wade simply rules
that US States have certain regulatory powers with regard to abortion after the
first trimester on the basis of State interests. Below, Fr. Romeo Intengan, SJ,
enumerates four reasons (moral and non-moral) why people procure an abortion.[14]
Therapeutic Abortion
Therapeutic
abortion is done in order to save the life of the mother. One case of
therapeutic abortion is ectopic pregnancy. It is a condition where the embryo
fails to implant in the uterus and is developing inside the fallopian tube. In
such a condition, continuing the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother. It
is the moral urgency of saving the life of the mother that makes therapeutic
abortion morally justifiable.
The argument
proceeds from the principle of double-effect. In the principle of
double-effect, one is to choose a lesser evil in order to achieve a greater
good. The principle of double-effect tells us that one act (in this case
abortion) has two effects – one, saving the life of the mother and second,
ending the life of the embryo. The end of the non-viable embryo is not
intentional but comes as an effect in the effort to save the mother’s life by
terminating the pregnancy. The good of saving the life of the mother is greater
than the value of the non-viable embryo.
Eugenic
Abortion
The science of
eugenics uses the science of genetics in order to create better species. By
better, we mean that some species are more desirable because of their improved physiological traits. Following this stance, eugenic abortion terminates the
pregnancy in order to avoid giving birth to infants with physical deformities.
Parents usually undergo prenatal screening to check for abnormalities in the
unborn fetus. A fetal anomaly is used as basis in deciding to terminate the
pregnancy.
Eugenic abortion
relies on the idea that fetuses are not human persons. Thus, since fetuses are
not persons, they do not have rights. Fetuses, following this argument, are
said to possess no moral status and thus, they do not have a right to a full
human life. But the most
compelling reason against eugenic abortion is that it only considers the unborn as a
mere object without dignity. It makes the wrong judgment that an unborn child
who may have disabilities cannot live a meaningful human life. It is something
that reduces the life of the unborn to an object of scientific manipulation and
control.
Although it can
be said that the science of eugenics aims at the improvement of the human race,
it is wrong because it employs unethical means. In this regard, Don Marquis
writes that “since a fetus possesses a property, and the possession of which in
adult human beings is sufficient to make killing an adult human being wrong,
abortion is wrong.[15]”
To tamper with human life in the womb is to grossly violate the very uniqueness
of each individual being, a uniqueness that only God confers. The end or
purpose of developing a super human race does not justify the use of evil
means, i.e. aborting undesirable embryos.
Psycho-Social
Abortion
In most poor
societies, women are burdened by the mental stigma and the economic
difficulty of raising a child as a single mother. Many women also feel the shame
and isolation due to their condition. The economic burden of raising a child as
a single mother is due to the fact that unwed single parents are usually
jobless. Women are usually ostracized by society and sometimes by their
families. In the absence of family support, raising a child would be very
difficult.
But abortion for
psycho-social reason treats the unborn as a mere means to an end and is
therefore wrong. The unborn is reduced to an object which is sacrificed to
serve the purpose of freeing the mother from some sort of psychological or
economic difficulty. What is most unfair for the fetus here is the deliberate
act of adults to evade the responsibility of caring for the child in the future.
It can be argued
against the proponents of abortion rights that the right to privacy misunderstands the
relation between the mother and the unborn child. It unacceptably views the
unborn child as a stranger. The unborn child is only seen as a separate and an
unwelcome entity. Thus, the unborn child is reduced to an alien object.
Psycho-social
abortion also over-emphasizes the idea that women have absolute ownership over
their bodies. It therefore neglects the special relationship between the mother
and the unborn. Motherhood should be a kind of relationship based on real love
and care. It should not be about whether or not it is convenient or comfortable
on the part of a woman to carry a human life inside her womb.
Pope John Paul
II expresses that while “it is true that the decision to have an abortion is
often tragic and painful for the mother, insofar as the decision to rid herself
of the fruit of conception is not made for purely selfish reasons or out of
convenience, but out of a desire to protect certain important values such as
her own health or a decent standard of living for the other members of the
family.”[16]
The reality of extreme poverty and the lack of decent opportunities for human well-being imply that in many cases, “it is feared that the child to be born would live in such conditions that it would be better if the birth did not take place.”[17] Nevertheless, Pope John Paul II argues strongly that "these reasons and others like them, however serious and tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an innocent person.”[18]
The reality of extreme poverty and the lack of decent opportunities for human well-being imply that in many cases, “it is feared that the child to be born would live in such conditions that it would be better if the birth did not take place.”[17] Nevertheless, Pope John Paul II argues strongly that "these reasons and others like them, however serious and tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an innocent person.”[18]
Humanitarian
Abortion
Somebody who is
raped and becomes pregnant can carry the mental or psychological stigma of the
crime of rape. In addition to this, the new born child becomes a reminder of
the crime perpetuated against the mother. Under this circumstance, a very
careful consideration of the situation of the woman is necessary.
Thomson says
that unborn persons whose existence “is due to rape have no right to the use of
their mothers’ bodies, that aborting them is not depriving them of anything
they have a right to and hence is not unjust killing”[19].
Thomson points out that it is not the responsibility of a woman to aid a person
that she finds unwelcome. She likens it to helping “an ailing violinist who is
a stranger to her”.[20]
The argument
however is that the unborn is not supposed to suffer the consequences of a
crime. The unborn should not be made to pay for the crime of the rapist.
Aborting the fetus does not amend nor erase the criminal and huge moral offense that
has been committed against the mother. It is not the fault of the unborn. Why
then should the unborn child be made to suffer?
On the other
hand, incest is a peculiar case because of the possibility of the mother
carrying an unborn child who may have some form of physical deformity. But the
argument runs that choosing to abort the child because of such fear can be
eugenic in nature. If the incestuous pregnancy is due to rape, then the
argument against abortion due to rape counters such.
But as the
category suggests, some argue for this type of reason to abort for the sake of
the mother who has suffered greatly from the crime of rape or the psychological
stigma of an incestuous pregnancy. Some may argue that for the sake of the
mother, the pregnancy should be terminated. This of course is not without
opposition. The unborn child is a human being and should not be sacrificed for
the sake of a co-equal good. In this sense, the rule of the thumb that a wrong
cannot be rectified by another wrong applies.
The condition of
a woman who is impregnated against her will violates her dignity as a human
being. It also happens that the pregnant woman is also a minor. Thus, there exists a huge health risk. In
this sense, a careful deliberation should be done with the guidance of medical
experts and committed family members. It should be determined whether the life
of a minor is endangered by the pregnancy. In such an atypical and serious case, the
principle of double effect should be applied. But if there is no apparent
danger on the life of the minor, then post-childbirth options should be availed
of to help the minor parent.
Basically, from
a moral point of view, the argument we put forward here is that the
all-encompassing principle with regard to the issue of abortion is the respect
for the dignity of the human person. The unborn child, just like the mother, is
entitled to that respect. Thus, any decision pertaining to such should first
and foremost consider the fact that the unborn has an unequivocal right to a
full human life.
[1] Pope John Paul II, The
unspeakable crime of abortion, in Thomas Mappes and Jane Zembaty, Social
Ethics (Boston :
McGraw-Hill, 2002), 11.
[5] Harry Blackmun, Majority
Opinion in Roe v Wade, in Daniel Bonevac, ed, Moral Issues
Today (Boston :
McGraw-Hill, 2002), 317.
[6] Mary Anne Warren, The Moral and
Legal Status of Abortion, in Daniel Bonevac, Moral Issues
Today (Boston :
McGraw-Hill, 2002), 330.
[8] Judith Jarvis Thomson, A
defense of abortion, in Daniel Bonevac, Moral Issues Today (Boston :
McGraw-Hill, 2002), 323
[14] For an extensive discussion on this
matter, see Fr. Romeo Intengan’s Bioethics (no data of
publication). Fr. Intengan’s article Bioethics elaborates
quite clearly the matter we have at hand.
[15] Don Marquis, Why abortion is
immoral, in Daniel Bonevac, ed., Moral Issues Today (Boston :
McGraw-Hill, 2002), 357
