Life: A Controversy

Last week in my Medical Ethics & Society class, I was forced to watch a graphic HBO film about abortion. We saw the second part to it this week. I grieved and shuddered through the experience and basically broke down during the class break. It reminded me of an encounter I had at Bongolo Hospital in Gabon this past summer:

Much of my time at the mission station at Bongolo Hospital was spent observing at the hospital and helping in small, unimportant ways. I was asked to help transport a young patient from the Adult Medicine ward to the doctor’s office, so the patient could receive and echocardiogram. During the echo, an American missionary nurse named Lisa translated for the visiting cardiologist and asked questions of the girl. The medical staff learned that the sixteen year old girl had used poisonous leaves to induce an abortion. The young girl inserted the poisonous, tropical leaves into her vagina. The toxic leaves caused the baby to die and be expelled. Nurse Lisa explained to me that often times these leaves prove poisonous for the mother as well. The medical staff treated the girl for poison with antibiotics and other medications to insure that she did not develop septicemia. As the episode unfolded before my eyes, I felt a deep sadness and tried to repress tears. I could not help grieve the loss of the unborn child who was once but lived no more.

I have been researching the pro-life position and the many objections to it as a response to my Medical Ethics & Society class and for my Religious Studies major thesis. Francis J. Beckwith, a professor, respected philosopher and distinguished author has written various scholarly articles and a book on the issue of abortion. Beckwith authored a series of articles entitled “Answering the Arguments for Abortion.” The four-part article addresses abortion and also deals with the relation of Christian theology and abortion.

The opinion that life begins at conception is debated by many. According to Beckwith, conception is the point at which the female ovum is fertilized by the male sperm, which results in a zygote. Beckwith staunchly claims, “There is no doubt that the zygote is biologically alive. It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life: (1) metabolism, (2) growth, (3) reaction to stimuli, and (4) reproduction [at this stage, the zygote is capable of cell reproduction/twinning]” (Beckwith “Part III” 8). Since the zygote fulfills all of these criteria, it can be said that the zygote is indeed alive. It fulfills the criteria with which biologists define life. Biologists “prove” that plants like algae and animals are living with the same criteria. Beckwith argues that we can most assuredly claim that the zygote is not only alive, but human. Not only was it conceived by two humans, it is a unique human itself because it contains its own genetic code which selects for its unique features. “The ‘genotype’ – the inherited characteristics of a unique human being – is established and will remain in force for the entire life of this individual” (Beckwith 9). At the zygote state, the unborn human organism does not require any other necessities in addition to those that we as born human organism require. Both the born and unborn require food, water and oxygen. The being that is formed as a zygote is additionally like a human in that it continues to develop and grow just as children, teenagers and adults do. Beckwith continues to respond to objections that the zygote is indeed a being who is fully alive and fully human.

Many pro-choice and pro-abortion individuals will recognize that life begins at conception, but they claim that women have the right to control their own bodies. Beckwith responds to this objection with a credible argument:
The unborn entity within the pregnant woman’s body is not part of her body. The conceptus is a genetically distinct entity with its own unique and individual gender, blood type, bone-structure, and genetic code. Although the unborn entity is attached to its mother, it is not part of her. To say that the unborn entity is part of its mother is to claim that that the mother possesses four legs, two heads, two noses and – with the case of a male conceptus – a penis and two testicles (Beckwith “Part II” 31)
Beckwith continues by explaining that conception in a petri dish has been achieved. For example, a Caucasian petri-dish coneptus can be “planted” within the body of an African-American woman. This child, will, of course be born Caucasian. This further supports the idea that the unborn child is not part of a woman’s body, but rather attached to it merely because it dwells within. Thus, the idea that a woman is in control of the unborn child within her is incorrect. Yes, she may be in control of her own body, but the unborn is not part of her body, but rather dwells within in it.

Many suggest that abortion is morally wrong in all cases, except when a child is conceived as a result of rape or abuse. To say that a woman should be allowed to abort such a child is to condone the murder of an uninvolved third party. For example, if a criminal assaults and harms a postal worker, what right does the postal worker have to shoot a woman walking down the street? Thus, the unborn child is as much an innocent victim as its mother, or in the case of the example as the postal worker and woman. Beckwith also states, “To argue for abortion on demand from the hard cases of rape and incest is like trying to argue for the elimination of traffic laws from the fact that one might have to violate some of them in rare circumstances, such as when one’s spouse or child needs to be rushed to the hospital. Proving an exception does not establish a rule (Beckwith “Part II” 27). Additionally, Beckwith claims that a woman who has been the unfortunate victim of rape or incest has the option of immediate medical attention. This medical attention involves the cleaning/purging of sperm from the woman’s uterus. This medical procedure itself would not be considered an abortion, since fertilization/conception does not immediately follow sexual intercourse. However, neither is the time between intercourse an conception lengthy. Thus, such women should be provided with immediate medical attention. In conclusion, Beckwith claims, “If the unborn is fully human, then we must weigh the relieving of the woman’s mental suffering against the right-to-life of an innocent human being. And homicide of another is never justified to relieve one of emotional distress” (Beckwith “Part II” 27).

From the first two discussions, it can be concluded that human life begins at conception. Thus, if one aborts an unborn human life, one is committing murder. As discussed, a woman does not have control of the unborn as it is not part of her body. Thus, the action of abortion is not a woman’s to take. If such a course of action was taken, it would be no different that a woman murdering a child who lives within the same apartment complex as her (the relationship of attached, but not part). From the third discussion of abortion in cases of rape and incest, we can only conclude that although such situations are sorrowful, yet they are not resolved with abortion. Just as Individual A cannot justify the death of Individual B, because a thief robbed Individual A and caused Individual A to be hurt, so a woman cannot justify the death of an unborn child because she was raped. Thus, logically speaking (aside from all religion and theology) it is clear that since life scientifically begins at conception, any intentional act to end such a life is murder. No murder is justified by location of the victim (the dwelling of the unborn within the womb) or by another wrongful act (rape or incest).

Theologically speaking, Christianity does not permit murder and would not permit abortion in any of the discussed cases. Yes, the Bible does not directly mention that abortion is right or wrong. However, if we recognize that life begins at conception, then the abortion would be the killing of another human being, or murder. The Bible's postion on murder is extremely clear. The Bible states, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13). The Christian scriptures clearly do not condone the intentional death of another. I do not know what the circumstances were that surrounded the abortion of the young Gabonese girl's unborn baby. However, there is hope. Hope remains because the Creator of this young Gabonese girl did not come to condemn the world, but to save the world as is stated in John 3:16-18. In that scripture passage, it is clear that God offers love to those who have sinned. No matter how large or small the act, God offers forgiveness.

Let God’s mercy reign over this generation.