The issue of abortion is one that highlights much of the political divide in our country. It is an issue that political operatives often use as a “wedge” to further divide the electorate. I believe there is a way to unite us rather than to let others divide us on this issue. Let us leave those who would divide us to the side, and let us consider the pertinent factors concerning human life. I believe we can find common ground if we allow our knowledge and sound reasoning to hold sway.
A major cause of contention surrounding this issue is that we have competing individual presuppositions about when human life begins. Those competing presuppositions have overshadowed our deeper common convictions. Perhaps the answer is to step back from disagreements and to build on commonalities. Consider that there are a variety of answers advanced through science, religion, and human emotion as to the beginning of an individual human life. There have been numerous theological interpretations from a variety of religious and philosophical thought systems throughout the ages. These include the ideas that: human life begins at the moment of conception; human life begins at the moment of quickening when the mother feels the first movements in the womb; human life begins at viability (when it could live outside the womb); human life begins at birth (taking its first breath); and, human life begins when an infant shows an awareness of the outside world. I make no claim to assert which of these theological interpretations is more correct than another, indeed, members of the same theological tradition will often debate and disagree within their faith community about the “correct” answer. Scientists examining the scientific facts concerning human life also come up with a variety of responses when they are pressed to say when human life begins. From fertilization through fetal development and birth a variety of scientific answers are advanced. A generalized consensus seems to revolve around a concept of viability but there is no “scientific agreement” as to specifics. The third factor of disagreement concerning human life is reflected by the emotions of individual members of our society. Emotions of mother, father, children, siblings, friends, and citizens are expressed through love, compassion, grief, desire for protection, nurturing, and so forth. These relationships and emotions are complex and often come into strong disagreement with each other. With the spectrum of answers advanced through religion, science, and personal perspectives, perhaps the safest thing to say is that there is no agreed upon consensus as to the beginning of an individual human life. It can only result in futility to have the proponents of one perspective attempt to force their particular view upon the others. A reasonable way out of the dilemma of the question “When does human life begin?” is to reframe the question (after all, the current answers lie in irreconcilable conflict with each other.) We can do this by stepping behind this question and its problematic answers to a more fundamental question: Of what does human life consist? There is consensus that human life includes: 1) human DNA, 2) an ethic and morality that values life, 3) human needs and desires for survival and growth. It may seem obvious, but if human DNA is absent in a nascent life - then there is no human. Another consensus is that there is a valuation of life. Ethical constructions by religious and non-religious institutions in our society, as well as the vast majority of individual expressions of morality, profess the principle that human life has value. It may not be as obvious, but there is also a general consensus that the human needs and desires of the host organism - the woman - must be considered as primary. She is a living, breathing person with fully developed needs and desires. It is within a woman that a nascent life develops. It is her body that sustains and nurtures what is growing there until it comes to term. The nascent life within the woman contains the total DNA of a human. While this DNA is the blueprint for a human it is not the same as a human being. We can not assert that the blueprint for a building is the completed building - nor can we legitimately assert that the first cells of human fertilization are a complete human. Taking those first cells, the woman sustains and nurtures that nascent life. The nascent life is not separate from her but is a part of her. The manner and choice of her decisions about what she does with her body belong to her, and none other. She may choose to seek the advice and help of other members of society, but the choice is hers. As we value human life and dignity, that freedom cannot be taken away or abridged. Members and groups within a society may offer counsel and support to a woman in this situation, but it would be contrary to our common understanding of human rights to advocate that they could make decisions for her. In summary, scientific knowledge of the growth of human life from nascent moment onward needs to play a role in this discussion, as do the morality of individuals and the ethical formulations of theological systems. However, those are abstract and conceptual formats of thinking. Our primary consideration is the situational context of the woman, for it is she alone that carries and nurtures the nascent life until the time of its viability in the world. The reality is that until the fetus leaves the woman, it is a part of her body. Outside individuals or societal groups may have desires about how she might treat her body, but the choices and responsibility for her body belong to her. Ultimately, if we respect and value life, then we are both advocates for life and we are advocates for choice. As advocates in this situation, our role in this process becomes one of support to a woman in her decision-making process and non-judgmental acceptance of her decisions. Moving from the concrete realm of respect, advocacy, and support for a woman to the philosophical realm of reflecting upon our humanity, consider that most religious traditions have an admonition to “love one another.” Perhaps true love and humanity is to respect (without asserting control or judgment) another’s freedom to choose their own path in life.
1 Comment
Dan Hopkins
2/13/2020 06:43:06 pm
Hello Joe. Just wanted to let you know how much I enjoyed this article. You have a great way of explaining things that replaces raw emotion with common sense. Finding common ground on such topics is extremely difficult in this ultra political environment; I appreciate the effort. I look forward to reading more of your Blog.
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Time for Common Sense AgainCommon sense commmentary by Joel Kreger (unless noted and credited to a guest writer) Archives
November 2018
Categories |