In Japan, 50% of All Conceptions Are Aborted. in America, a Little Under 25% Are Aborted

BIBLICAL ETHICS

ABORTION

55,000,000 abortions since January 22, 1973 in America alone.

In Japan, 50% of all conceptions are aborted. In America, a little under 25% are aborted.

What began with Roe v. Wade as a remedy for hard cases has become for many post-conception birth control technique.

Abortion is still the hottest, most emotional bioethical topic.

SOME BIOLOGICAL FACTS OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

Fertilization: combination of male and female sex cells (gametes) to form a zygote with a unique DNA identity (first 2-3 days)
Blastocyst: Before uterine implantation, the zygote becomes a ball of cells surrounding a fluid-filled cavity (days 3-14)
Uterine implantation of embryo: Organ systems and external features begin to develop (weeks 3-8)
Detectability of brainwave activity: At this point, the embryo becomes known as the fetus (week 9). From weeks 9-36, the technical label fetus is applied to denote the developing being within the womb.

[Irrelevance of technical labels: To avoid confusion, in this discussion the developing being within the womb from conception to birth, at all stages, will be referred to as the fetus]

SOME MEDICAL FACTS ON ABORTION

Spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) can occur from injury or chemical imbalances. These are involuntary.
Voluntary methods of abortion
Abortifacients: Drugs to prevent uterine implantation during the first two weeks after fertilization. Example: RU 486 the “Morning- after” pill
Vacuum aspiration: Dilation of the cervix and suctioning off the fetus, employed from weeks 2-12
Dilation and curettage: Dilation of the cervix and scraping the uterus with a spoon (curette) to remove the fetus, employed from weeks 2-12
Saline injection: Amniotic fluid around fetus is replaced by a salt water solution that is toxic to the fetus, inducing a miscarriage, employed after 12 weeks
Partial birth abortion: Fetus is pulled feet first through the vagina. Before the skull appears a tube inserted to suction out the brain. Employed up until natural birth.
Hysterotomy: Fetus is removed by surgery through an incision, similar to the Caesarean section procedure. Employed up until natural birth.

THE SINGLE, CENTRAL ETHICAL QUESTION:

WHO (WHAT) IS A PERSON?

Your answer obligates you to certain behaviors. Why?

Persons are to be protected
Persons are not to be killed, without warrant

If a fetus (from conception to birth) is a person,

He/she has a claim to life
Only a threat to the mother’s physical survival warrants abortion
The moral burden is on the aborter(s) in each case, to demonstrate that abortion is not murder

If a fetus (at any point from conception to birth) is not a person,

Abortion and cyst removal are morally equivalent
Removal of unwanted tissue involves no serious moral problem

If a fetus (at any point from conception to birth) is merely a potential person,

Warrant for abortion is needed, but is not as crucial as in the fetal personhood status
The potential person may have some claim to life
The question is begged, “When in the fetal development process does the potential person become an actual person?”

A SECOND ETHICAL QUESTION MUST BE ADDRESSED, THOUGH IT IS OF LESSER IMPORTANCE THAN THE FIRST QUESTION.

What rights does a pregnant woman have over her own body?

Pregnancy requires a woman to pay a considerable price, physically, emotionally, and socially. This price is paid both during and after the term of pregnancy.

Discomfort
Pain
Stress
Restrictions
Toxemia
Worry
Complications
Death in childbirth
Career hindrances
Social changes

TECHNOLOGY NOT THAT RELEVANT

Unlike other edges of life controversies (euthanasia and infanticide, for example), technology is not the driving force in the push for abortion rights.

Social factors often are the most powerful influences for making a decision to abort.

Concern about overpopulation
Economic uncertainty
Domestic instability
Divorce
The sexual revolution
Advancement of women’s rights
Career and professional goals

Medical concerns for the survival or health of either the mother or the fetus also influence the decision to abort.

STILL, THE FIRST ISSUE TO ADDRESS IS:

IS THE FETUS A PERSON?

“Potential Personhood”

If the fetus is thought to be merely a potential person, when does that potentiality become actuality? When does the potential person become an actual person? Is there a decisive moment before which the fetus is merely a potential person, and after which the fetus is an actual person?

Birth?
Viability?
First sign perceived by the mother that she is pregnant?
First perceived movement of the fetus?
First detected brainwaves?
Implantation?
Conception?

If no decisive moment can be identified, then the term “potential person” signifies an empty category, like the terms “unicorn” and “Vulcan.”

GOVERNMENT ROLE

Since the government has an interest in protecting the rights of persons, should the government be responsible for inventing a definition of personhood?

If you accept the 1973 Supreme Court decisions of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, your answer is “yes.” The government decided that personhood begins at birth. Prior to birth, the government has no requirement to protect the rights of the fetus, since abortion is allowed in the third trimester to protect either the physical or mental health of the mother. Hence, abortion on demand is the law of the land.

WHY BE CONCERNED ABOUT FETAL PERSONHOOD?

The legitimacy of laws restricting abortion / = / 1
uncertainty about fetal personhood

The greater the uncertainty, the lesser the legitimacy.

Rustling in the Thicket Analogy

Wedge Analogy

FETAL DESTRUCTION HAS ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES.

At the current rate of nearly 1,000,000 abortions per year, the impact is:

Decreased labor pool
Decreased taxpayer base
Decrease talent pool
Decreased consumer base
Devalued view of humanity

Can 1-4 be offset by adjusting immigration quotas? If so, are Americans willing to see consensus about moral issues shift in response to an influx of persons not raised in America?

SLIPPERY SLOPE

If we allow abortion on demand because we are unclear on the meaning of personhood, will we allow other procedures of convenience for the same reason?

Examples:

Infanticide
Euthanasia
Genocide

The slippery slope: We are on it.

RIGHT TO LIFE VS. AUTONOMY

The right to life of a person takes precedence over the right to autonomy of a woman or a man.

Why?

The right to life is a necessary condition to the right of autonomy. There is no autonomy for a corpse.

The right to autonomy is not a necessary condition to the right to life. Although Patrick Henry shouted, “Give me liberty, or give me death!” it is possible to be alive and have your autonomy restricted, or even virtually non-existent. Examples:

PSYCHOLOGY AND ABORTION

What are some of the negative psychological effects on women who have experienced abortion?

Anxiety about the morality of the decision to abort
Remorse
Depression
Guilt
Sexual dysfunction
Reduction of self-esteem
Anger
Grief

If the belief that fetal non-personhood is so strong, why do so many abortive mothers complain of post-abortion stress syndrome, years after the abortion?

PITFALLS IN THE ABORTION DEBATE

Euphemisms
Arbitrary distinctions
Indistinct shifting definitions
Ulterior motives
Confusion over priorities
Are we defining personhood, or are we recognizing personhood?

If you knew a woman who was pregnant,

who had 8 kids already,

three of whom were deaf,
two of whom were blind,
one who was mentally retarded,
and she had syphilis,

Would you recommend that she have an abortion?

Did you say “yes?”

Then Beethoven would not have been born.

WHAT IS A PERSON? WHO IS A PERSON?

STUDY GUIDE

PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS

1.Of what use to ethics is a definition of PERSON?

2.Rights belong to PERSONS

Are rights

Discovered?
Defined?
What’s the difference?

Do we have the authority to define PERSON?
Is PERSON a category of being that we can only discover because it already exists?

DEFINITIONS OF PERSON

TRADITIONAL DEFINITIONS

“An individual substance with a rational nature” – Boethius (480 – 526)
“A thinking intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself” – Locke (1632-1704)
In what ways do these two definitions differ?

TWO BASIC GROUPS OF DEFINITIONS OF PERSON HAVE BEEN OFFERED

Functional definitions
Ontological definitions

FUNCTIONAL DEFINITIONS OF PERSON

The Key -- A person is a person because she functions as a person.

SOME EXAMPLES OF FUNCTIONAL DEFINITIONS OF PERSON

1.Joseph Fletcher’s -- A human being possessing indicators of humanhood, most importantly neo-cortical function

Other candidates for the “most-important” indicator:

Self-consciousness – Michael Tooley
Potential for human relationships – Richard McCormick

2.Joel Feinberg’s -- At a given time, those creatures who possess characteristics of persons are persons

3.Mary Anne Warren’s Five Traits Negative Definition -- Any being that has none of these five traits is not a person:

Consciousness, particularly the ability to feel pain
Reasoning
Self-motivated activity
Capacity to communicate
Presence of self-concepts and self-awareness

ONTOLOGICAL DEFINITIONS OF PERSON

Key - A person functions as a person because she is a person, and not vice versa.

SOME EXAMPLES OF ONTOLOGICAL DEFINITIONS OF PERSON

1.Francis Beckwith’s -- An entity who has the inherent natural capacity to give rise to human functions

2.Agneta Sutton’s -- Human beings are persons because of their nature. They possess a radical capacity, one that makes possible many other capacities.

3.Robert Joyce’s -- An individual with a natural capacity for reasoning, willing, desiring & relating

INDICATORS OF “HUMANHOOD” (PERSONHOOD)

Prepared by Christopher Ullman, Instructor

BIBLICAL ETHICS

HAVING . . .

. . . minimal intelligence
. . . self-awareness
. . . self-control
. . . a sense of time
. . . a sense of futurity
. . . a sense of the past
. . . relational capability
. . . concern for others
. . . communication abilities
. . . autonomy
. . . curiosity
. . . changeability
. . . idiosyncrasies
. . . neo-cortical function
. . . some attributes of God
. . . inalienable rights
. . . developed capacities
. . . developing capacities
. . . radical, natural, inherent capacities to function as a person
. . . second-order capacities

BEING . . .

. . . both rational & emotional by nature
. . . different in degree from animals
. . . different in kind from animals
. . . a continuous self
. . . the reproductive product of other humans
. . . an individual

Prepared by Christopher Ullman, Instructor

BIOMEDICAL ETHICS

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS:

Which of these is a sufficient condition for PERSON?

Which of these is a necessary condition for PERSON?

Can you find a sufficient-and-necessary condition for PERSON?

STRENGTHS & WEAKNESSES OF EACH OF THE TWO GROUPS OF DEFINITIONS OF PERSON

FUNCTIONAL DEFINITIONS OF PERSON

STRENGTHS:

Emphasis is on fullness of expression of abilities
Person is more than merely a genetic entity
Persons are beings who make a difference by functioning as persons
Functions can be observed and verified
Focus is on process and becoming

WEAKNESSES:

Probably excludes unborn babies at some stage of fetal development, newborns, infants, comatose patients, paraplegics, mentally challenged humans, etc.
Possibly includes higher functioning animals
May not recognize intangibles, such as spirituality and the soul
Involves an equating of essencewith function

ONTOLOGICAL DEFINITIONS OF PERSON

STRENGTHS:

Precision: based on an event, not a process, thus it is easy to ascertain
Emphasis is on the utter uniqueness of humans as a category
Intuition tells us that like begets like
Human dignity is anchored in being rather than in doing
Recognizes intangibles, such as spirituality and the soul
Does not equate essence with function

WEAKNESSES

Probably includes frozen embryos and possibly anencephalic babies
May seem cold and sterile as a definition
May not be accepted by materialists

THOUGHTS ON PERSON

1.When I understand the meaning of the term PERSON, I will automatically create two categories

Persons (P)
Non-persons (N)

NNN N

N PPP P P P

NP P P P P P PNN

N P P P P P P P

NNNN

2.Every entity, thing and being will end up being classified as one or the other.

3.Those in the category of PERSON will have privileges and protections that non-persons won’t have.

4.Understanding what the term PERSON means will obligate me to make ethical judgments affecting persons.

The meaning of the term PERSON creates an umbrella of protection under which all who are PERSONS can find shelter and security.

PERSON: WHICH DEFINITIONS PUT WHICH GROUPS AT RISK?

Definition type / Group put at risk / Group that imposes the risk / Nature of the risk
Functional[1] / Non-functioners / Functioners / Life
Ontological[2] / Functioners / Non-functioners
(indirectly) / Comfort, time, money, resources

The nature of the risk imposed by functioning persons upon presently non-functioning beings of human origin far outweighs the nature of the risk resulting from adopting an ontological meaning of the category “person.” Loss of life is obviously the paramount risk.

The power imbalance set up by the functional definitions, and the likelihood of its abuse, are both enormous.

The traditional deference to the weak and powerless among us is reversed when functional definitions are accepted.

A SYNTHETIC DEFINITION OF PERSONHOOD

A PERSON is a being, beginning at and resulting from the conception immediately following the penetration by human sperm of the cell membrane of a human ovum, who possesses the natural inherent capacities making it possible for him/her to function (even if only minimally) as a person, as follows: exhibiting neocortical function; having the abilities to love, desire, relate to self and to others in a self-reflective way, communicate abstract concepts in symbolic language, pass on to future generations the knowledge acquired during the person's lifetime, reason, remember, plan; and in any of the other ways known for such a being to function.

This definition honors the precision of the ontological (or being-centered) definition of personhood while giving voice to the richness of the functional (or performance-centered) definitions of personhood. This is important, because you cannot find a function of a person that doesn't have an ontological base, but you can find ontological bases for a person that aren't functional. To illustrate, a race car sitting in a garage is a race car even though it is not currently functioning as a race car. If someone declared, "That's not a race car. It's not racing," you would laugh. Why? It has the inherent capacity, sitting there, not dependent on any outside benefactor, to be a race car. If the ontological bases are not allowed, then even a sleeping or unconscious human (who at the time is failing to function as a person characteristically does) could conceivably be at risk of having his or her personhood, and the legal protection that goes with it, revoked.

This definition presents the idea that personhood is marked by an event and manifested during a process which extends from conception to the grave.

The phrase "possesses the natural inherent capacities" is the key to the definition. This phrase protects human persons at both edges of life (before being born and nearing the point of death) from abuse due to the ulterior motives of other, fully-functioning persons.

U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment (Section 1, partial):

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Christopher Ullman, Instructor

[1] Functional definitions require certain “human” functions to be manifested, in order for a being to be categorized as PERSON.

[2] Ontological definitions require that a being has the natural inherent capacity to give rise to human functions, in order for a being to be recognized as PERSON.