Problems with an Early Definition of Life

     In an earlier post, I wrote that I favor an early legal definition of life and explained how I logically arrived at that position.  I did not say that I would define life as beginning at conception because, to me, the issue is not entirely clear.  While I believe in an early definition of life, doing so causes problems.  If we hold this position, then we must wrestle with the challenges that it creates.  I don’t have all the answers, and so this blog is not about answers, but questions. 

    Miscarriage – If we define life as early as possible, how will we deal with miscarriages?  On the surface this is easy.  Miscarriages are, obviously, tragic and sad, but also a natural process.  Life doesn’t always work out the way we want it to, accidents happen, and all that.  But realistically, when women know that they are pregnant, the “normal” rate of miscarriage is 10-20 percent. Testing has shown that the actual figure, if we include miscarriages that happen before the mother is aware of the pregnancy, is probably a little more than 30 percent.   If life begins at fertilization, or even at implantation in the uterus, then how do we legally define miscarriage?  Is it an accident or a tragic natural process? Or was the mother, somehow at fault?  If life has already begun, must we worry about who, if anyone, is “at fault” for the miscarriage, and is that person therefore guilty of murder?  Our initial reaction is to dismiss the possibility, but given the legal lunacy that happens every day, it is not difficult to imagine that charges could be brought against parents who drank, or smoked, or failed to obtain good prenatal care. 

    If we accept a definition of life that begins at fertilization, this becomes the issue of miscarriage is even more complex.  If a single fertilized cell is a human being, then we must acknowledge that we have no idea how many human beings pass out of the body without ever implanting in the uterus.  The numbers are certainly huge.  And so, how are we to understand God?  Can a good God doom hundreds of millions of children to death, by natural causes, without ever even having the slimmest chance and developing beyond a handful of cells?

    Birth Control – If we accept that a fertilized egg is a human being, then most methods of birth control become a real problem.  To its credit, the view of the Catholic Church is consistent in this regard.  If life begins at fertilization, then any chemical or mechanical method of birth control (pills, injections, IUD’s, etc.) that inhibits the ability of the egg to implant in the uterus and therefore pass out of the body, is, by definition, murder and must be prohibited.  Likewise, any method of birth control that causes an egg, which has already implanted in the uterus to be expelled, is also murder.  How would we even keep track?

    Assault – If a pregnant woman is assaulted, perhaps in the first trimester, and later miscarries, is that murder?  If the “normal” rate of miscarriage is 20 percent (or higher), how could blame be assigned?  Is the assailant at fault, or was it a naturally occurring miscarriage?

    Birth defects – If testing in the first weeks of pregnancy (or even later) indicate that the fetus/baby has genetic defects that are inconsistent with survival, let alone leading a normal life, what options are there?  If we decide that the fetus is entitled to all the rights of a human being, then must the mother be compelled to carry the baby to term?  If this pregnancy ends in miscarriage, how will we decide if it is due to the genetic defect or somehow the fault of the mother?

    Rape/Incest – The same problem arises in cases of rape and incest.  If any and all fertilized and/or implanted embryos are legally defined as human beings and granted rights, then on what basis can we allow an abortion?  Would we require every pregnant victim of rape or incest to carry the child to term?  How do we choose between the life of the child and the mental health of the mother?  What would be the physical and emotional cost to those women?  Are we willing, as a society, to bear that cost?

    While the logic of an early definition of life seems inescapable, I recognize that making such a legal definition would create difficult moral problems.  Certainly, I do not have all the answers but I have to ask the questions because anyone who argues for an early definition of life must be prepared to wrestle with the consequences of doing so.

-----
Earlier posts in this series:

Abortion: Pro-Life/Pro-Choice Both Right? 

 

Abortion: Why Both Sides Will Lose in the Supreme Court (Again)

Why I would Argue for the Earliest Definition of Life

Why I Stand With the Catholic Church

   In recent weeks the President of the United States and his Administration announced that all employers would be required to provide health coverage that included coverage for birth control and abortifacients regardless of the employer’s religious affiliation.  What this means is that religious institutions will be required by law to provide the means to do something that the parent religion considers to be a violation of conscience.  The federal government has told the Catholic Church that its hospitals, its adoption services, and its other outreach branches, as well as Methodist Hospitals, Baptist Hospitals and Jewish  and Muslim charity and community centers, that they must all provide this benefit to their employees regardless of whether or not this is a violation of the teachings of their religion.  I want to be clear, I am not a Catholic but this is serious stuff and it is important for all of us regardless of religion.

   I have heard friends say that the complaints against the government are just a power play by entrenched male power interests in the church to oppose necessary health provisions for women but I don’t think so.  It was the Catholic Church (and a few other churches) who built charity hospitals to provide care to the poor when medical care was something only the wealthy could afford (did you ever wonder why so many hospitals have Saint something in their name or end in Methodist, Baptist, or Catholic Hospital?)  It was the Catholic Church who built one of the biggest AIDS clinics in San Francisco when many hospitals were afraid to treat AIDS patients.  The caring and compassion of the church, particularly in the field of medicine, has been repeatedly demonstrated.  

   What’s more, the consistency of the Catholic Church is well established.  As a Protestant, I do not have a problem with birth control but draw the line at abortion and abortifacients because we believe that a child in the womb, a fertilized egg implanted and growing in the uterus, is a life.  Somehow, those of Protestant faith believe that a fertilized egg is not necessarily a life, but once it has ‘taken root’ it becomes a life.   This is a pretty fine line.  The Catholic Church doesn’t try to split hairs and it never has, they believe that a fertilized egg is a human being, period.  The position of the Catholic Church has never changed on this and although I do not agree, I have great respect for the consistency of their argument.  Life is life.

   For the government to say that the Catholic Church (and all other churches) must provide benefits that it believes are morally unconscionable is, to me, a clear violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.  What if the government re-instituted the draft to support the military?  In such a draft, undoubtedly, persons would be drafted that, for religious or moral reasons, choose not to carry a gun or to be placed in a situation where they might be required to kill another human being.  For that reason, our nation has allowed these persons to become conscientious objectors, and we allow them to serve their country in another capacity.  One of my uncles served in the Korean Conflict as a medic for that reason.  If our government is allowed to force people of faith to provide birth control and abortion inducing drugs against their will, is it any stretch at all to imagine that conscientious objectors could be forced to carry a gun into combat?  Can American Indians be prohibited from ceremonies that require the use of peyote?  Could Muslims be prevented from making daily prayers during the workday?  The principle is exactly the same.  If religious objections are overruled for one, they can be overruled for anyone.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 

– U.S. Constitution, 1^st Amendment, Article 3.

   If the government is permitted to prevent Catholics and others from exercising their religion, and their conscience, in this way, what other Constitutional rights will it find “inconvenient” tomorrow? 

I am not a Catholic and though I respect the Catholic Church I often do not agree with it.  My position on birth control is different than the one held by the Catholic Church.  Even so, I think they are right and the government is wrong.  I stand in support.  Will you?