SECTION VI Chapter 3 - Ethics and Morality in the Bible Ethics and Morality --The Conservative View There is a famous Old Testament story (Genesis 22) whereby God commanded Abraham to go and offer his only son Isaac as a burnt offering, in order to "test" his faith. Obedient to God, Abraham set out to comply with God's orders. Just as Abraham was preparing to slay Isaac, at the last minute, an angel of God told him that he had passed God's test, and that Isaac could live. As a reward for his faithfulness, God promised Abraham: " because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice." (22:16-18) In the story above, Abraham's moral dilemma was to choose between obedience to God, or refusing to kill his only son. By unquestionably choosing obedience to God, conservative religious groups interpret this story to mean that ALL morality originates from God-- and that right and wrong must be interpreted in terms of OBEDIENCE to His commandments. This is the position that has been historically taken by the Catholic Church. For example in the Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566), we are told: "When God commands us to believe, he does not propose to have us search into his divine judgments, nor to inquire their reasons and causes, but demands an immutable faith...Faith, therefore, excludes not only all doubt, but even the desire of subjecting its truth to demonstration." Or to phrase this another way: God's position as Master of the universe gives him the RIGHT to set any standards He so desires!-- Thus, individuals should NOT trouble themselves with understanding WHY a commandment exists, (such as the example above where God commanded Abraham to kill his only son)-- but instead, individuals should make an all out effort in OBEYING HIS LAWS! --The Moderate to Liberal View In contrast, more moderate to liberal religious leaders define God NOT as a stern judge and executioner, but instead through the analogy of a "loving Father". God's commandments are believed to be designed specifically to be in the BEST interests of humans. In explaining the story of Abraham and Isaac above, they may argue that God NEVER meant Abraham to go through with killing his son. Instead the story can be interpreted figuratively or allegorically. For example, it has been suggested that God chose this example to dramatize that human sacrifice (which presumably was engaged in by rival pagan cults) was to be replaced by animal sacrifices. This would explain why a ram was miraculously provided by God as a substitute in place of Isaac. Under this interpretation, killing people is morally wrong--by BOTH humans AND God. That is, there exists some natural ABSOLUTE standard of right and wrong in the universe, to which God Himself would obey as an all-good and all-wise being. This more liberal group may even stress that it is God's infinite GOODNESS and wisdom which gives Him the authority to dictate moral laws--and NOT his strong powers. For if God were all-powerful, but NOT also good, then there would be no moral obligation to worship Him. As A.C. Ewing put this, "Without a prior conception of God as good or his commandments as right God would have no more claim on our obedience than Hitler or Stalin except that he would have more power than even they had to make things uncomfortable for those who disobey him." Authoritative View of God vs a Loving Father Image of God The difference in outlook between the conservative (authoritative) and liberal (egalitarian) positions has far-reaching implications regarding the philosophy of ethics! For, if "right" and "wrong" are natural universal laws, then God's commandments can be viewed as an aid towards enlightening humans in learning this universal standard of morality. Also, mankind now has the DUTY of understanding the INTENT of the commandments, so as to apply these wisely in a large set of circumstances. Proponents of this view believe that one can pursue truth and goodness for its own merit, confident that this is what God intended them to do. Some liberals have argued that the conservative view--obeying God to receive rewards/avoid punishment does not necessarily make one a good moral person--as the actions of the individual are not directed from "within". That is, the individual is not inspired to pursue moral truth and goodness for their own sake--but instead to selfishly act in a way that gets the "most" for themselves. Conservative religious groups, as noted above, insist that the biblical stories MUST be accepted literally.--That the fact is, that God has imparted to us humans an absolute set of morals, which we must OBEY--whether we understand or agree with them! This is the moral law of the universe--Obey God and do NOT question his infinite ways. In the case of Abraham, either God or an angel DIRECTLY communicated God's Will to Abraham--so that Abraham perfectly understood that God was requiring this of him. However, as we shall see next, the Bible does NOT precisely define certain moral commandments. In addition, sometimes there may appear to be conflicting passages on how to deal with moral issues. As a result, there has been confusion in interpreting these over time and by different religious leaders. For this reason, many conservative religious groups emphasize the importance of the believer looking up to them to interpret the Bible's moral lessons towards everyday living. Examples of some of the ways how the Bible's moral lessons can be interpreted are given next. Varied Interpretations of Biblical Commandments from God --The Example of "Thou Shalt Not Kill" Take the prohibition "Thou Shalt Not Kill". This has traditionally been interpreted to prohibit only the killing of HUMANS--although this is not specifically stated. That is, a literal reading of "Thou Shalt Not Kill" would seem to read that ALL categories of life--such as plants, insects, and animals--should also not be killed. However, this verse is rarely if ever interpreted in this way. (In contrast, Buddhists and Hindus do consider even animal life to be sacred. However, this is not a moral law within the Judaic-Christian tradition.) Even if one agrees "Thou Shalt Not Kill" applies only to HUMANS, religious leaders within the Judaic-Christian tradition are NOT always agreed when exceptions to this rule should take place. Take the following examples: *Executions of hardened, dangerous criminals. *Aborting a pregnancy (say in a late stage) to save the life of the mother. *Aborting a pregnancy in an early stage, based on the woman's choice. *Killing a person in self-defense. *Killing to save the lives of others. (For example, say a madman is about to shoot all the children in a school--Would a person be justified in killing the madman in order to save the children?) --Example of Jesus' Moral Rule to "Turn The Other Cheek" Another example where religious leaders do not always agree in interpreting biblical commandments, can be found in Jesus' moral injunction to "turn the other cheek". In this famous moral commandment, Jesus exhorts believers to: "Offer the wicked man no resistance. On the contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the other also" (Matthew 5: 39-40). A literal interpretation of this commandment would imply one is NOT to raise a hand against ANY evildoer! The Russian novelist Tolstoy interpreted this saying of Jesus in just this way-- He felt that even if, say a madman entered into him home and attacked his daughter, that he must not physically resist the assault--even for the sake of his daughter-- so as to obey this commandment by Jesus! Other religious leaders, on the other hand, have questioned the practicality of LITERALLY obeying this commandment. For example, it was recognized early on that if Christians did not fight wars, then aggressors would simply win. (Note: The Golden Rule is discussed in more detail in the next chapter.) Most people get around such problems by "interpreting" moral commandments to fit in with what they already believe to be morally right and wrong. Thus they tend to emphasize those biblical passages that conform to their personal beliefs of morality--and to de-emphasize or ignore those passages that appear to be in opposition to their personal moral beliefs. This explains why there is no perfect agreement on moral issues (except of course in those instances where all moral pronouncements are mandated through ONE religious leader.) Old Testament References of God Not Necessarily Being Identified with "Good" Suppose, however, a person believes that they are being asked to perform an act in the name of God-- which they believe is morally wrong. (For example to enlist in a religious war, or as in the example of Abraham to kill their son). Let's also assume that the individual is absolutely convinced that the commandment came from God, as either they can read this in the Bible, or else received this commandment from a religious leader whose position of authority is beyond question. What would be a person's first duty --to obey God or to follow their own moral conscience? Many people would probably answer unswervingly in favor of obeying God, as He has the power of punishment (including choosing eternal life or damnation for the soul of the individual.) Still, this is not agreed upon by all individuals. As one moral leader, John Stuart Mill, once wrote, "Were God to command me to do what I knew to be wrong and were he to threaten to send me to Hell should I disobey, then to Hell I would go." Nor was Mill that only person who spoke of a moral dilemma between obeying God and following his OWN moral conscience. The British author J. R, Ackerley once wrote to a friend, "I am halfway through GENESIS, and quite appalled by the disgraceful behavior of all the characters involved, including God." (Time June 10, 1991 "Evil, does it Exist--or do Bad Things Just Happen?" Vol. 137 No. 23) Mark Twain wrote on his reading of the Bible, "It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand." As we shall see next, especially in the older books of the Bible, there are a number of verses where God is NOT always portrayed as acting in a kind, or humanitarian way. Indeed there are some Old Testament verses which define God in BOTH terms of good AND evil. Take the following verses from the Old Testament, * "I form the light, and create the darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things". (Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)--The RSV Bible softens this last sentence somewhat, translating it as "I make weal and create woe, I am the Lord, who do all these things".) * "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people". (Exodus 32:14 KJV) To understand these passages one has to be aware that the earliest hebrews believed in only ONE powerful deity--God! Indeed, the concept of a powerful Devil did not occur within hebrew literature until after the Babylonian Captivity in the seventh century B.C. Therefore, the early books of the Old Testament assume that that since evil exists in the world--that this must exist in accordance with God's will. Next, we shall look at some stories within the Old Testament that Ackerley and Twain were no doubt referring to. That is, we shall look at some biblical verses referring to violence and killing--which reportedly were either directed by, or approved of God Himself. Examples where God Told the Ancient Hebrews to Kill Within the Old Testament, God's benevolence is generally reserved primarily for the hebrews, with God urging them to destroy their rival Canaanites in the region. Some examples will illustrate this: In Numbers 31:17-18 God commands Moses to kill the Midianites. Moses later interprets this to his commanders as follows: "kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." * When Jericho was destroyed, God ordered that all of its inhabitants be killed, "both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep and ass". Only Rahab, a woman of ill-repute was spared. * According to Joshua 11, when the hebrews invaded Canaan, "The Israelites plundered all these cities and kept for themselves the cattle and any other spoil they took; but they put every living soul to the sword until they had destroyed every one; they did not leave alive any that drew breath." "It was the Lord's purpose that they should offer an obstinate resistance to the Israelites in battle, and that thus they [the Canaanites] should be annihilated without mercy and utterly destroyed." * 1 Samuel 6:19 recounts how over fifty thousand people of Bethshemesh were struck dead by God, because a few of them, who were working in the field, happened to peek inside the divine Ark of the Covenant, "And he slew some of the men of Bethshemesh, because they looked into the ark of the Lord; he slew seventy men of them, and the people mourned because the Lord had made a great slaughter among the people." * I Samuel 15:3 God commands Saul to: "go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (God is later reported angry with Saul because he did not kill all the animals--and therefore has Saul killed in battle, replacing him with King David.) * 2 Kings 2:23-4 tells how Elisha cursed a group of children in the name of the Lord for making fun of his bald head. Two bears arrived on the scene and ate the children up in punishment: "He went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, 'Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead! And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys." * Even the custom of burying people alive under the foundation stones of houses appears to have been sanctioned by God when he had Joshua warn after the capture of Jericho, "Cursed be the man before the Lord, that riseth up and buildeth this city Jericho: he shall lay the foundation thereof in his first born and in his younger son shall he set up the gates in it." (Joshua 6:26) During the reign of the evil Jewish ruler Ahab, as reported in I Kings 16:34, we are informed that Hiel the Bethelite rebuilt Jericho. To comply with the word of the Lord, "he laid the foundation stones thereof in Abiram, his first born, and set up the gates thereof in his youngest son, Segub." Abraham vs Jephthah We have already referred to the Old Testament story which tells how God ordered Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, but at the last minute an angel tells Abraham that God was only testing him. It was also noted that the liberal/moderate view assumes that God had never intended to go though with the sacrifice. Yet, another story (not a very popular one on the modern minister's pulpit) shows this is not necessarily so: Judges 11:30-35 tells how a Israelite judge named Jephthah, made the following vow to God.--In exchange for his victory over his military enemies, he promised to offer as a burnt offering "whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me". He wins the battle, but upon returning home, his daughter and only child comes out to greet him. Horrified at his promise, Jephthah proceeded to tell his daughter of his pact with God. They both agree that a promise to the Lord must be fulfilled. Unlike with Abraham and Isaac, NO angel of the Lord arrives to stay Jephthah's hand--and his daughter is faithfully and obediently burnt as a sacrifice to God! Immoral, Pornographic Stories in the Old Testament Not Sanctioned by God (But NOT Criticized by God Either) Some have wryly noted that if books should be banned for being pornographic--then the Bible should be a prime candidate. For not only were (see the following examples) sexual crimes committed--but there is no indication of God's displeasure and/or punishment. The first example can be found in the Old Testament book of Judges: "While they were enjoying themselves, some of the worst scoundrels in the town surrounded the house, hurling themselves against the door and shouting to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who has gone into your house, for us to have intercourse with him." The owner of the house went outside to them and said, "No, my friends, do nothing so wicked. This man is my guest; do not commit this outrage. Here is my daughter, a virgin; let me bring her out to you. Rape her and do to her what you please; but you shall not commit such an outrage against this man." But the men refused to listen to him, so the Levite took hold of his concubine and thrust her outside for them. They assaulted her and abused her all night till the morning, and when dawn broke, they let her go. The girl came at daybreak and fell down at the entrance of the man's house where her master was, and lay there until it was light. Her master rose in the morning and opened the door of the house to set out on his journey, and there was his concubine lying at the door with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, "Get up and let us be off"; but there was no answer. So he lifted her on to his ass and set off for home. When he arrived there, he picked up a knife, and he took hold of his concubine and cut her up limb by limb into twelve pieces; and he sent them through the length and breadth of Israel." (Judges 19:22-29 (NEB)) The "Good Book" also sets down a precedent for incest: "And they made their father drink wine that night; and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she rose. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yester night with my father; let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also; and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father." (Genesis 19:33-6) Because God never expressed displeasure at the above scene, this led some later Christian theologians to question whether or not a sin had indeed taken place by Lot's daughters. Sanctioning of Capital Punishment According to the Old Testament, God sanctioned the death penalty for: * Working on the Sabbath day (Exodus 31:15) * Anyone who strikes or curses his father or mother (Exodus 21:15,17) * Anyone who "kills a man." (Leviticus 24:17) * Children who are gluttons or drunks, and are so proclaimed to the elders by their parents. (Deuteronomy 21:18-23) * All witches (Exodus 22:18); also mediums and wizards (Leviticus 20:27) (Note these verses were used to justify the witch trials in Europe and Salem, Massachusetts). * Any man who conducted homosexual activity was to be put to death (Leviticus 20:13) * Adultery. Leviticus 20:10-16 proscribes the death penalty for the following liaisons: --a man and his neighbor's wife (death for both) --a man and his mother-in-law (death for both) --a man and his daughter-in-law (death for both) --a man and a beast (death for both) --a woman and a beast (death for both) * A husband who found that his bride was not a virgin on her wedding day was to have her stoned to death at her father's door (Deut 22:21). * A man who rapes a betrothed (married or engaged) woman, is to be put to death (Deut 22:25). However if the woman is a virgin and NOT betrothed to any man, then the rapist shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver, and he shall marry the woman. (However, because he has "humbled" her in this way, he is not allowed to divorce her.) God's Moral Laws as Divine Justice Some fundamentalists have acknowledged that God has gone against his OWN Commandment by ordering mass killings and death penalties for breaking his Laws. However, they will argue that God, as the Giver of Life, has the RIGHT to make his own commandments--and thus to take life away at His call. That because God is the originator of Morality--then what may appear as murder from a human perspective--is in reality DIVINE JUSTICE from God's (higher) vantage point. John Calvin subscribed to this view when he wrote: "the will of God is the highest rule of justice; so that what He wills must be considered just." (Calvin, INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, bk 3, chapter 23, part 2). I once saw a televised documentary of a fundamentalist Christian leader who was interviewed by a liberal/moderate religious interviewer regarding his views on capital punishment.-- Without hesitation, he recited how the Bible COMMANDS Christians to execute all homosexuals, adulterers, and murderers. When he finished, he paused and looked up at his interviewer, who was visibly shocked by his pronouncement. After speaking again, his voice and face softened, as he leaned over to explain: "You see, it's not ME that commands this. It's God! And who can go against the commandments of God Almighty?" As noted earlier, more liberal Christian and Jewish theologians and scholars have noted these instances of violence and brutality in the Old Testament. One explanation is to view the events in a non-literal--ie allegorical manner.--That is, whereby it is believed that events should be viewed symbolically for a greater meaning than its ordinary events. Another common explanation is to view the Old Testament as an older covenant that was made exclusively to the ancient hebrews during more "barbaric" times. Some Christians view the New Testament, as God's new covenant with the "New Israel"--ie, the Church. Thus God is believed to have changed his laws to allow a softer, more loving position on the killing of people, both from wars and for criminal punishment. (Of course conservative and liberal Christians are split over this issue, as they are on many others.) Our Judaic-Christian heritage influences almost every aspect of our social lives and attitudes. Below are some examples: Examples of Religious Moral Doctrines that IMPACT Our Daily Lives. --Abortion-- NO WHERE in the Bible is there any law clearly or directly forbidding abortion----That is, nowhere is there any law stating anything close to: "Thou shalt not remove the fruit of thy womb". There is NEVER any verse written where a woman is punished for causing or abetting a miscarriage. This silence on the subject of abortion is even more striking, considering the fact that during biblical times, one of Israel's neighbors in the Middle East--the Assyrians-- specified harsh penalties for abortion. According to the Assyrian code (ca 1500 BC), "any woman who causes to fall what her womb holds... shall be tried, convicted and impaled upon a stake and shall not be buried." This view was probably not unknown to the ancient hebrews. (See Chapter 9 for examples of similarities between the Assyrian and hebrew attitude toward women.) Although the Bible NEVER directly addresses the subject of a self-induced abortion by the mother, there are two areas in the Old Testament which deal with a woman's miscarriage-- where this was CAUSED BY OTHERS! * In Exodus 21, the Bible discusses the situation where a pregnant woman has a miscarriage AFTER being caught in a fight between her husband and another man. "When men strive [fight] together, and hurt a woman with child so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." (Exodus 21:22-25) That is, if the fetus is killed, but "no harm follows" for the mother, then there is a fine. However, if the mother is harmed, then it is "eye for eye, tooth for tooth." * The second episode occurs in the book of Numbers, where a pregnant woman is charged with carrying a baby that was not from her husband. As a test for her fidelity, the accused, pregnant woman was forced to drink a "bitter water", which would not harm the innocent, faithful wife; but would cause the guilty, faithless wife great pain: "Her womb will be easily fertilized, but she shall have miscarriages, so that the woman shall be an execration among her people" (ie, because of her inability to produce babies.) (see Numbers 5:11-13) Since NO consideration in this punishment was given to the (innocent) aborted fetus--it is apparent that the ancient Israelites did NOT believe they were given laws by God which treated the unborn as being human. It is not likely that this was an oversight--for other hebrew laws are VERY SPECIFIC in regards to the nature of the crime: For example, according to Deuteronomy 25:11-12, if a woman, (who in trying to help her husband from being beaten up by another man): "puts out her hand and seizes him [the assailant] by his PRIVATE PARTS", then the authorities are to "cut off her hand; [their] eye shall have no pity." Pro-Life Verses in the Bible. Anti-abortion groups usually cite the following Old Testament verses to support their position: *"The Lord called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name" (Isaiah 49:1) * "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations" (Jeremiah 1:5) * "For thou didst form my inward parts, thou didst knit me together in my mother's womb...Thine eyes have beheld my unformed substance; every one of them, the days that were ordained for me when as yet there was not one of them." (Psalm 139) Still the above does not make clear whether God was referring to--say a six month (fully formed) fetus in the womb--as opposed to one that is just a few days old. Other biblical verses indicate that human life begins upon the act of "breathing". in GENESIS 2:7, God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living being." The Hebrew word for a human is "nephesh", which means breathing. This is consistent with scientific understanding of what it makes a fetus viable. As 167 distinguished scientists and physicians told the Supreme Court in 1988, "the most important determinant of viability is lung development" and "viability has not advanced to a point significantly earlier than 24 week of gestation" because critical organs, "particularly the lungs and kidneys, do not mature before that time. (Amicus Curiae Brief of 167 Distinguished Scientists and Physicians, Including 11 Nobel Laureates, at 10-12, William Webster v Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989)(No. 88-605), as quoted by John M Swomley, ABORTION AND PUBLIC POLICY, Americans for Religious Liberty, Monograph No. 4, 1994, p 411) The "Property" Argument Pro-life advocates have attempted to "reframe" the issue of abortion, by claiming it to be a question over "property rights". According to this argument, the fetus is already "presumed" to be a human, albeit under the (property) ownership of its mother. They proceed to compare the status of the unborn fetus with the status of black slaves before the Civil War. Before the Civil War, slaveholders claimed they had property rights to own slaves, and emphasized their "freedom to choose". Anti-slavery heros (such as Abraham Lincoln) declared slavery as "morally" wrong. One article I saw (see George Mckenna's "How Lincoln Might Have Dealt with Abortion, THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY, September, 1995) inferred that Lincoln would ALSO have viewed abortion as morally wrong, drawing on the same principles as anti- slavery. That is, the moral rights of the unborn human fetus to life, should supercede any property rights of its mother to "choose" to abort it. But again, this entire argument is predicated upon the assumption that the fetus is already "human" in its early development. Black slaves were generally conceded to be "human" property (with the exception by some fundamentalist groups who relied on loose interpretations of biblical versus to argue that blacks were "sub-human".) All scientific studies would classify blacks as clear members of the "human" race. As we shall see next, a scientific approach would question whether -- at least in the very early stages -- whether the young fetus really is "human". Scientific Understanding of the Beginning of Human Life. Every human egg or sperm has the "potential" of uniting and forming a fertilized egg. Only the tiniest fraction of eggs and sperms ever unite to form a fertilized eggs. (It has been estimated that if a woman had a child every two years, then she could give birth to about fifteen children (assuming her reproductive life was between the ages of fifteen and forty- five years of age.) (Vern and Bonnie Bullough, Ph.D., SIN, SICKNESS, AND SANITY,a Meridian Book, p 91). It has been estimated that men may have as many as a million sperm in one ejaculation. If a man has more than one sexual partner, then he has the potential of fertilizing a large number of eggs. Once a woman's egg is fertilized by a male sperm, it again has the "potential" to grow into a fully developed baby. However, potential" and "real" are two very different things! Take the analogy of a fertilized hen's egg: Given the proper incubation, the egg will form a chick which will grow up to be a mature chicken. However, few of us visualize that we are eating a "potential" chicken when we eat our eggs for breakfast. Nor, since each female egg has the "potential" of being fertilized into forming a human being, this does not mean that when it passes out of her body unfertilized, that a "potential" human has just been "killed"). Indeed, most women who contemplate abortion view themselves as PREVENTING a human from ever forming-- and therefore not really killing any human being at all. According to Charles Gardner, who did his doctoral research on the genetic control of brain development at the University of Michigan Medical School's Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, the idea of calling the fertilized egg a unique human being, is at odds at what embryologists see in their laboratory studies, because: "in humans when two sibling embryos combine into one.,.. the resulting person may be completely normal. If the two original embryos were determined to become particular individuals, such a thing could not happen. The embryos would recognize themselves to be different between themselves... The only explanation is that the individual is not fixed or determined a this early stage." (Charles Gardner, IS AN EMBRYO A PERSON?, Nov. 13, 1989, at 557, as quoted by John M Swomley, ABORTION AND PUBLIC POLICY, AMERICANS FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, MONOGRAPH NO. 4, 1994. Gardner argues that it is the developmental process after the egg is fertilized that builds the unique human being. "The fertilized egg is clearly not a prepackaged human being...Our genes give us a propensity for certain characteristics, but it is the enactment of the complex process of development that gives us our individual characteristics." (Ibid). When Does a Fetus become "Human"? Obviously, a developing fetus DOES attain the status of human at some stage. Most people would argue (including myself) that this occurs BEFORE the child is born. However, this view is NOT the same as arguing that life begins, by definition, upon conception: After all, it's been estimated that up to half off all fertilized eggs do not successfully implant in the uterus, and of those that go on to develop into embryos, some 20-25% of these end in miscarriages. This means that the vast majority of fetuses who do not come to term as babies are killed NATURALLY, as opposed to through planned abortions. (Footnote: The above are conservative estimates, as some studies place the natural abortion rate to be much higher. According to Robert T. Francoeur, "Scientists estimate that in the five-six days following union of egg and sperm, between one-third and one-half of all 'persons' spontaneously degenerate and are reabsorbed or expelled. In the second week, 42 percent of the implanted 'persons' abort. In the fetal period, one-third of the remaining fetuses spontaneously miscarry. Thus, out of every 1000 'persons' 'conceived', only 120 to 160 survive to be born!" (Robert T. Francoeur, "When Does a Human Become a Person, and Why?" ABORTION RIGHTS AND FETAL "PERSONHOOD", ed. Edd Doerr and James W. Prescott, p 114, also quoting study by Moore, K.L. 1988. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. 4th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company, pp. 46-7). Looking at the developing embryo: After one week, the embryo is about the size of the dot on an "i". After one month, the embryo, which is about 1/5 inch long, does not appear much different from that of other animals-- including a fish. It also has a tail. At six weeks it has grown to about 1/2 inch long, but the eyes are still on the side of the head, and has a "reptilian"-looking face. By two months, the face appears like a primate, and the tail is gone. The embryo is about an inch long in its curled position. By the third month the embryo has grown to about three inches long. By the fourth month, distinct facial characteristics appear. Quickening (feeling of movement by the mother) is generally experienced in the fifth month. The lungs do not begin developing until about the sixth month. Recognizable human brain activity does not occur until around the middle of the seventh month. Many scientists view the "brain" as the physical organ wherein resides our individual human character. That is, a person may undergo an artificial transplant for every part of the body and still retain their personhood-- except for the brain. It is the brain that embodies our human identity. Scientists have found that the fetus' neocortex cells are in place by the 20-21st week. However, the mature "wiring" of neurons into the conscious areas of the fetus' brains (marked by the emergence of dendritic spines in the neocortex) does not occur until the 28th week--ie the middle of the seventh month. (Robert T. Francoeur, op. cit, 115 and John Swomley, op cit, p 412). Of course, it makes sense to be extra safe and ban abortions prior to this date. The question is then, by how much? The Roe vs Wade decision already operates along very conservative lines.-- It only permits abortion without restriction during the first three months. It allows it in the second trimester (fourth - sixth months) only in cases of protecting the mother's health. In the last trimester, it is forbidden except strictly in the case of a serious threat to the life or health of the mother. More than 91% of all abortions take place by the first trimester. More than 99% of all abortions take place by twenty weeks (At about twenty four weeks the fetus is reaching viability--ie some 10-15% of fetuses survive in intensive care outside the womb). (John M. Swomley, Ibid, p 412) Pro-Life Arguments Against Abortion --The 'SILENT SCREAM' There is an anti-abortionist film called THE SILENT SCREAM, which purportedly shows an abortion performed on a fetus 10 weeks old. In it, the narrator interprets several scenes to mean that the fetus was feeling PAIN during its abortion. This view is not shared by many reputable scientists specializing in the field. According to Clifford Grobstein, professor emeritus of biological science at the University of California and an expert in embryology for over a decade, the: "interpretation [of THE SILENT SCREAM film] is a good example of creative imagination. Looking at the film several times, I couldn't see it. I don't know how, from waving an instrument in the general vicinity, you can establish purposeful activity is taking place. Such early behavioral movements make sense in the context of development and they may be adaptive. But to say the fetus is 'trying to avoid' a stimulus it knows to be painful or threatening is pure creative imagination." (Elizabeth Hall, "When does Life Begin, a Conversation with Clifford Grobstein", PSYCHOLOGY TODAY, September 1989, pp43-46) Professor Grobstein also doubts the accusation that there is pain-- because the brain isn't fully developed in the early months: "There's no evidence that if the thalamus existed alone, it could, without any cortical registry, lead to something we'd interpret as pain. And there are no connections to the cortex at this time. If pain depends in any significant degree on brain function, it can't be present in the first 13 weeks; in fact, it's very unlikely until a minimum of 20 weeks." (Ibid) Regarding the charge by anti-abortionists that "brain waves are present before 6 weeks", Professor Grobstein states: "They mean electrical activity. By brain waves, one usually means the kinds of regular electrical patterns that can be observed in adults. These do not exist in the early fetus. Until roughly 30 weeks you don't see the kind of regular patterns that are characteristic of EEGs in adults." Regarding whether all physical reflexes is in response to "pain" stimulus (ie that the brain also interprets this as "painful"), Professor Grobstein argues that studies have shown that there can be such a response that is NOT registered in the brain as painful. However he also warns against applying this latter fact towards a fetus, one way or the other: "we have no reliable source to connect the reflex movement of the neck with the inner experience of a 12-week-old fetus." (Ibid) --Other Pro-Life Arguments against Abortion Pro-life advocates argue that the fertilized egg is DIVINELY BLESSED by God, on an individual by individual basis.-- However, if this were true, this could also lead to the conclusion that it is this "divine blessing" by God at conception that makes one human. There are problems with this outlook-- for it also leads to some rather uncomfortable implications that would seem to violate the principle of an all-powerful, all-good God. For examples: * This would imply that GRUESOME child birth defects (including those where the baby dies shortly after birth) are divinely inspired! * This would also imply that God must surely APPROVE of a rape victim carrying to term the child of her attacker. (Raising the child, could be a traumatic experience--that is, seeing her attacker's features in her child, could cause SOME female victims to "relive" their rape every day.) Although some conservatives have argued that God does not give women a burden harder than she can carry--there are known cases where women have committed suicide upon becoming pregnant, died from self-inflicted attempts towards abortion, or met an early accidental death from the stresses of motherhood. (The latter has applied especially to SINGLE mothers, or those who receive little or no help from their families and friends.) Conservatives during the Ronald Reagan presidency conducted a study in 1987 on whether abortion created physical or mental problems to a woman. Per the Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop, they found "there is so little evidence of psychiatric problems following abortion, and so much evidence of relief, that therefore abortion does not cause more psychiatric problems than unwanted pregnancy." (Footnote: Publicly, Koop reported in 1989 that the Public Health Service's study was inconclusive. The late Rep. Ted Weiss, sought out and found the Surgeon General's real findings. Source: VOICE OF REASON--THE NEWSLETTER OF AMERICANS FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, Winter 1994, No. 48) Dr. Paul K.B. Dagg, a Canadian psychiatrist, reported in the May 1991 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY (THE PSYCHOLOGICAL SEQUELAE OF THERAPEUTIC ABORTION DENIED AND COMPLETED) on his review of international studies performed on women who were both given and denied abortions. These studies generally found that mothers who were denied abortions had children who suffered more social and psychological problems into adulthood ("a more insecure childhood, more psychiatric care, more childhood delinquency"). After interviewing women who had abortions months to years after their decision, the studies found that the majority of women were positive about their abortion (with a minority expressing any degree of regret.) History of the Early Christian Church on the Subject of Abortion As we have seen, both the Old Testament and New Testament are essentially SILENT on the topic of abortion. However, early Christian theologians -- probably influence by the Platonic view of the soul -- did considered abortion to be equivalent to child murder. The Platonic view held that one's soul was separate from the human body (which "housed" the soul). Thus, it was the moment of ensoulment which defined whether abortion was or was not considered to be murder. Around the second century C.E., Orthodox Christians such as Tertullian, viewed the soul as entering the body upon the time of conception. As the unborn fetus was granted having a soul--abortion was viewed as murder. Abortion became an even more serious crime, after St. Augustine taught that an unbaptized infant would go to hell--because it INHERITED the original sin from the sexual act of its mother in its conception. This meant that an abortion condemned the unborn fetus' soul to hell, as it had no opportunity for redemption via the Church sacraments of baptism. During the third century C.E., as Christians were coming to power within the Roman empire, there were differences of opinion among Christian scholars whether Christian teachings forbade early abortions. Early Christian Roman edicts forbidding abortion were issued more to protect the rights of fathers, than it was to protect the rights of embryos. During the Middle Ages, abortion was condemned by the Church because of its identification with the sexual act!--That is, because sex was considered sinful except for procreating children, then abortion essentially transformed a "moral" sexual act into an "immoral" or sinful act. Religious theologians and scholars such as the venerable Bede and Buchard of Worms taught that abortion was more serious when undertaken to conceal adultery, than when performed for economic reasons in limiting the size of poor families. (Jeffrey Richards, SEX, DISSIDENCE AND DAMNATION, MINORITY GROUPS IN THE MIDDLE AGES (Routledge, London, 1990, p 37)). During the middle to late Middle Ages, the Church relaxed its views on abortion somewhat by adhering to the doctrine of DELAYED ensoulment. Thomas Aquinas had argued that personhood requires a "physical substrate" that was not present upon conception. That is, there had to be a human form to accept the soul--which explained, for example why an object such as a table did not receive a soul. He believed that ensoulment occurred in males, some 40 days after conception in the womb; for females this was doubled to 80 days after conception. Thus an abortion prior to this time was not considered "irregular". (John T. Noonan, Jr. "The Catholic Church and Abortion", THE DUBLIN REVIEW 241, no 514(1967-8), 315.) This policy was briefly changed in 1588, when Pope Sixtus V declared ALL abortions to be murder.--This decision remained in effect for only 3 years. In 1591 Pope Gregory XIV allowed early abortions in some cases. (It was still forbidden, though, to have an abortion to conceal a sexual sin!) It was not until 1869 that the Catholic Church under Pope Pius IX began the tradition that ALL abortions were prohibited! His reasoning was that although the fetus was "not ensouled, [it] is directed to the forming of man. Therefore, its ejection is anticipated homicide." (It is worth noting that Pope Pius IX declared the doctrine of papal infallibility at the same council that declared the fetus to be human at conception. It was also Pope Pius IX who proclaimed the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary--ie that Mary herself was perfect--which by definition would mean that she must have ALSO been born of a virgin. This means that BOTH Jesus' mother AND grandmother had given birth as virgins!) Between 1884 and 1902, the Church's Congregation of the Inquisition (whose name has since been changed to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith) addressed a number of medical issues related to abortion. In 1889, any operation that killed an unborn child was forbidden. In 1902, the congregation also forbade surgery on ectopic pregnancies--where the fertilized egg implants itself in the fallopian tube instead of the mother's uterus. Without surgery, the mother almost always dies. (The Catholic reversed itself on the issue of ectopic pregnancies, years later.) Catholic opposition to abortion, was formally clarified in 1968, when Pope Paul VI issued the encyclical HUMANE VITAE which condemned BOTH modern "artificial" birth control and abortion. Still, the doctrine of delayed ensoulment has been so strong a doctrine within Catholic dogma that in its 1974 DECLARATION OF PROCURED ABORTIONS and the 1987 DOCTRINAL STATEMENT ON HUMAN REPRODUCTION, the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated that it was taking no position on exactly when ensoulment occurred and personhood began. The Vatican was essentially arguing that a fetus should be treated as a person from the moment of conception, NOT because it was KNOWN to be a person at conception, but because it had the "potential" of being a person. (Edd Doerr and James W. Prescott, ABORTION RIGHTS AND FETAL "PERSONHOOD" (Centerline Press: Long Beach, California, 1989) Political History of Abortion Prior to the nineteenth century, abortions were legal in most of Europe and the U.S.-- if performed before "quickening" (ie feeling of movement by the mother of her baby--usually around the fifth month). Many of the early anti-abortion laws were POLITICAL (as opposed to religious) in nature. England passed legislation during the early 1800's, shortly after the war with Napoleon because of concern by British leaders that the population needed to increase. (An 1801 English census showed the British population to be roughly half that of France with whom they were at war). Abortion was legal in the U.S. from the time of the first English settlement in 1607 until around the time of the Civil War--as long as they were performed before quickening--ie before the woman perceives any indication of fetal movement around the fifth month. During the 1830s, abortion was a widespread practice in the United States. As the US population shifted from agriculture to industry, the population migrated from rural areas to the cities. Large families were now perceived as a financial burden, and abortions increased dramatically. During this time, women spoke openly to each other on the subject, and looked to their doctors for recommended abortifacients. Advertisements by pharmaceutical companies were not uncommon in the daily press. When U.S. physicians of the 1860's and 1870's estimated abortion rates during their times, their figures were very similar to those of the 1960's and 1970's-- approximately one abortion for every four live births. (ed., Eric Foner & John A. Garraty, THE READER'S COMPANION TO AMERICAN HISTORY, Sponsored by the Society of American Historians, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1991, referencing the works of Kristin Luker, ABORTION AND THE POLITICS OF MOTHERHOOD (1984); James C. Mohr, ABORTION IN AMERICA; THE ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION OF NATIONAL POLICY, 1800-1900 (1978).) There was always concern over the medical dangers of abortion. Before the usage of antibiotics and anesthetics, abortions could be extremely dangerous, even when performed by capable doctors. Death from complications arising from abortions become one of the leading causes of death among women of childbearing age. Even when the mother did not die, many women suffered crippling disabilities for the remainder of their lives. During the middle 1800s, economic changes led to a social concern that there needed to be a population increase--First because of a growing demand for labor to work in the factories, and secondly to defend the growing empire overseas. In the U.S, the first anti-abortion law was passed in Connecticut (1822), following the state's concern over its population moving westwards. This was followed by other states, often due to concerns that new waves of European immigrants (especially Catholics) had higher birth rates than the older (Protestant) community. Anti- abortion laws were effectively passed through the remainder of the U.S. states during the 1870s-1900's. Interestingly, during this time, it was primarily doctors (as opposed to clergymen!) who were active in lobbying state legislatures to ban abortions. (The literature from this time is largely silent or passive by both Protestants and Catholics on their position on the issue of abortion.) Members of the American Medical Association (founded in 1847) sought to standardize and regulate medical practices throughout the country--so that only doctors could determine what procedure was necessary-- including for labor and delivery. In this endeavor, they teamed up with conservative groups to legislate anti-obscenity laws during this period. (The Comstock laws date from this same period). The result was that many women desiring abortions went underground, and were cut off from hospitals and other facilities that could aid them in such complications as hemorrhaging and infection. By the middle twentieth century, a growing demand for abortions surfaced in the United States. (See Section VII, Chapter 8). New medical studies showed that 19th century concerns that abortions were dangerous for women, were NOT true if conducted under the auspices of a competent doctor. Indeed, under such conditions, early abortions actually resulted in LESS mortalities (by a factor of 7 to 25 times) for the women, than occurred when women went to full term. Nineteenth century concerns regarding expanding the population, had also been replaced by twentieth century concerns regarding OVERpopulation. Women's rights advocates took up the cause of abortion to argue that until a woman had control over the personal decision to have a child--including the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy--then women could never be truly free. During the late 1960's and early 1970's, some state legislatures sought to legalize abortions. Opponents of abortion began to use RELIGIOUS arguments--stating that abortion represented the MURDER of a human life, and demeaned the role of motherhood in society. In January 1973, the Supreme Court decided in Roe Vs. Wade that a woman could choose to terminate a pregnancy only in the case where the baby could not survive outside the womb, or was endangering the life of the mother. The AMA reversed its earlier opposition to abortion, and was generally supportive of the conservative time schedules as set down by Roe vs Wade for legal abortions. After this time, the issue of abortion has erupted into a major socio- religious battle, that continues to this day. Abortion in other Countries During the early twentieth century, a campaign to liberalize abortion laws in Germany was abandoned after the Nazis came into power. The Nazis emphasized controlling the breeding of pure "Aryans" to fill the ranks of the "master race". The penalty for abortion by a German woman, was therefore held to be a crime against the State-- and the Nazi punishment for abortion was DEATH to the mother! During the 1920's, Russia liberalized its abortion laws, although the intent appears to have been primarily to free up women so they could be put to work by the State. Probably in reaction to concerns that their enemies, the Nazis, were INCREASING their population by outlawing abortion, in 1936 communist Russia abruptly made abortions ILLEGAL. In 1955, Russia swung around and liberalized its abortion laws again. Communist Romania had a very liberal abortion law in 1957. However, after the birth rate fell dramatically, the government quickly reversed its policy--placing rigid State controls in place to "force" women to have their babies (whether or not they could feed them). China's policy was in reverse to Romania's--encouraging couples to have large families during the Cultural Revolution. (Mao wanted a large population so that he could send large armies off to fight his ideological wars.) In the 1980's, China reversed its policy on abortion, in the wake of socio- economic strains from a population exceeding 1 billion people. It currently has the world's strictest (and most inhumane) controls in place to force Chinese couples to have only ONE child. Modern Battle Ground between "Pro" and "Anti" Abortionists Today, the issue of abortion has entered primarily the RELIGIOUS, as opposed to POLITICAL arena--exploding to new levels of emotionalism and violence that charges of witchcraft once inspired. The issue is primarily (but not entirely) split along fundamentalist lines-- That is, mainly conservative Catholics and Protestants appear to be violently opposed to abortions. One has to wonder, seeing the glee on some leaders faces, if they don't feel a surge of personal power upon seeing their followers becoming so emotionally charged on the issue. Harsh, even violent epithets-- such as "baby killers" and "murderers" are sometimes hurled by anti-choice advocates. The Reverend R.L Hymers, Jr., pastor of the Fundamentalist Baptist Tabernacle in Los Angeles, called on his four-hundred member congregation to pray for God to kill Supreme Court Justice William J.Brennan, Jr, so that President Reagan could replace him with a judge who opposed abortion. Some anti-abortionists have compared the deaths of aborted fetuses to the Nazi atrocities towards the Jews--However this is a distorted, "flawed" comparison, since as we have seen, the Nazis actually SHARED their views on abortion-- and made abortion a capital crime for the mother. The sad truth is that there is a very serious overpopulation problem in the world. In the U.S., there are signs that we are heading in this direction too (for example where loggers insist on cutting down our forests--so that they will have jobs.) Unfortunately the prognosis for the future seems very clear on this point: Overpopulation will almost certainly bring unemployment-- and along with it, twin problems of poverty and despair. Fundamentalism, of course, always thrives in such an atmosphere--a fact which is probably not lost on the leaders of this movement. Most conservative anti-abortionists will shout that they are simply "pro-life". However, ask these same groups if they are for QUALITY (not quantity) of life, and a different scenario will emerge: Most of these groups are AGAINST spending government funds for pre-natal care, child nourishment and education programs. That is, once the baby is here-- God Himself, is supposed to provide! The Catholic physician, Dr. Hugh Barber (who is personally anti-abortion, but pragmatically pro-choice) bemoaned how the Catholic Church was spending money on political action, which could be better spent helping the poor: "...in this [U.S.] nation alone, 12 million children go to bed hungry every night of the year. Clearly, Catholics must demand of the institutional Church a shift in priorities.." in spending dollars to support fundamentalist positions against abortion, instead of fulfilling the Church's charter to help the needy. As the U.S. has a secular constitution, one can argue the legality of enforcing one religious groups doctrines on the rest of the population (which does not share the same views.) John M. Swomley, Professor Emeritus at the St. Paul School of Theology in Kansas City, and an ordained United Methodist minister, wrote on the subject: "Public policy in the United States is and should be guided by secular considerations rather than theological claims that are inconsistent with scientific and medical research. The Constitution of the United States is a secular document which gives no authority to government to legislate theological assertions or to prefer the theological doctrines of one or several religious groups over others. A large number of religious groups in the United States--Jewish, Christian, and Humanist-- do not accept a 'moment of conception' theology or view a fetus as a person or human being." (Ibid, p 413) (Footnote: Swomley appears to be using the term religion interchangeably with philosophy. See Section XI, Chapter 3, on the topic of whether humanism is a religion.) Humanists, both religious and secular, worry about the unchecked growth of the population, if controls such as voluntary abortions are not allowed to mothers. Upton Sinclair wrote an eloquent appeal, calling upon planned parenthood as the basis of human culture and civilization. "Planned Parenthood is the basis of all civilization. Without it there can be no worthy human culture. Without it human beings are animals, breeding blindly, subjecting the human race to inevitable reductions by war, pestilence and famine. Organizations which oppose it are correctly to be stamped as enemies of all intelligence and progress."