by Fr. Jonathan H. Cholcher
The practice of abortion continues to be an ever-present subject of society both ancient and modern. Much like the historically common practices of slavery and extra-marital sex (e.g., pre-marital sex, adultery, homosexuality, pedophilia, and pornography), the abortion issue is nothing new.
In Western culture the issue is shaped by two opposing limits: the ideological justification to dispose of the inferior/weak for the good of the superior/strong; and the basic human instinct exemplified by the Judeo-Christian moral imperative to preserve the dignity of each individual, whether weak or strong, as the supreme good of the whole. Thus the abortion issue revolves around the concept of “rights,” specifically, the absolute right of the individual person to exist, live, and thrive, and the extent to which a person can decide what is right for her or himself as that affects others to whom he or she is related in society.
In America today the abortion issue dominates much of the overlapping religious, civil, and political discourse. For fifty years since 1973, by decree of the United States Supreme Court (Roe v. Wade), abortion on demand was a legally protected federal right. Then in 2022, the United States Supreme Court overturned the 1973 ruling (Dobbs decision), no longer maintaining abortion as a federal right, but deferring such a right to the determination of individual States within the union. Furthermore, since 1973 the parameters of legal abortion have been hotly contested, namely, at what stage of gestation a pregnancy can be legally ended without criminal liability (e.g., 6 or 15 weeks, third trimester, late-term, etc.).
To appreciate the abortion issue fully, two competing truths must be understood, especially regarding their compatibility or incompatibility.
- One, the act of abortion itself must be understood for what it is and when, by definition, this act takes place.
- Two, the extent of the right of the individual within society must be understood pertaining to the act of abortion: if and when it is right to commit the act of abortion.
Generally speaking, abortion is the deliberate, arbitrary killing of a child who is yet unborn, that is, still in the mother’s womb and dependent on the mother for the natural process of gestation, growth, and preservation of life. Therefore, the definition of abortion typically excludes the death of an unborn child due to factors beyond human control, such as ectopic (tubal) pregnancies and miscarriages.
Abortion includes the killing of the child at any point in time after the child begins to live starting at the moment of conception (see below), despite the circumstances of conception (e.g., within marriage, casual extra-marital sex, rape, or incest), or the potential negative or abnormal conditions of the developing child (e.g., poverty, exposure to alcohol or drugs, congenital defects).
The issue of abortion hinges on the definition of the unborn child, whether or not the developing child is a unique person of equal importance as the mother or any other person in the world, and when this person begins to exist.
Maureen Condic, Ph.D., wrote: “The scientific basis for distinguishing one cell type from another rests on two criteria: differences in what something is made of (its molecular composition) and differences in how the cell behaves. These two criteria are universally agreed upon and employed throughout the scientific enterprise. They are not ‘religious’ beliefs or matters of personal opinion. They are objective, verifiable scientific criteria that determine precisely when a new cell type is formed. Based on these criteria, the joining (or fusion) of sperm and egg clearly produces a new cell type, the zygote or one-cell embryo.
“What is the nature of the new cell that comes into existence upon sperm-egg fusion? Most importantly, is the zygote merely another human cell (like a liver cell or a skin cell) or is it something else? Just as science distinguishes between different types of cells, it also makes clear distinctions between cells and organisms…Organisms are ‘living beings.’ Therefore, another name for a human organism is a ‘human being’; an entity that is a complete human, rather than a part of a human.
“Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells…the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow ‘generate’ the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious ‘manufacturer’ directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life.
“The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications). Moreover, it is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos…the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well-defined ‘moment of conception,’ a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species; i.e., human beings” (“A Scientific View of When Life Begins,” Charlotte Lozier Institute, June 2014).
Significantly, over two hundred doctors stated the same thing in an Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) brief filed before the United States Supreme Court in 1972, just prior to the Roe v. Wade decision early the next year. A unique human person begins at conception within his or her mother’s womb, a fact known and protected throughout recorded human history (see The Right to Life, by Dr. Dumitru Macaila, 2001, for extensive documentation).
Therefore, any definition permitting and/or legalizing abortion up to a certain stage of fetal development post-conception, as though the developing fetus is not yet a human person, is purely arbitrary and illegitimate. Abortion is the purposeful destruction of a human being equivalent to murder. “The woman who purposely destroys her unborn child is guilty of murder. With us [Christians] there is no nice enquiry as to its being formed or unformed…The destruction of the embryo is an additional crime, a second murder (after the death of the mother, which frequently happened with ancient abortion procedures), at all events if we regard it as done with intent” (St. Basil the Great, Canon 2 [c. 347]). The same standard applies to the person performing, aiding, or abetting the abortion.
This leads to the second aspect of the abortion issue, in addition to what abortion is and when it takes place, namely, if and when it is ever right for an individual to commit the act of abortion. The 2022 United States Supreme Court Dobbs decision did not make abortion illegal; it merely declared that abortion on demand is not a federally protected constitutional right, deferring the legality of abortion to decisions of each State in the Union. Each state within the United States can determine legally if and when the act of abortion is justified protecting both the woman having the abortion and the abortion provider(s) from criminal prosecution.
Currently in the United States just over half of all abortions are done by the woman at home by medication abortion (i.e., medical abortion; mifepristone plus misoprostol). These abortion pills can be administered “safely” up to 10 weeks into pregnancy, that is, without undue risk to the physical health of the mother. Thus doctors prescribing these pills, even though they do not personally perform any kind of physical procedure, are necessarily included in the process of abortion and its justification.
Much of the pro-abortion (pro-choice) debate in political society has been advanced on the assumption that abortion is a part of “reproductive health,” that is, it is an issue of the health of the mother’s body and mind. The pro-choice position assumes the woman (pregnant mother) has the right to decide whatever she wants to do with her body to the point, if need be, of eliminating the nascent child necessarily affecting her physical, psychological, and economic well-being both during pregnancy and after the birth of the child. Thus the most adamant proponents of abortion on demand extend this right to include late-term, partial-birth, and even post-natal (after birth; infanticide) killing of the child who is already and clearly viable outside the womb.
The pro-choice position completely ignores the fact that the unborn child is not a part of the woman’s (mother’s) body to be excised by elective surgery, like diseased tissue or an expendable organ; the unborn child is a unique person within and necessarily dependent on the mother for sustenance and protection, a process beginning in the womb and continuing after birth outside the womb. This is the natural relationship of mother and child.
Granted, the process of gestation and birth is demanding, traumatic, painful, and susceptible to defects and disabilities. The world is a violent and dangerous place, fraught with many difficulties for the persons already here, into which many think it would be better for a child not to be born. Some women have certain plans for their own personal fulfillment to which caring for a child would be a perceived hindrance. The continued presence of a child conceived and born of rape or incest can be a constant reminder of past trauma to the survivor. The time, effort, and cost of caring for a child before and after birth can seem impossible to muster, particularly if the pregnancy is unplanned.
Yet none of these factors justify the arbitrary killing of a unique human person once conceived, just as none of these similar factors can justify the arbitrary killing of any other person regardless of age, economic, ethnic, physical, or mental condition. It is telling that the champion of modern birth control and abortion rights, Margaret Sanger (1879-1966), founder of the American Birth Control League/Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortion services in the United States, justified her positions by reducing the birthrate of “inferiors” (Sanger was an avowed feminist, racist, and eugenicist). The same arguments have been and continue to be used to justify the euthanasia (so-called “mercy killing”) of persons whose quality of life due to physical, psychological, and medical conditions is deemed expendable and no longer worth living (e.g., the mentally and physically disabled, and the aged).
The extreme position of abortion on demand for any reason contrasts diametrically with the absolute societal duty of protecting the life of each person regardless of stage of development or circumstance. Either each individual person has equal dignity and an inalienable right to existence, or none have such a right and can be disposed accordingly. Proponents of abortion rights insist on the ability to dispose of certain persons by de-personalizing them, including political compromises such as “heart-beat bills” allowing abortion up to certain stages of fetal development.
Yet the true strength of a society reveals itself in its resolve to protect and promote its weakest members, especially regarding the newly conceived and still unborn. Society begins at conception, and termination of an unborn child at any point of development cuts off that person from the next generation of society, however that person may contribute to his or her family, community, and country. The commitment of society to do everything in its power to defend the lives of its unborn, rather than acquiescing to forces seeking to dispense with them, is the real crux of the abortion issue: the vow to honor human life and its Creator.
