The Sanctity of Life and the Abortion Controversy

THE SANCTITY OF LIFE CONCEPT AND THE ABORTION CONTROVERSY
BY SAMUEL CHIBUZO ONYIBA

Introduction The question of abortion remains an issue that has generated and continues to steer ripples of ambivalence in our contemporary world. While most European countries have actually legalized abortion, Middle East countries where Islam prevails forbid it by law. Some countries allow it only in order to save the life of the pregnant woman. With these developments, a question comes to mind: why is there no consensus on the legal and moral status of abortion? Our task in this paper is to examine the moral issues surrounding the permissibility of abortion while upholding the conviction that human life is sacred and ought not be violated. Our point of departure shall be an explanation of the doctrine of the sanctity of human life. Thereafter, we shall examine the major arguments in the abortion dispute. At the end, we hope take a position that it consistent with right reason and conscientious judgment. 1.0 THE SANCTITY OF THE HUMAN LIFE CONCEPT Recent developments in bio-ethical issues such as cloning, embryo research, stem cells therapy, euthanasia and abortion have altogether engendered a reconsideration of the value of the human life both in philosophical, medical and theological circles. David P. Gushee’s definition aptly captures the doctrine of the sacredness of human life: The concept of the sanctity of life is the belief that all human beings, at any and every stage of life, in any and every state of consciousness or self-awareness, of any and every race, colour, ethnicity, level of intelligence, religion, language, gender, character, behaviour, physical ability/disability, potential, class, social status, etc., of any and every particular quality of relationship to the viewing subject, are to be perceived as persons of equal and immeasurable worth and of inviolable dignity and therefore must be treated in a manner commensurate with this moral status.1

David P. Gushee, “The Sanctity of Life,” The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity. http://www.cbhd.org/content/sanctity-life-0 (January 10, 2010). -1-

1

Explaining this definition, Gushee highlights three points. Firstly, the sanctity of life doctrine is a moral conviction. Secondly, it is a moral conviction about how human beings are to be perceived and treated. Thirdly, it is a doctrine with a universal significance because it cuts across board and is indiscriminately applicable to every human person. In the nutshell, the sanctity of life concept represents a moral conviction of the inviolability of the human life in every stage of its existence, wherever human life is found, and in whatever situation human life exist. It is also a moral conviction that every human person ought to be perceived, addressed, and treated with every degree of respect and care that upholds human dignity. 1.1 Why is the Human Life Sacred? The doctrine of the sacredness of human life is deeply rooted in religious convictions. Both the Bible and the Qur’an, do agree that human life is sacred because God, the creator and owner of all things, created it sacred and forbids its wilful destruction. There are, of course, several passages in the Bible that reveal this understanding. To begin with, the biblical account of creation speaks of God creating man in his own image: “God created man in the image of himself, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). Since of all that God created, man is the image of God (imago Dei) and God himself is sacred (in a sense inviolable), man, therefore, shares or partakes of God’s sacredness. By solely sharing in God’s sacredness, man, thus, has an exalted and dignified position above other created things. While proclaiming the belief that man is the image of God, the Bible in clear terms condemns the destruction of human life in these passages: “He who sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God was man created,” (Genesis 9:6) and “You shall not kill” (Exodus 20:13). Biblical scholars, in the light of the prevalent situation of the abuses on human life, have gone as far as affirming the personhood of foetuses. These biblical scholars contend that such passages as “remember, I was born guilty, a sinner from the moment -2-

of conception” (Psalm 51:5) and “Thus says Yahweh, your redeemer, he who formed you in the womb” implicitly claim personhood for foetuses. The sanctity of human life is also a basic concept in Islam. The Qur’an explicitly forbids the unjust and unlawful termination of human life in these verses: “whether open or secret; take not life, which God hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law” (Chapter 6 verse 151) and “Eat not up your property. . .nor kill (or destroy) yourselves: for verily God hath been to you Most Merciful” (Chapter 4 verse 29). In fact, with regards to abortion, Islamic clerics would remind us that one of the traits of the believing women in Islam is that they “will not kill their children” (Chapter 60:12). Islam abhors abortion and teaches that there is no such thing as “unwanted pregnancy” and that every child is a great gift from God.2 1.2 Can we arrive at the Doctrine of the Sanctity of Human Life without Faith? It is true that by faith we can come to the knowledge of the fact of the sanctity of human life. Yet we can also arrive at this knowledge through other means, namely conscience and natural reason. Every person has got the capacity to judge for himself or herself what at least appears good or bad. This character of the human person to be able to distinguish good acts from bad acts has been attributed to the conscience. The conscience itself is not a mysterious entity within man neither is it a special faculty distinct from the intellect. It is the intellect passing judgement on the morality of an action.3 Conscience is a function of the practical intellect. Although, some ethicists have actually contended that conscience is only a subjective norm of morality. These ethicists argue that if we must establish the morality of an act it must

Cf. Dr A. Majid Katme, “Islam and Abortion,” Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. http://www.spuc.org.uk/about/muslim-division/prohibit (January 10, 2010).
3

2

Cf. Andrew C. Varga, The Main Issues in Bioethics (New York: Paulist Press, 1980), -3-

p. 14.

follow from an objective norm of morality. Even while it is pertinent to take the concern of these ethicists into consideration, it must also be stated that the subjectivity associated with conscience does not impede it from arriving at the verity of the sanctity of human life. So long as the intellect is open to know the truth, rightfully seeks the truth, and is aided by its special natural habit to seek good and avoid evil (synderesis4), the conscience will always be right in its judgement. A conscience that consistently judges evil to be evil and good to be good will definitely realize that its judgements on the evils of abortion, murder, rape and incest begins from the sacredness of the human life and the dignity of the human person. The objective norm of morality is right reason. In other words, the faculty to be used in discriminating right from wrong is the human intellect or reason. Rationality is the defining character of man; so if man is to act as man, in accordance with his specific nature, man’s action must proceed from reason as its measure or rule. To say that right reason is the measure, rule or norm of morality is not to assert with certainty that man’s rational faculty has an intuitive vision of the rightness or wrongness of human acts in its specific details. It does not also mean that man, at birth, is equipped with ready-made moral principles that we can apply to concrete cases by way of logic.5 The question that arises is this: how then do we know when reason is right? The determination of the rightness or wrongness of the dictates of reason is done by a rational critique of reason itself. In that critique we must inquire whether reason points to the right path or right

Synderesis, according to Thomas Aquinas, is that special habit which nature has bestowed on man to be able to make use of those first practical principles in the practical reason concerning which no one errs. The first principle in the practical reason, Aquinas says, is founded on the notion of good, namely that “good is to be done and evil is to be avoided.” See Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 79, article 12 and I-II, q. 94, article 2.
5

4

Cf. Austin Fagothey, Right and Reason (USA: The C. V. Mosby Company, 1967), p. -4-

83.

course of action; whether reason conforms with our habitually possessed code of rationally derived moral principles, whether it is consistent with man’s rational nature objectively viewed; and whether it is oriented towards man’s ultimate end—happiness.6 When all these afore-mentioned criteria are put into perspective, right reason will make us realize that human life ought to be inviolable, if its ultimate goal, happiness, is to be attained by every person. It was in recognition of the sacredness of human life and its inherent dignity that the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 20, 1948 adopted the text of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which in articles two and three insisted that everyone regardless of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status has the right to life, liberty and security of person. 2.0 THE ABORTION CONTROVERSY The reason different countries have adopted different approaches to the abortion question is that there is yet no consensus understanding of the status of a foetus. Is the foetus a human being? If the foetus is a human person, doesn’t it then have the right to life? And if the foetus, taken to be a human person, has the right to life, what legal and moral justification has anyone to terminate the life of a foetus? Even when abortion becomes expedient in order to save the life of its mother, by what moral yardstick do we determine whose right to life (mother or foetus) overrides the other? Philosophers, theologians and medical practitioners have had to grapple with this issue for many years. It was expected that the US Supreme Court verdict in the case of Roe versus Wade would make a landmark achievement towards the resolution of this controversy but it failed to do so. The US Supreme Court verdict delivered on January 22, 1973 upheld the right of the personal

6

Cf. Ibid., p. 85. -5-

privacy of the women over their bodies to include the freedom to opt for an abortion. The court ruled that except the foetus has attained its stage of viability, that is, the stage when the foetus can survive removal from its mother’s womb and live apart from her, a period usually corresponding to approximately the last three months of pregnancy, the state may not prohibit abortion unless it is expedient to preserving the life and health of the mother.7 The immediate consequence of this legislation in the US was the proliferation of abortion clinics otherwise called “abortion mills” because it granted leverage to pregnant women. The legislation evaded the question of the humanness of foetuses because it was still a keenly contested issue among experts in medicine, philosophy and theology. Perhaps, it would be enlightening to review the major positions in this controversy. 2.1 Arguments of the Anti-Abortionists The anti-abortionists take as their major premise the assertion that a foetus is right from conception a human person. The positive argument for conception as the decisive moment of humanization is that at conception the new being receives its genetic code containing genetic information that determine its characteristics and the possibility of human wisdom.8 Since the foetus is a human person, they argue, the foetus has a right to life. Since the foetus has a right to life, the violation of this right to life by abortion, the termination of the life of this foetus, is nothing but murder. So, it is both morally objectionable and legally wrong to procure abortion. Some anti-abortionist, let us call them the moderate anti-abortionists just for the sake of convenience, would argue that abortion is morally permissible only on the ground that it

Cf. George H. Kieffer, Bioethics: A Textbook of Issues (London: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1979), p. 160. Cf. John I. Noonan, “An Almost Absolute Value in History” In Introduction to Ethics edited by Gary Percesepe (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1995), p. 429. -68

7

constitutes the only option to saving the life of the pregnant woman. Permitting abortion for the reason of the health of its mother, the moderate anti-abortionists would insist, does not mean that the foetus is non-human or less human. For them, abortion in such a situation is morally permissible since the act is intended to preserve life and not directly intended at killing the foetus. 2.2 Arguments of the Pro-Abortionists Most pro-abortionists deny the personhood of foetuses. They claim that the foetus is a non person in every respect and that its continued presence within the womb of its woman is completely dependent upon the discretion of the pregnant woman. Hence, abortion should be available on request without restrictions. Warren’s argument is particularly interesting to observe. She claims that neither a foetus’ resemblance to a person, nor its potential for becoming a person provides any basis whatever for the claim that it has a significant right to life; so, a woman’s right to her health, happiness and freedom, and even to life, by terminating an unwanted pregnancy, will always override whatever right to life it may be appropriate to ascribe to a foetus.9 Some of those who hold this kind of view are activists for women’s right. They push hard to assert that abortion is an exercise of the fundamental right of women—the right to selfdetermination. They contend that prohibitive laws, made by males, constitute an affront to women, an interference on the personal choices of women. Men should not legislate for women what to do with their bodies because any legislation that runs counter to the freedom of women to chose what they wish to do with their lives is unacceptable. On the whole, the staunch proabortionist strongly advocate that the abortion decision should be left to individual judgement of women since it is unacceptable for anyone to determine for another when human life begins.10

Cf. Mary Anne Warren, “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion” In Introduction to Ethics edited by Gary Percesepe (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1995), p. 453.
10

9

Cf. George H. Kieffer, op. cit., p. 165. -7-

Besides the advocacy for women’s right to self-determination including what happens to their bodies, many pro-abortionists have also spelt out what they think is the positive social implication of legalising abortion. They claim that legalising abortion would reduce the number of unwanted children who have the propensity to become miscreants upon abandonment by their parents; reduce the rate of dangerous and illegal abortions; and promote the right to freedom. 2.3 Moderate Pro-Abortionists This category of pro-abortionists do not wish to take a definitive stance on the personhood of foetus. For them, we may never reach an agreement on the status of foetuses. Since they foresee no agreement in sight, they claim that a foetus could be aborted with moral impunity. Abortion, for them, may be allowed under carefully specified circumstances. One such person that shares this view is Judith Thomson. For her, abortion is not impermissible yet it is not always permissible. Besides the purpose of securing the life of the pregnant woman, abortion, Thomson says, is also permissible when it is a case of involuntary sexual intercourse, that is, rape leading to pregnancy. According to Thomson, a raped woman who decides to exercise her right of personal privacy over her body by refusing to allow the continuing existence of the foetus in her womb should not be castigated as unjust; she may only be criticized as being indecent and self-centered because she is under no moral obligation to keep the pregnancy given the fact that the act leading to conception was ab initio involuntary.11 It is important to note the underpinnings of the arguments of moderate pro-abortionist. For them, abortion should not be a moral issue; rather a medical issue between the pregnant woman and her physician. In every case of abortion, they argue, primacy is to be accorded to the woman’s conscience, her right to free choice, and her overall well-being.

Cf. Judith Jarvis Thomson, “A Defense of Abortion” In Introduction to Ethics edited by Gary Percesepe (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1995), pp. 438-441. -8-

11

3.0 CRITICAL EVALUATION The abortion question is not one that permits an evasive response. We must be bold enough to address the issue as we perceive it and know it. We have noted that the central question is: are foetuses human persons? The moderate pro-abortionists are reluctant to provide a logical answer to this question, yet they have sought to find a way to get around this issue by some sort of appeal to certain circumstances that may impel the pregnant woman to exercise the right to personal choice and privacy in order to eject unwanted pregnancy. On a closer look, the position of the moderate pro-abortionist seems to have been emotionally driven. To what extent can one justify the termination of the life of an innocent unborn child for the sake of relieving its mother of the psychological trauma of having been raped? Are the moderate pro-abortionists not guilty of advocating the murderous sacrifice of an innocent unborn child on the altar of sympathy for an abused mother? Who should pay for the misfortune of rape—the rapist or the innocent unborn child? The mainstream pro-abortionists’ completely deny personhood to foetus. So they feel no qualm on terminating the life of the foetus. One fact these mainstream pro-abortionists cannot deny and have not denied is that the foetus has life. If the foetus has life yet cannot be said to possess the complete qualities of personhood, namely self-consciousness and reason, will one not be self-centered to claim that the rights of the woman to life supercedes the right of the foetus to life? The pro-abortionists contend that it is unacceptable for the government to make restrictive laws against abortion because it is an affront upon women’s right to selfdetermination, but they do not realize that they have also taken up a position that is not lifegiving but self-centered. Our considered opinion is this: the inability for foetuses to demand for their right to life, as women have demanded for theirs, should not exploited; for to do so is to regress via a different route to the sort of discrimination and suppression of rights women have -9-

stood against. At this point, it would be pertinent to point a way forward in this controversy. What we need to do is a rethink, a re-appraisal of our value system. The life of an unborn child has an intrinsic value that cannot be effaced by any extrinsic value. The present trend of legalising abortion in different parts of the world only serves to plunge man deeper and deeper into the abyss of moral depravity. The fact that abortion is on the increase everywhere is a strong indication of the problem of sexual irresponsibility and misconduct. More than anything else, legalisation of abortion has helped spread fast the culture of death instead of life. Our submission is this paper comes from the view of Late Pope John Paul II who has clearly expressed the fact that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means always constitutes a great moral disorder; accordingly, “no circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act [abortion] which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every heart, knowable by reason itself and proclaimed by the Church.”12 Conclusion Our claim so far has been that the human life is inviolable not because of convention, but because the creator intended it that way. The truth of the sanctity of human life is open to the acknowledgement of all. By faith, Christians and Muslims alike can come arrive at this truth. The atheist himself can also come to the knowledge of this truth if his conscience is well-informed to judge correctly. Everyone indeed through the natural endowment of reason can come to recognize this truth by following the dictates of reason exercised rightly. The foetus is a person created in the image of God. No man or woman has the right to destroy it for its life is sacred. God alone has the prerogative to take life; man can only be a steward and care-taker of life.

12

Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae ( March 25, 1995), # 62. -10-

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Aquinas, Thomas..Summa Theologiae, I, I-II. American Edition literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. New York: Benziger Brothers, Inc., 1947.
Fagothey, Austin. Right and Reason. USA: The C. V. Mosby Company, 1967.
John Paul II, Pope. Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae. Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1995.
Kieffer, H. George. Bioethics: A Textbook of Issues. London: Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company, 1979.
Noonan, I. John. “An Almost Absolute Value in History” In Introduction to Ethics edited by
Gary Percesepe. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1995, pp. 426-430.
Thomson, Jarvis Judith. “A Defense of Abortion” In Introduction to Ethics edited by Gary
Percesepe. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1995, pp. 431-442.
Varga, C. Andrew. The Main Issues in Bioethics. New York: Paulist Press, 1980.
Warren, Anne Mary. “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion” In Introduction to Ethics edited by Gary Percesepe. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1995, pp 443-454.
Internet Materials
Gushee, David. “The Sanctity of Life,” The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity. http://www.cbhd.org/content/sanctity-life-0 (January 10, 2010).
Katme, A. Majid. “Islam and Abortion,” Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. http://www.spuc.org.uk/about/muslim-division/prohibit (January 10,

Bibliography: the English Dominican Province. New York: Benziger Brothers, Inc., 1947. Fagothey, Austin. Right and Reason. USA: The C. V. Mosby Company, 1967. John Paul II, Pope. Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae. Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1995. Kieffer, H. George. Bioethics: A Textbook of Issues. London: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1979. Varga, C. Andrew. The Main Issues in Bioethics. New York: Paulist Press, 1980. http://www.cbhd.org/content/sanctity-life-0 (January 10, 2010).