Musings Often in Stereo

Note: Second to last in the series of final papers, this was written for CSCL 3910: On Human Nature, taught by the fantastic Harvey Sarles. Take whatever course he teaches in Fall 2010; chances are you’ll see me. This paper brings in different sides of modern Christianity, namely science, philosophy, and a history of dualism, to the abortion debate. Essentially, the questions within Christian thought surrounding what it means to be alive, when the soul is transferred, and how to deal with critical verses in the Old Testament all lead to a very inconclusive answer to whether abortion can be justified. Through the paper, I show both sides to the argument and attempt to, when I know them, explain their justifications before explaining my own Christian-influenced view on one of American society’s most divisive topics.

On Christianity, Being “Alive,” and the Abortion Debate

In discussions of human nature, a conflict arises concerning what being a human entails. There are simple answers; being of the species counts, as does having a heartbeat, any level of cognition¹, ability to subsist. But in Christian doctrine, there is a further question about being a human. David writes in Psalm 139 of a god who “didst weave me in my mother’s womb²,” speaks separately of man being “shapen by iniquity” in Psalm 51. There is to a great extent a belief in Christian doctrine that being human, and specifically being alive, is more complicated than the scientific explanation.

This complication leads to the difficulty with accepting abortion as part of Christian society. Abortion is avoided throughout the Bible; no concordance ever refers to the word³. As such, scholars and advocates on both sides are able to contort the words of the Psalms, the Mosaic Code, the Pauline Epistles, and other portions of doctrine into a narrative that both condemns and supports abortion. But is a discussion of an ambiguous hole in church doctrine enough to fully understand the Christian response to one of the great questions that comes from a study of humanity? Other concerns clearly need to be addressed, namely the central question that leads to the abortion debate: what does it mean to be alive? Additionally, there is a question of Christianity’s insistence on a level of mind-body dualism; the soul seems to exist on its own, with the body being its earthly vessel between the fall to earth and ascendance to Heaven. How does this idea of a soul that must be transferred to a body play into the idea that a fetus is a human with equal rights? Finally, what of the Sixth Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill?⁴” Does that automatically ban abortion or is there still a debate about what constitutes killing? What about Exodus 21:22, which suggests that the penalty for striking a pregnant woman and causing a miscarriage is a fine instead of the capital offense that killing the woman would be?

By framing the abortion debate through the lens of being “alive,” a discussion of the dualism of existence in Christian doctrine, and the difficulty in understanding the Bible’s conflicting verses used to frame the abortion debate, one comes to the realization that abortion may in fact be permissible in the confines of Christianity.

What Constitutes Being “Alive?”

The central question and point of evidence in the abortion debate plays on what it means to be alive. Christian pro-life advocates, to an intriguing extent, assert that liveness is contingent on the scientific concepts of conception. Prolife Across America billboards trumpet the age that an embryo develops a heartbeat, has fingernails, and has cognitive skills while in the womb⁵, all suggestions that, even for Christians, science gives a relatively good explanation of being alive. Biologist Paul Davison cites the ability to reproduce, acquire and metabolize energy, and sense and respond to environmental stimuli as basic characteristics of life throughout the world⁶; all of those, to some extent, exist in the embryo and fetus, which sees rapid cellular reproduction and metabolization of nutrients. There may be a question with the ability to react to environmental stimulus; a study at San Jose’s Brain Research Laboratory suggests that while some cognition appears by the seventh week of gestation, the ability to react to vibrations in the uterus comes between week 20 and 27⁷. Taking this understanding of biological life and brain development would mean that by week 20, the fetus may be alive. Science, though, can only go so far in explaining what it is to be alive. Cognitive development doesn’t necessarily mean that the fetus is capable of thinking, as can be understood by the body’s ability to reflexively react to stimulus when other cognition is absent. Taking this into the animal world makes this more clear; a chicken, after all, can still run after decapitation, as the nervous system continues to power action until it bleeds out. Calling this chicken alive after being slaughtered would be an odd turn of phrase.

Liveness, then, may need an extra dimension found in philosophy that debates the difference between existence and life. Early ontology found in Parmenides’s proem to On Nature exposes the idea that existence is eternal. This idea may be true, but it lacks a dimension brought on by Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Book Zeta exposes the thesis that there is a difference between existence and “being,” or what it is to exist. The idea of ti esti, or “what it is,” bases the question of life in an idea that supersedes simply existing. With that in mind, being alive in a philosophical sense means many things. It involves identity; to be alive, a being must understand that it is both a being and a specific being. It must, as Leibniz describes it, understand that it is x and not y. Additionally, consciousness plays into the notions of being alive; the ability to understand one’s surrounding and selectively impact it leads to being alive. If this is not complicated enough, consider the problem of when all of these start. Where Parmenides would suggest that you exist even before and after you are alive⁸, you are not alive until you exhibit self-identity and consciousness. It is inconclusive to determine whether this occurs in utero or after a fair amount of development; child psychologists point to the idea of the mirror stage, which happens after six to eight months from birth, as the point where a child develops the notion of their own existence.

These concerns are compounded by the Christian concept of being alive. An analysis of Genesis 1 and 2 brings up the same questions of what being alive means as are found in the philosophical ideas. Genesis 1′s notion of mankind’s development follows the same style as the development of the rest of the world: God willed it to be so. “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness… So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them⁹.” This explains that humans exist; it doesn’t explain the central question of how that existence turned into life. Genesis 2 brings that into the forefront: “the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature¹⁰.” A reading of this passage in light of abortion complicates the view of the pro-life lobby. God created “the man,” or Adam, as a corporeal body before breathing life into him and making him alive; if this extends to the rest of the world, a body isn’t made alive until it already exists and God breathes life into it. While this may be in utero, the passage seems to say that this happens well after that happens when Adam is fully formed.

All of these theories about being alive bring up different conclusions, particularly when pointed to the idea of abortion. Science points to the ability to metabolize energy and reproduce, which occur almost instantaneous with the embryonic stage, but also includes cognitive ability, which happens later in fetal development. Philosophy is equally inconclusive, bringing in metaphysical quandaries about the difference between when existence and liveness that bring in issues of consciousness. Christianity’s two creation stories make the question equally murky as to when Adam, and in turn the rest of humanity, became alive. This makes the question of when the fetus is alive almost impossible to answer; the closest to a conclusive answer is at 20 to 27 weeks.

The Dualistic Tradition

Abortion is also complicated by the idea of the soul and body being separate in Christian thought. This is manifest in many different ways through the Christian tradition. Genesis 2 certainly touches on this dualism, with God breathing life into Adam. It is also discussed in Paul’s depiction of sin in Romans 7 and 8. Paul describes the link that people have to sin by saying, “For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death¹¹.” While it is clear that the passage is meant to show that sin does not lead to perpetual bondage through Christ’s death, it is based off of a notion that there is a dualism between the mind and body; the end of the chapter demonstrates this even more clearly, saying, “So then, I serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin¹².” Romans 8 continues this dualism between the corporeal sin and the ethereal soul and spirit of Godliness, saying,

“If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you… if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.¹³“

To Paul, then, a rejection of sin in favor of Jesus frees the soul from the sinful, earthly body, suggesting that dualism exists.

This dualism plays into the debate on abortion as part of the question of when a Christian views the fetus to be alive. The soul clearly exists on its own; the question is whether this soul exists as part of the fetus or if it is transferred later. Catholic doctrine suggests the former, taking lines like Psalm 139′s assertion that God “knit [David] in my mother’s womb;” this explains how the aborted reportedly go into purgatory or limbo, as they never received the holy rite of baptism. However, this relies on an interpretation of the Bible that isn’t necessarily substantiated; a model of how one becomes a human from Genesis 2 can shoot holes in this argument. A decision on when the soul exists in Christianity is critical to a decision on abortion. Christian doctrine, not surprisingly, varies on this decision. Within Catholicism, a creationist understanding is taught that suggests strongly that the soul is made upon conception¹⁴. Orthodox and Protestant traditions don’t necessarily address the genesis of the soul, opting more for an approach that explains the end of life; some take a traducian position, suggesting that the soul comes from the parents at either conception or a later time. The Mormon tradition takes a pre-existent understanding, suggesting that the soul is a merging of an already existent spirit and the corporeal body.

By taking a creationist viewpoint, abortion is clearly verboten. Abortion would involve the killing of a body carrying a soul specifically created by God at conception, condemning that soul to a fate that it did not sanction. This viewpoint is a hallmark of pro-life theology; it provides the most conclusive argument that has only holes that involve fundamental differences in the soul’s genesis, and it has been a part of Christian doctrine through the centuries. The Catholic Church recently reaffirmed this in the 2008 encyclical Dignitis Personae, which states that since the embryo has a soul, it carries the same rights as a person. However, taking the opposite stance and suggesting that a pre-existent model or even a traducian view leaves plenty of room for different opinions that are open to abortion. Neither of those models suggest that the soul must be within the embryo or fetus; pre-existence goes so far to say that the soul’s status in an already created spirit makes it so it is completely separate, leaving no problem for abortion rights supporters. Outside of doctrinal (and not Biblical) precedence, the soul’s existence in utero is an unanswered question.

Where the Biblical Truth is Unclear

The Bible has already been shown to lead to different interpretations on critical verses that discuss abortion. An analysis of further verses, used by both sides of the abortion rights lobby, make the questions even more difficult. Consider the Sixth Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” It seems like an incredibly conclusive statement against abortion; abortion, to the pro-life movement, involves killing a fetus. However, the questions surrounding whether or not the fetus is biologically or theologically alive makes this a difficult passage to interpret. Pro-life advocacy would suggest that the question is moot. Clearly, the embryo is alive in a biological sense that includes cellular reproduction at an immediate date and a resemblance to a fully formed human within a short amount of time; theologically, the existence of a soul created specifically for the embryo is something that requires protection, just as Proverbs 24:11 states¹⁵. Pro-choice advocates, likewise, contend that the biology is inconclusive at least in determining whether the fetus should count as being alive; the cognitive side isn’t fully formed for months after conception, and the likelihood of normal viability that early in development is low. The theology, which has equal Biblical background as that of the pro-life view, makes it vague as to whether the soul exists only with the body, as a separate and free entity, or if it is even yet there at all. With these questions, “Thou shalt not kill” becomes incomprehensible without knowing if abortion even constitutes killing.

Psalm 139, another oft-quoted passage in the abortion debate, contains another issue in textual analysis. In it, the Psalmist David glorifies God for all of the majesty of his existence. Lines from it display what the pro-life movement proclaims to be the clearest and most profound evidence that God’s hand is in the creation of man in utero:

For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made… Your eyes saw my unformed existence; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me¹⁶.

There are the obvious lines; “knitted me together in my mother’s womb” suggests to pro-life advocates that everything is made by God through conception and pregnancy, including an everlasting and newly existing soul. “Your eyes saw my unformed existence” continues this view, stating that God knew the Psalmist’s (and the reader’s) life and soul before birth. But consider the line, “…for I am fearfully and wonderfully made,” and its alternate translation, “…for I am wonderfully set apart.” The first and traditionally used translation is used as a creationist manifesto, implying that God crafts everyone individually in utero; under this idea, abortion would be the termination of one of God’s creations. The second translation leaves it open to a pre-existent interpretation. “Set apart” does not mean that God crafts the fetus in utero; it could mean that God created the soul separately, or simply views the Psalmist as being special in His eyes. This soul and body is not specifically created and existent through God; instead, it could be a body that exists with a completely dichotomous soul. Understanding the dualistic tradition of Christianity gives credence to this view, which gives credence to abortion rights theologians.

Then there is the issue of Exodus 21:22. Exodus, outside of telling the details of Moses’ life and departure from Egypt¹⁷, begins to expose the Commandments and the resultant Mosaic Code, the basic structure of Old Testament and Jewish law. As part of a discussion of what punishments come from the destruction of property, this choice phrase appears: “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine.¹⁸” Upon first glance, this verse implies that abortion is at least criminal in Mosaic law. However, it is not the mortal sin that is exposed in verse 23: “But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life.” This makes it clear that, while the Mosaic Code implies that there is some wrong to abortion, it is not a wrong that is commensurate with the murder implied by pro-life advocates; instead, it is merely a petty crime worthy of a few sheckels to pay for damages.

Can There Be a Conclusion?

It is increasingly evident through an understanding of modern Christian life, including deference to science and philosophy that complements the theological background, that abortion is a questionable topic. There isn’t a consensus that suggests either way; on one hand, readings of verses strictly condemn the practice, while readings from a different viewpoint allow for it, or at least remove the condemnation.

Here, then, is one coherent viewpoint: The Bible’s explanation of abortion, while skirting use of the phrase, leaves the important questions unanswered with the important terminology undefined. In the absence of these Biblical truths, my interpretation is that certain types of abortion is within the law of God. This is based on an understanding of the science of abortion; to a certain threshold, abortion does not involve “killing” a fetus that cannot be considered independently alive, as its brain has not fully developed to have real consciousness outside of reflexive motions. It also involves a pre-existent understanding of the soul’s genesis; to me, Genesis 2′s version of the soul entering Adam after he was formed follows how I believe God creates and transfers the soul. These views satisfy my interpretation of the Sixth Commandment, following the logic that one cannot kill something that is not living. They also allow for God to “wonderfully set apart” each individual, and they seem in line with how the Bible treats a forced miscarriage in the Mosaic Code.

This, however, does not mean that I would advocate having an abortion in the case of an unplanned pregnancy. Regardless of Biblical justification, there is a feeling that the blood is on my hands; this child would be mine, and I personally could not live with the guilt yielded by the act afterward. Instead, I advocate the right to terminate a pregnancy and advocate with equal strength the moral imperative to avoid the situation and explore other options like adoption or accepting responsibility in the event that it occurs.