Thursday, August 10, 2023

An Episcopal Bishop's Teaching on Abortion, Part 8: Wisdom and the Glorious Works of Nature

Introduction

We have seen that until relatively recently there was a wide consensus in the Christian tradition that the life in the womb is not a fully ensouled human until later in the pregnancy. For many that has meant what is called “delayed animation,” meaning God imparted the soul into the body after it was sufficiently developed. A related understanding is called “gradual animation,” meaning the soul develops along with the body until both together are fully human. We saw in the last post that that was the teaching of Gregory of Nyssa, along with his sister, Macrina, who he called his teacher. It is an approach that also makes biblical sense given passages like Job 10:11-12 and Psalm 139:12-14.

We’ve looked at scripture and tradition for wisdom to inform our understanding of the beginning of life and the morality of abortion. Another place Christians have looked for wisdom is in the rest of creation. For example, according to the great Anglican theologian, Richard Hooker (1554-1600), we should seek wisdom in the “the glorious works of nature”:

"Some things [Wisdom] openeth by the sacred books of Scripture; some things by the glorious works of nature; with some things she inspireth them from above by spiritual influence, in some things she leadeth and traineth them only by worldly experience and practice. We may not so in any one special kind admire her that we disgrace her in any other, but let all her ways be according unto their place and degree adored.”[1]

Wisdom opened to us in the study of embryology and pregnancy reveals not just the conception, development, and eventual birth of a new human being. It also reveals the fundamental maternal-fetal biological connection. The gestating mother is not just an abstraction. “Gestation is not just a temporary nutritive dependency analogous to a patient on a feeding tube or connected to a ventilator. The fetus is a developing human being uniquely interconnected with its mother, within her body.”[2] And she is not a passive vessel. We will come back to that.

In this post, we will look at the beginning of life at conception through pregnancy and what light that might shine on the questions we have been asking. Wisdom opened to us in the science of embryology gives us information that can help us discern when the life in the womb has developed sufficiently to be an actual human body and soul. I am going to suggest that it can shed light on the “gradual animation” approach which I argue is most faithful to the Church’s tradition. I will suggest that there are milestones along the way.

Science Can Reveal Much, But Cannot Answer All the Questions

However much we know from science about the process of conception, pregnancy, and birth, it remains an awe-inspiring wonder. Two human beings come together, giving themselves to each other in sexual intimacy, one hopes in the context of commitment and mutual affection. And from that union, there is new life. One of those two, the mother, nurtures this new life with her own body. It is a sacred mystery – not because we don’t understand the biology of it, but because there is a holy depth to it all.

Science does not remove the sacred mystery and wonder of new life. But it also, on its own, cannot answer the basic questions we’ve been asking in this series of posts. It can describe the process of fertilization and conception and subsequent development. It can describe the interplay of the life of the mother and the life in the womb. But it cannot tell us when the life in the womb becomes a fully human person. Or, to use the theological language, it cannot tell us when it is fully ensouled. Nor can it answer for us the difficult moral questions related to abortion.

This uncertainty is acknowledged even by the Roman Catholic Church in its official documents. In its Declaration on Procured Abortion, The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point [whether or not the soul is fully present at conception] and authors are as yet in disagreement. . . it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable. . .”[3] But they do not make a case for why it is probable. “Probable” is a technical term in the Christian moral tradition. But Catholic bioethicist, Carol A. Tauer, “argues that there are fallacies in the way these documents assign certainty to the notion of fetal personhood . . .”[4]

When and How Does a Human Person Develop?

Given what we know, it actually seems unlikely that a fully human soul is present from conception.  First of all, fertilization itself is more complicated than simply sperm meets egg and is more of a process than a singular event. It is significant that for the first days to two weeks after fertilization the embryo is not a stable entity. In those early days before the embryo has implanted on the uterine wall, it is possible for it to split into identical twins or quadruplets. Strange as it sounds, it is possible for those twin embryos, or for two separate eggs fertilized as in fraternal twins, to “fuse” into back into one, producing one person.[5] It is hard to see how the fertilized egg can be one person or one soul at this point if it can split into two or more or, where there were two, fuse into one.

Adding to this fundamental instability is the fact that a large percentage of early embryos do not survive to implant in the uterus for natural causes. Though some estimates are much higher, careful analysis of research indicates that as many as 40% of embryos do not survive this early stage under natural conditions.[6] Even many who generally oppose abortion have pointed out that it is problematic to imagine such a high percentage of human souls never seeing the light of day. Others point out that if we really believed these were truly human souls, we would invest lots of money in research to determine how to save them.

Further, about 2% of fertilized embryos end in ectopic pregnancies in which the embryo attaches somewhere other than the uterus’ The most common place this can happen is inside the fallopian tubes. This means that not only can the embryo not survive, but it can also be deadly to the mother.[7]

Given that in the early days after conception the embryo is a ball of cells and not a stable entity, it is hard not to agree with the majority view in the Christian tradition that “it would not be possible to style the unformed embryo a human being, but only a potential one.”[8] So, implantation is something of a milestone. It is also about the same time a pregnant woman misses her period and may begin to feel different due to the release of the hormones associated with being pregnant. Still, at this point, the embryo can hardly be recognized as “formed” as a human being.

Some Milestones Along the Way

Around the same time as implantation, gastrulation occurs, at which point various cells of the developing embryo begin to be “assigned” the role they will play in the organism, e.g., part of the digestive tract. Implantation and gastrulation make for a basic milestone on the way to being formed as a human being. What might some other milestones be? The beginning of a heartbeat at about four weeks of gestation is an emotional milestone for many. But, as all but the most primitive animals have a heartbeat, it does not seem to be a particularly significant milestone.

A more significant milestone is reached around the fourteenth week at the beginning of the second trimester. At that point, the fetus looks proportionally like a newborn human baby. This is significant because our bodies matter. We communicate with our bodies, and we recognize one another as fellow human beings because we share the human form.

Another important milestone occurs between weeks sixteen and twenty-one. It is somewhere in that range that a mother first begins feeling the fetus moving. Traditionally this is referred to as “quickening.” Due to modern scientific observation, we know that the fetus is moving before that. But some have argued that when the woman feels the life stirring within her something changes in their relationship and a sort of moral covenant is formed between them. Abortion was legal in Wisconsin before"quickening" until 1858 [9]

Viability is another significant milestone. But viability is something of a moving target. Generally, obstetricians set viability at between 20 and 26 weeks of gestation. The earliest premature baby to survive was born at just 21 weeks.[10] But a high percentage of babies born before the 27th week do not survive and only then with extensive medical intervention. This is because their basic organs, particularly their brains and lungs, have not fully developed.

By week twenty-six, the end of the second trimester, the fetus’ brain has the essential structure of a post-natal brain. We know that the brain continues to develop from then through birth and into young adulthood. But the basic structure is in place at this point. The fact that some babies born earlier prove to be viable, however, suggests that the brain is developed enough several weeks earlier.

The final milestone is when the baby is born. It takes its first breath which is biblically significant.[11] With birth the baby is physically separate from the mother.

Conclusion

Earlier, I noted that during pregnancy the mother is not a passive vessel housing the developing baby, doing no more than providing nutrition, oxygen, and space for growth. Even before conception, no sperm cell would make it to the egg without the active assistance of the woman’s body. From there on there is an intimate interaction between the mother’s body and that of the fetus. They might not be exactly the same body. But neither are they totally separate bodies. In any event, pregnancy takes place within the particular body of a particular woman. Therefore, pregnancy and the life in the womb should not be talked about without accounting for the lived reality of the pregnant woman and her agency. I will say more about that in the next post.

Toward the end of the second post in this series, I wrote,

“the holy mystery of becoming fully human is a gradual process in the womb and that the pregnant woman is not merely a passive vessel of that process of becoming. The moral balance at first tilts toward the agency of the pregnant woman (usually along with the father) and gradually tilts to include the baby developing in her womb.”

It might  seem simpler to say that we are fully human from the point of conception. But we have seen that conception alone does not create a stable enough entity to be considered a person or a soul. And, in any event, that has not been the teaching of most of the Church for most of its history. It might also seem simpler to set birth as the demarcation of when we become actual persons. Though that is closer to the Jewish understanding, we have seen that even in Judaism it is not that simple. And that has never been the Christian view. For most of the Church’s history some version of delayed or gradual animation (being given or becoming a human soul) has been the teaching.

I believe this remains a persuasive and faithful understanding. Thus, if abortion is ever the taking of a person’s life, it is not so in the early weeks or months of a pregnancy. Given the combination of a body that looks like the human form, the quickening, and the earliest point at which there is enough brain and lung development for any hope of survival outside the body of the mother, I would argue that 20 weeks of gestation is when we can with some confidence say a human person is fully formed, body and soul. Before that, we are talking about a potential human being. As such, it is still sacred and perhaps increasing so. But until that point, the burden of deciding to bear it is mainly that of the mother, ideally along with the father.

The question of whether at 20 weeks and beyond the rest of society also has a stake in protecting the life in the womb along with the life of the mother is part of what we will look at in the next post.


[1] Richard Hooker, On the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Book II, par. 4

[2] Margaret D. Kamitsuka, Abortion and the Christian Tradition: A Pro-Choice Theological Ethic (Westminster John Knox) p. 106

[3] Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Procured Abortion (1974), n. 19

[4] Margaret D. Kamitsuka, Abortion and the Christian Tradition: A Pro-Choice Theological Ethic (Westminster John Knox) p. 109. The article itself can be found at Carol A. Tauer, “The Tradition of Probabilism and the Moral Status of the Early Embryo,” Theological Studies 45 (1984)

(chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://theologicalstu.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/45.1.1.pdf)

[5] Rachel Hosie, “Woman with rare birthmark discovers she is her own twin”, The Independent, Friday 02 March Dec. 13, 2018 (https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/woman-birthmark-rare-twin-discover-blood-types-taylor-muhl-america-chimerism-chimera-a8236411.html)

[6] Jarvis GE.” Early embryo mortality in natural human reproduction: What the data say”. F1000Res. Nov 25, 2016 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5443340) A summary of this essay is here: University of Cambridge. "Human reproduction likely to be more efficient than previously thought." ScienceDaily. June 13, 2017. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170613101932.htm)

[8] Gregory of Nyssa, On the Holy Spirit, Against the Macedonians (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2903.htm) See the previous post in this series (https://anoddworkofgrace.blogspot.com/2023/05/an-episcopal-bishops-teaching-on.html)

[9] Lloyd Steffen, Life/Choice: The Theory of Just Abortion, (Pilgrim Press, 1994) p. 113-116

Abortion was legal in Wisconsin before"quickening" until 1858. See: Bridgit Bowden and Evan Casey, ‘How Wisconsin's 1800s-era abortion ban came to be: While the letter of the law remains the same, the conversation around abortion has changed,” Wisconsin Public Radio, August 7, 2023 (https://www.wpr.org/wisconsin-1849-abortion-ban-history-began#:~:text=Under%20Wisconsin's%20original%201849%20abortion,quick%20child%22%20to%20be%20manslaughter)

[11] Many passages in the Bible seem to equate breath and life, e.g., Genesis 2:72 Maccabees 7:21-23Ecclesiastes 11:5Job 12:10Job 27:3, Job 32:8Job 33:4Job 34:14Ecclesiastes 11:5Ecclesiastes 12:7Isaiah 42:5Acts 17:25


Next:

Part 9: Rights, Choice, Obligations and Community

Previous:

Part 1: The Episcopal Church’s Stated Position on Childbirth and Abortion

Part 2: Context

Part 3: Old Testament

Part 4: New Testament

Part 5: Tradition

Part 6: Tradition, continued

Part 7: Back to the Bible

7 comments:

  1. To say a baby is only a potential human until 20 weeks is a disappointing conclusion. Basing this conclusion off of human form, live birth survival rate, and the woman feeling movement is even more disappointing.

    How do you reckon miscarriages? To downplay the grief parents have for their lost baby as simply mourning over the potential life is such a belittlement of the feelings and reality that these parents face. It seems a harsh judgment of God’s miraculous works of creating life.

    As for human form, I am unclear why this matters. There are so many people with real human souls living in the world that do not appear as the majority of us do. Those born without limbs or with severe defects have suffered years under the rest of society’s thought that they are not quite human. Not too long ago, Black people were not thought of as fully human in appearance and thought to be without souls but we know that is such a horrible lie and disgrace to God’s beautiful work. I don’t know why we are taking this same thought process on with unborn children. Anyway the 20 week statement appears to false; I implore you to research what a miscarried fetus at 10 weeks looks like. If this is too much for you, I understand and I will tell you that these babies look just like tiny fully human babies.

    I cannot agree with your point on the quickening aspect either. At an eight week ultrasound appointment, that fetus in the womb is wiggling and moving around. Science has taught and showed us this. This is not the equivalent to the tree falling in the forest; just because the movement cannot be felt, does not mean it is not occurring. We cannot always physically feel love, feel God, etc. but we know that these things are there and it does invalidate their presence just as this early movement does not invalidate the soul of the baby before 20 weeks.

    Finally, I also struggle to find merit in your point on survival rate outside the womb. Many children are sadly given hours, days, etc. to live. Or some make it the full 40 weeks and then, sadly, are not able to survive the birth. I simply cannot understand why the survival rate matters. We all have a timeline on our lives given by God. Why discredit the 20 or less weeks a little life may have just because they are dependent on their mother in the womb.

    Thank you for your time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for engaging. I really do appreciate the feedback and questions. If you haven't already, I hope you will read the prior posts in this series which lay the foundation for this one. What I suggest here is not arbitrary. I have looked at some significant recent context of debates about abortion. I have looked at Scripture, followed by a look at the traditional teaching and practice of the Church, and then returned to Scripture. That is how Christians discern things. What I've written here might be debatable and some might find it disappointing. But it is congruous with what the Scriptures actually say and the Church's historical teaching and practice.

      1. *How do you reckon miscarriages?* My wife and I experienced the miscarriage of a much desired pregnancy between the births of our first and second daughters. I know well the pain, the loss and disappointment that come with a miscarriage. I do not downplay or belittle those feelings. And I do not believe acknowledging that what we lost as a potential human baby minimizes the loss. It was very real and very painful. And we grieved. I also am in no doubt that the grief we experienced at the loss of a six week old embryo was not as severe as it would have been had we lost a six month old fetus or a six week old baby after birth.

      Acknowledging that the life in the early weeks and months of a pregnancy is a potential rather than actual human person with a fully human soul does not mean it is insignificant. It is still precious and sacred. So is the actual human person who bears that live and whose life, physical and otherwise is affected by it.

      Delete
    2. 2. *As for human form, I am unclear why this matters.* I suppose the place to start is by asking why Tertullian (born mid-2nd century-died after 220) , Gregory of Nyssa (330-379), Jerome (345-420), Augustine of Hippo (354-430), Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), Thomas Aquinas ((1225-1275), Alphonso Luorguri (1696-1787) (the latter five of these are considered Doctors of the Church by the Roman Catholic Church) and more recently the influential 20th century philosopher, Jacques Maritain. Or, why was the distinction between formed and unformed so significant historically for the Church in its practice of penance and reconciliation?

      They is grounded this in the understanding that a human soul needs a human body to function. Even in Heaven the soul is incomplete without the body:

      "The soul cannot have perception of Paradise without its mate, the body, its instrument and lyre." – Ephrem of Edessa (306-373, 'Hymn on Paradise'

      Just to reiterate, this is not something I came up with. This is the classic teaching of the church for most of its history.

      But, more than just a body, there needs to be a human brain with the structure to enable rationality.

      With all that, there are some questions. As you ask, what about human bodies that are missing limbs or are in other ways shaped in ways outside the norm? I do not think that one is particularly hard. In the same way we can see a dachshund and golden retriever and despite the evident differences recognize a dog., when we see a human form, even if it is missing limbs, we recognize something - someone - that is human. The general form matters. and is recognizable. That humans have been notorious in finding ways to dehumanize one another does not directly apply. People who look very much the same have been susceptible to that. I am sensitive to this having been the "body man" once for a man with cerebral palsy that had left him nearly quadriplegic. Despite his contorted, wheelchair-bound body, his was clearly and recognizably a human form. And his mind was fully intact, which made the fact that many treated him as though that was not the case infuriating.

      A different question is what to make of the fact that not all humans the same rational/cognitive capabilities. Given the emphasis the tradition has put on rationality as an inherent quality of humanness, does that mean those with mental illness, significant Intellectual disability, brain injury or things like Alzheimer's. These are, of course, not all the same. In the case of brain injury or Alzheimer's, we are talking about someone who had a "normally" functioning mind, but no longer does. People with various mental illnesses still have brains with the capacity to be rational even if the way their brains work lead to ways of thinking or behavior that seem outside "normal" rationality. The tougher case is with those who have significant intellectual disabilities. But even here, there is a brain and a mind, even if it does not function with the full range of rationality. And such people are recognizably human. I am also sensitive to this question, having served as a volunteer at the Special Olympics in Indiana and knowing family and friends who fall outside the norm of rationality.

      I do think how we talk about the life in the womb matters, as it matters how we talk about all life. And we need to always be committed to caring for those with disabilities of any kind. But holding to the classic teaching that a human body with a rational mind as the fundamental qualities of humanness does not need to mean that those whose bodies or minds are missing some components of those are not recognizably actual humans rather than potential humans.

      Delete

    3. *Anyway the 20 week statement appears to false; I implore you to research what a miscarried fetus at 10 weeks looks like. If this is too much for you, I understand and I will tell you that these babies look just like tiny fully human babies.*

      If you read more carefully, you’ll see that what I wrote, “A more significant milestone is reached around the fourteenth week at the beginning of the second trimester. At that point, the fetus looks proportionally like a newborn human baby.” It is certainly the case that it begins to look more and more like a newborn human baby in the weeks prior to that. In any event, What I was pointing out is that there are important milestones on the way. This is one of them.

      Delete
    4. 3. *I cannot agree with your point on the quickening aspect either.* As I wrote, “Due to modern scientific observation, we know that the fetus is moving before that.” My point is that “when the woman feels the life stirring within her something changes in their relationship and a sort of moral covenant is formed between them” and that marks another milestone.

      My point with identifying “milestones” is that there is an increasing, though not absolute value of the developing life in the womb. And thus, the moral gravity of abortion increases with each milestone. But it is not equivalent to the taking of a fully human life until later.

      Delete
    5. 4. *I also struggle to find merit in your point on survival rate outside the womb* I am guessing here you meant the survival rate before attachment to the womb. That was only one part of the point that the life at that early stage is not a stable entity. It was not the most important part of that point. But, the truth is I first became aware of the high rate early embryos failing to survive when reading otherwise prolife authors (more than one) who suggested that the high percentage of “failure” was problematic and suggested that we were not talking about a fully human person until at least implantation. And even the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges that it is only “probable” before that.

      Again, thank you for taking the time to engage and ask questions. I appreciate that if one starts with the assumption that we are fully human beings from conception what I have written is bound to be disappointing. But the Church has not historically started with that assumption. Nor does the Bible. What I am proposing is grounded there rather than my assumptions.

      Delete
  2. Thank you for this latest post. I love reading your work, as you take us along the thoughtful journey through this tough subject matter. ❤️

    ReplyDelete