Ponnuru argues that drawing any line after conception leads to a strange, unworkable duality. While specifically addressing the argument that humans acquire the right not to die when they acquire some higher level of brain function, he writes:
First: By treating human organisms and "persons" as separate, though mostly overlapping, categories, it assumes that a distinction can be made between a person and the body that person merely "inhabits." The "person" is an aware, conscious "self" that floats above the body, as a sort of ghost in the machine. An embryonic (and fetal, and infant) body comes into existence before this person does, and the person can die before the body does. But this dualism is untenable. It contradicts everyday experience: We sense and perceive, which are clearly bodily actions, but also engage in conceptual thinking, which cannot be reduced to bodily actions; and it is clearly the same subject who does both types of things. The dualist who utters his idea refutes in the act of voicing it. We are (among other things) our bodies. p.86I guess you could say he recognizes some separation when he says "engaging in conceptual thinking . . . cannot be reduced to bodily actions." So we are more than just our bodies, but also our bodies. Still it seems to me that Ponnuru decries the idea that we are somehow separable from our bodies, and that is exactly what Mormons believe: body and spirit are separate (duality). Our spirit enters our body at (or probably some time before) birth and exit our bodies at death.
Accepting this duality, Mormons can then draw a principled line after conception. The question for a Mormon is not: when does "biological" life begin, but instead when does the spirit enter the body? Drawing the line there means Mormons can allow for some abortion before the spirit enters the body, for instance in cases of rape and incest. It also means Mormons can support embryo destructive research if the embryo is destroyed before the spirit enters the body.
Still there are problems with this line. For instance, if it's okay to kill an embryo before the spirit enters, why is it not okay to have an abortion for other reasons, (like birth control) before the spirit enters the body? Also when does the spirit enter the body?
There may be an answer to the first question. Mormons believe that the we come to earth to get a body. Clearly what is forming inside the mother at conception is a body, so perhaps there is still some moral reason not to disrupt this process or destroy this body even though it doesn't contain a spirit. Perhaps the reason that abortion is "like murder" , but not actually murder, is because abortion destroys the forming body, which is clearly an important part of our souls (body and spirit together). if we are prohibiting abortion for this lesser reason, then we might also permit abortion in cases where there is compelling reason, like to find a cure for disease or to restore choice to a woman who was raped. But if this is the case, what is the compelling reason for allowing abortion in the case of incest? The mother was not denied her initial choices. Or what is the reason for allowing Mormons to use the pill? Convenient birth control doesn't seem like a great reason to allow for even pre-spirit abortions.
And the second question is harder. If we suppose that Mormons permit abortion in cases of rape and incest because the abortion happens before the spirit enters the body, Mormons should still prohibited abortion after the spirit enters the body. So when exactly does that happen? Mormons doctrine allows women who fit within one of the exceptions to make the decision to have an abortion based on their own revelation. Not exactly a bright line.
2 comments:
Somewhat random thoughts:
Ponnuru's quote is also problematic in that it assumes a given definition of consciousness, a topic that philosophers have broached for centuries without arriving at a consensus. Many non-religious people would be perfectly fine with defining consciousness as a purely mechanical (bodily) phenomenon.
I remember Elder Oaks giving a talk at BYU on abortion (mostly focusing on the issue of choice) where he cited D&C 59:6 - Thou shalt not...kill, nor do anything like unto it. He seemed to be making the point that abortion is not exactly the same as murder, which is in agreement with what you have outlined.
I'd never really thought about incest as being consensual, but then I guess they could've just left it at rape. The issue of the health of the baby might be a factor.
Are you aware of how often the pill works in the abortive manner you describe? Every month? One in ten cyles? One in 1,000? I guess it really shouldn't matter, but I'm curious. I don't think the fact that the pill can function in that manner is very common knowledge to the general public.
As for when the spirit enters the body, I'm ok with the ambiguity. If we knew the exact day it seems that information would cause a number of problems from ridicule from non Mormons to Mormons who don't fit into the exception categories justifying abortions before "The Day."
Lastly I'd say that another adverse effect of abortion (or embryonic research for that matter) can be the devaluation of life. I imagine that conveying that point was part of the intent of Ponnuru's title, and I find the point valid.
I went and read that Oaks devotional. One of the things in the talk that I didn't realize is LDS theology allows for abortion in cases when the child has an illness that will likely result in death before or not long after birth. I think that makes the incest exception even harder to justify though, because LDS doctrine already makes an exception for illness. I'm also sort of leary of this a baby's health exception to begin with.
Maybe there is no good answer for when the spirit enters the body. Maybe it happens at different times in different pregnancies. By letting women within an exception choose when to have an abortion, it kind of gives the appearance that my speculative reason for allowing abortions may not be the real church position. I get that drawing a line means the church has to defend its position, which could lead to ridicule, but--supposing there is a line--isn't the greater risk that a fully formed soul will be killed?
Your slippery slope argument is well taken, and Ponnuru does make it repeatedly. One of the arguments Ponnuru makes quite strongly is that it is very hard to draw any kind of principled line after conception that doesn't also justify infanticide or some other kind of objectionable killing. But if Mormons can draw a principled line after conception but before birth, doesn't the line defuse this argument? I mean you could argue that using a condom lead to the devaluation of life, but if you can retort, no--without conception there is no life, the argument doesn't get you very far.
Post a Comment