Well and soundly put. It is very hard to imagine anyone arguing sensibly with what is said here. It would be wonderful if this paper were widely available.

Arguing "sensibly" might be hard to imagine, but, sadly, it is not that hard at all to imagine the other side arguing nonsensibly. The problem is that they are not interested in making rational arguments or in truth -- scientific, philosophical, theological, or moral. And it is folly to try to reason with those who have abandoned the use of reason.

Look, the issue of the beginning of human life was definitively determined as a scientific matter since before the "abortion rights" movement was itself conceived. At the root of it all, they simply do not care. They are not interested in truth, they are only interested in power. It does not matter if you have infinite proofs to demonstrate that 2 plus 2 will always equal 4 if the other person is steadfastly determined to arbitrarily decide for his or her self what it might equal. It is the dictatorship of relativism.

I once made the point to my pro-choice apartment-mates that, even if they disagree, they must at least understand why I take pro-life so seriously since I believe it is the murder of large numbers of human people. They basically said that that's just my "belief" so while it's understandable that I wouldn't like abortion, there's no grounds to prevent other people (who don't believe it's a human life at stake) from having them. Before establishing the factual basis of that "belief", I asked when, in their opinion, a "pregnancy" becomes a person. One of them, completely candidly and laughing a little, said "when it's out of my body!" That's just one off-hand remark, but I think it represents the pro-choice thought process on all of this pretty well. You start with the conclusion (abortion, which kills an embryo/fetus, must remain legal) and use facts (the intentional killing of a human person is murder; murder is illegal) to reach the beginning (an embryo/fetus is not a person). It's blindly arranging an "argument" so as to be sure to get the desired result. As a result, it's pretty bulletproof to real philosophical or scientific facts and reason.

I found both Bender's and Chrissy G's comments quite cogent. However, there is something that tells me that notwithstanding all the rational arguments, nothing will intellectually convince those who propose abortion of its intrinsic disorderedness. This is a matter of the heart which is hardened since the truth of abortion's disorderedness is built into our very nature as human persons. I have often been interested in the psychological makeup of abortion proponents...what is there about them that forces them to so stridently deny the natural law? Does it come down to original sin and a heart not open to redemption and sanctifying grace? What does it say about baptized Catholics who defend abortion.

This article does an excellent job detailing the inherent reasonableness of concluding that human life begins at conception.

This is only half of the intellectual problem, though (and as Bender points out, the intellectual problem is perhaps a tenth of the problem of convincing people to act).

The other half of the intellectual problem (and I'm afraid the Holy Spirit is going to have to move those who are intellectually convinced, once they are intellectually convinced, into action) is the issue of sentience or awareness or self-awareness (these three terms mean slightly different things, so I include all three here).

Some say that the Church's teaching is confused or confusing regarding abortion because they've been told that Aquinas believed the human organism was "ensouled" some time later than conception.

The modern mind, especially in the liberal Catholic, grasps at this detail like a man in deep water grasping at a life-ring. "Surely it can't be particularly wrong to crush out just any life. I do not feel particularly guilty when I step on an ant; I feel positively exultant when I manage to kill one of those damned palmetto bugs -- you know, the giant flying roaches that arrogantly invade one's rented beach house at Hilton Head or Sea Island -- and so I conclude that killing living organisms is not intrinsically evil."

There are problems here already, logically, but the modern mind continues, "So the question is whether human life is different, and if so, why. Is it because of genetics alone?"

We answer this question by asking, is it okay to casually kill E.T., or Koko the talking gorilla? In each case, moral reason balks: E.T. shouldn't be exterminated in the midst of phoning home, because he, although not human, is sentient life. We think it likely he is "ensouled." And Koko paints, dreams, and has the sign-language vocabulary of a young human child, so she again meets some minimal sentience requirement. And neither of these is genetically human.

(Yes, yes, E.T. is fictional. But it is not inconceivable that intelligent life may exist elsewhere in the universe, and if it does, it's worth asking whether, assuming they're friendly and not lizard-men wearing masks, whether we'd hunt extra-terrestrials for food, grant them political asylum, or catechize them in preparation for a Christian baptism. C.S.Lewis' "Religion and Rocketry" essay is helpful on these points.)

"So," reasons the human mind, "it's not the genetic ancestry of the being, but its sentience. Yet the consciousness of the unborn is very problematic, even in the last few weeks before birth. And one presumes that there is zero sentience or consciousness in the first few weeks prior to the development of a nervous system! So why can't abortion be permitted, at least in that narrow time-window?"

If we wish to carry on the debate on secular terms -- to beard the modernist lion in his den -- then this question must be adequately answered without recourse to revealed truth.

A "secular" answer for that second question will work together with the genetic "life" reasoning of the essay, to cut the pro-choice argument to ribbons, as each blade of a pair of scissors works with the other.

But without a "natural reasoning" answer for that second question, we're not even cutting through the clutter.

I myself don't have a good argument for this, so I rely on the church's teaching; that is, on revealed reasoning. But I'd love it if someone could come up with a natural-reason argument. It'd make debate with those who don't trust revealed truth a lot more fruitful.

Anyone want to propose a good argument? I'm listening.

Think about the the vast number of women who have had abortions at any point in their lives, and then expand that out to those who know/love someone who had an abortion. I would bet the number is close to 100% in America.

They just cannot believe that life begins at any other point other than after when they aborted.

To do otherwise would create a state of cognitive dissonance, causing great discomfort, and therefore must be avoided at all costs. It makes sense if you think about it from a perspective of protecting their own mental health.

With regard to the arguments; does anyone use the concept of "conscience" any longer?

Ann, I think you're exactly right.

Avoiding "cognitive dissonance" to maintain mental health -- of a kind -- is common enough practice.

I don't believe it's always successful, mind you.

A presumably Christian (tho' not Catholic) man of my acquaintance was fed up with his marriage. So he got involved with a woman who was herself in the middle of a bad marriage and looking for a shoulder to cry on. Eventually, though he didn't divorce his wife, he abandoned his wife and kids and moved into an apartment, where he got sexually involved with the other woman and used a combination of his own income, and some assets his wife had inherited from her parents, to fund his new lifestyle.

Eventually his wife felt forced to divorce him, although being a Christian (Baptist, on the devout end of the spectrum) she didn't believe in the propriety of divorce and actually let him bleed down her assets for a couple of years (!) in this state-of-affairs (!!) before finally getting an attorney.

Naturally once his wife divorced him, he married the other woman. I'm told the couple served communion at the wedding -- themselves, I mean; with their own hands. (Hard to imagine a more extra-ordinary minister, eh?)

The interesting thing about this family is that the "cognitive dissonance" -- there's a fair bit of it! -- hasn't left anyone unscathed. I know the kids pretty well: The elder has trouble not being bitter, years after the fact, and I think the younger has trouble taking spiritual things very seriously, after observing the behavior of her father.

But the man himself is most affected. He is, it seems to me, just a little bit insane, in the sense that he can't think straight on certain matters, and frequently says things in a pompous or pious way that are obviously, crazily wrong.

This is especially true about spiritual matters (closest, that is, to the heart of his "cognitive dissonance"). He apparently reads the Bible a lot and lectures his long-suffering friends and relatives about it. His son recently told me that his dad's latest "discovery" from the Bible was that the early Christians didn't teach baptism at all, but actively discouraged it. (Apparently the man went up to his Methodist minister and in a pious manner lectured the Reverend Doctor about this revelation; I hope that minister's seminary training included a course on suffering fools gladly.)

My point is that this man would never, I expect, consider the question of whether Jesus taught that one may not remarry after a divorce, unless one's former spouse is dead, without thereby committing adultery.

It would be far too much cognitive dissonance for a man who couldn't deal honestly with the fact that Jesus forbade adultery in the first place.

But in the attempt to justify his actions -- to avoid the cognitive dissonance which would result if he faced them honestly -- he enshrined a denial of the truth, which is just another form of cognitive dissonance, as a demonic stronghold in his soul.

He thereby became a sort of high-functioning lunatic. He sounds sane enough to keep his job; I guess his financial planning skills are so segregated from the cognitive dissonance in his mind that they are unaffected. But there's an odd kind of scream in the irrational notions he sometimes propounds. One wonders what another unrepentant decade in that state will do to the rest of his mind, y'know?

So: Cognitive dissonance, being avoided, is sometimes thereby embraced in another way. It is a sort of cancer of the mind. The surgery direct confrontation, tho' more initially painful, is more humane than avoiding the issue and letting the mind slowly die.

Interesting example RC. In your example, the man's actions continue to affect other people. Abortion affects, well, the target, who is easily forgotten as they are not here anymore to complain.

I've seen both sides when it comes to abortion. I've seen women who are quite mentally healthy by all accounts, who have had abortions in the past. They must maintain that their actions did not kill a person. I don't see it eating away at them, I hate to say. Of course, in a culture, where abortion is so common, this is entirely reasonable. They are getting plenty of assurances that what they did is just fine, and even good.

I've also seen the other side, where the woman (and her accomplices) realize that what they did, did in fact take a life. They continue to go through a very long and painful process of guilt and repentance that seems to be neverending.

In terms of the individuals, I'm not sure who is better off to be honest.

Let me offer two important cautions.

First, that denial is part of the human psychological condition, not that of liberals alone. Certainly some liberals adhere to a strong pro-life view, and many are more confirmed in being pro-life than many conservatives.

To think that because one holds the "right" position on abortion doesn't mean that one can't be in denial of some other aspect of either one's emotional or intellectual life. Everything that has been said here about liberals applies on other issues, some equally grave, with conservatives.

My second caution is a biological one. While we can say that conception produces human life by the broadest definition, it does not necessarily produce "a" human life. The fact is that after conception, multiple zygotes may result or multiples formed may merge or be absorbed.

My personal stance is that this stage is to be respected no less than an individual fetus. But I would caution Mr Baruzzini and others on reading into science something that's simply not there.

Conception usually, but not always, produces a fertilized egg that will become a unique human being.

Todd, thanks for the comments. I don't like to comment on my own articles, but I did want to clarify --

Though I did not get into it in the article, the principles were formulated so that they apply even during the exceptional events you mention. The two criteria, independence and intrinsic potency, apply whether the embryo is created by a normal conception event, an unusual one (e.g. twins), or even a completely artificial one, like cloning, which doesn't even involve a sperm at all. In all cases, by these criteria the moment there is a singular biological entity with internal capacity for ordered growth and development, it is a human being.

I recommend reading Dr. Condic's paper, too, as it goes into far more detail than we have space for here.

I think it's important to note (and RC sorta referred to this) that the arguments made by Biden and Pelosi elided the notion of <i>life</i> and <i>soul</i>, saying that there was debate on when a soul was present in the body. The core of the Catholic teaching, however, is one of the sacredness of <i>human life</i>, regardless of the state of the soul.

Reason is correct on abortion. No more splitting hairs: it's a baby. It's human life. Once someone starts submitting their life to the teaching and authority of the Catholic Church on faith and morals, everything beautifully falls in to place.

The pro-abortionist and pro-choicer MUST deny the life and humanity of the unborn. They must deny it to the bitter end, regardless of any and all scientifically undeniable proof.

Because if they do not deny it, if they finally admit outwardly what they know inwardly to be true, then they have just convicted themselves of complicity in the greatest mass murder the world has ever known. To admit that the entity in the womb is alive, independent, and human from the moment of conception would be to admit that they are themselves monsters that make Hitler and Stalin pale in comparison. To admit the truth is to drown themselves in the blood of a couple hundred million innocents slain worldwide. Hence, since that is a prospect too horrible to contemplate, they MUST deny the life and humanity of the unborn.

And it is at this point that the Church has something unique to offer. Science condemns the pro-abortionists and pro-choicers, but the Church offers the forgiveness and redemption of Christ for even so great a crime as the deaths of hundreds of millions. The Church allows them to admit the truth and yet overcome the horrors of self-condemnation from the admitting that truth.

The Church allows them to admit the truth and thereby sets them free. But so long as they deny the truth, they are not free, but stand condemned and subject to the tyranny of the unreason and illogic of relativism.

Speaking of "arguing sensibly," this op-ed appeared in thw Wichita (Kansas) Eagle earlier this month. Thank you Michael, for your clarity.

HUMAN BEINGS MORE THAN A STRAND OF DNA
BY GERALD H. PASKE

The Catholic bishops and some Protestant groups recently have claimed that science shows that life begins at conception. From this they conclude that science and, hence, human reason itself is sufficient to prove that all abortions are morally wrong. The intent of their argument is to extend their anti-abortion view beyond the faithful to the population as a whole, regardless of faith.

Their argument fails.

Let us first consider a point of agreement. Something very important happens at conception: A unique DNA structure is created within a single cell -- the zygote. Beyond question, this is the biological beginning of what, given adequate development, will become a unique human being. But neither this DNA nor this single cell is a human being. We human beings are much more than a strand of DNA, and much more than a single cell.

Human beings are very complex organisms consisting of cells, tissues and organs arranged in a systematic manner. It is as organisms that we gain a right to life. As organisms we are slowly constructed throughout the gestation period. That is why early abortions are less morally serious than late ones.

It is significant that the bishops never explain why the zygote should have a right to life. The failure to consider this question suggests that the bishops are surreptitiously depending upon the notion of ensoulment, which -- if it occurs, and especially if it occurs at conception -- would give the zygote a right to life. But "soul" is a theological concept, and the exact time it occurs is a theological claim. (It is only recently that the Catholic Church has decided that it occurs at conception.)

Religious faith depends upon theology, but theology is independent of science and human reason. So long as some people depend upon denominational faith to settle the abortion issue, there will never be total or even majority agreement. But if we set aside denominational faith and consider what human reason has to say about the basis of the right to life, we can reach agreement.

There are certain circumstances in which we treat preserving the lives of certain human beings as less imperative than others. Briefly put, these are cases in which a patient has permanently lost rational consciousness. In such cases, there is no obligation to preserve that patient's life, and we may remove life-support systems and let death take its course. Since such patients still have their complete DNA, it is obvious that DNA is not relevant. What is relevant is the permanent loss of rational consciousness, and it is equally obvious that it is the possession of our unique rational consciousness that gives rise to the human right to life.

Our DNA structure does not differ significantly from that of other animals -- certainly not enough to give us, but not them, a right to life. But our rational consciousness does.

Rational consciousness as the source of the right to life generates many questions with regard to both the beginnings and end of life. Thus from the point of view of human reason, the question of abortion remains a very serious one. But the question cannot be answered by the mere fact that our biological life begins at conception.

Gerald H. Paske is an emeritus professor of philosophy at Wichita State University and the author of "Why the Fundamentalist Right Is so Fundamentally Wrong." [/color]

A couple of questions:

One argument put forth against the understanding of life beginning at conception is the fact that many - possibly even most, according to some studies - fertilized eggs are lost without ever implanting in the uterus, either metabolizing back into the mother's body or passed through menstruation. Of course, their is a fundamental difference between death that is human-induced (abortion) and that occurs due to natural causes, such as miscarriage or infant mortality. However, the loss of fertilized eggs prior to pregnancy is not analagous to these situations in one important sense It is not a result of deficiency or natural disaster, but is simply part of the entirely normal, healthy functioning of a woman's reproductive system. (One could even suggest that it is a characteristic fact of how nature functions - far more "seed" lives are produced than will ever grow to maturity, just as a tree produces far more spores than will ever become trees.) I, for one, do not know how to reconcile this with the belief that every life is uniquely created by God beginning at conception, despite the scientific and philosophical consistency of what has been said above.

Also, how does one respond to the argument that, even if a fetus does have human rights, no human being has the right to enslave the body of another person against that individual's will? One could retort, of course, that the majority of pregnancies are in fact the result of choices, but it is somewhat more difficult to argue in those situations where this is not the case. (I am not speaking simply of rape; remember that in certain cultures it is entirely the husband's, not the wife's, decision when sexual intercourse will take place and how many children she is expected to bear.)

A couple of questions:

One argument put forth against the understanding of life beginning at conception is the fact that many - possibly even most, according to some studies - fertilized eggs are lost without ever implanting in the uterus, either metabolizing back into the mother's body or passed through menstruation. Of course, their is a fundamental difference between death that is human-induced (abortion) and that occurs due to natural causes, such as miscarriage or infant mortality. However, the loss of fertilized eggs prior to pregnancy is not analagous to these situations in one important sense It is not a result of deficiency or natural disaster, but is simply part of the entirely normal, healthy functioning of a woman's reproductive system. (One could even suggest that it is a characteristic fact of how nature functions - far more "seed" lives are produced than will ever grow to maturity, just as a tree produces far more spores than will ever become trees.) I, for one, do not know how to reconcile this with the belief that every life is uniquely created by God beginning at conception, despite the scientific and philosophical consistency of what has been said above.

Also, how does one respond to the argument that, even if a fetus does have human rights, no human being has the right to enslave the body of another person against that individual's will? One could retort, of course, that the majority of pregnancies are in fact the result of choices, but it is somewhat more difficult to argue in those situations where this is not the case. (I am not speaking simply of rape; remember that in certain cultures it is entirely the husband's, not the wife's, decision when sexual intercourse will take place and how many children she is expected to bear.)

Ann, I agree with you completely.

I have been pondering this a lot lately, and I believe that the pro-life movement doesn't stand a chance UNLESS it reaches out lovingly to women who have had abortions. I do believe that is absolutely critical to the cause. Slogans like "Abortion stops a beating heart" are true, but for the woman who has had an abortion and who cannot let herself acknowledge what she's done, that kind of slogan just makes it worse. A lot of women just shut down at that point and will not listen to the prolife arguments. It becomes easier, at that point, for women who have had abortions to lump all prolifers together as religious freaks/antifeminists/etc. and to dismiss them and their message.

There are great organizations that do reach out to women and help them heal(Rachel's Vineyard, for one), and I applaud their efforts. They play such a critical and vital role.

I also think that sometimes, prolife organizations that are not tied to religious faiths (like Feminists for Life, say) can be more successful with lots of women. They can't be dismissed as a group of religious fanatics.

I have found from reading articles that many women who have abortions are willing to admit that it is a baby. In one article I read (I believe it was in the Washington Post some time ago) the mother had the abortion because her baby had Down's Syndrome. There were actually quotes from her saying that she felt this was best for her and her baby. In cases like this (and others in which the woman didn't think she could raise a baby at that time in her life, but couldn't bear to give a baby up for adoption), I think of the two mothers that Solomon judged between. The mother of the baby was willing to give up her son to preserve his life, but the other mother would rather have the child dead than let anyone else have it. Many people acknowledge that it is a baby, but argue that it doesn't matter.

In my experience working with women in crisis pregnancy as well as post-abortive women, there is both apathy and ignorance. There is no woman who doesn't know she is carrying some kind of life. The most ignorant simply don't think it's really quite human yet, and that's why showing pictures of the developing fetus can make a huge impact.

Adoption is the toughest choice of all... I've heard many women say that it was between abortion or keeping the child because after carrying a child to term they would never be able to say goodbye. And if they really couldn't see a way to raise a child, they chose abortion. Not without sadness, but with a belief that it was the best decision in a tragic situation.

The fact is, a child's life is always dependent on his mother's "yes." Apart from chaining a woman down, you can not force a woman to give birth. And throughout the centuries, some have always sought ways to rid themselves of pregnancy - for lots of reasons.

For those who think abortion is the better route for themselves and their children, there is only persuasion, and the promise of support.

Many could carry the child and give it up for adoption, and while that might be the right decision, it could certainly bring more pain. We minimize the pain of adoption for the birth mother.

To me, the ideal situation would be where a child would be kept by the mother and the extended family, in some sort of supportive, shared environment, with the financial, emotional and logistical support of grandparents, aunts, uncles etc. But in our society today and our love of rugged individualism, I many women have that support.

Regarding apathy not ignorance, there was that whole Naomi Wolf theory a while back that women needed to acknowledge that is was a life, and certainly ultrasound technology makes that more and more clear every day, but that the life had to die, and so we should mourn it. Her ideas, while a tiny step forward, never went to far in pro-choice circles.

Sorry, that should be many women don't have that support.

What does the Church teach about embryonic transplantation?

That is to say, if a woman was pregnant and wished not to carry the child to term, and another woman was not pregnant and wanted to adopt, and the fetus could be transferred from the one to the other so that the second woman both adopted and gave birth to the child, is this permitted under Church teaching?

If not, why not? Is it purely because the technology doesn't exist to make the transfer reliably safe for the child? Or is it for some more fundamental reason unalterable by technological changes?

R.C., Your question is related to embryo adoption, which, as I understand it, the Church hasn't made any definitive statement on thus far. The recent Vatican document "Dignitas Personae," says that despite the good intentions behind prenatal adoption to allow frozen embryos to be born, the issue is subject to "medical, psychological and legal problems."

This is not a conclusive position about the morality of the proposal. I don't myself see how the legal or psychological issues would be much different from regular adoption. But the technological issues and medical challenges involved would be serious and certainly need to be considered.

A woman carrying a "transferred" fetus or embryo would have to be subjected to medical procedures and various hormones to prepare her body to carry the child to term. This is potentially problematic, but not necessarily immoral.

There are untold numbers of embryos living in frozen limbo-land. It seems rather important to pursue an appropriate pro-life response. The Church will no doubt continue to ponder this issue in the days to come.

I think one of the concerns of embryo adoption that may need to be considered is what it would encourage. Would people become more comfortable creating these free-floating human beings if they feel they could just be adopted? There would not be enough noble future mothers able and willing to carry and birth all of these embryos, while at the same time there could be an increase of the number of embryos remaining frozen etc than there was in the first place. I believe this to be one possible question of what might need to be resolved, before the Church would be willing to make a definitive statement.

You're right. And I'm not sure why Church leaders don't speak more loudly about the immorality of creating "excess" embryos. We all need to. It should be illegal to create embryos that will not be implanted.

But the ones who already exist, what to do about them? Leave them in frozen limbo? These are human beings, souls. We have to respond to their existence.

<i>This article does an excellent job detailing the inherent reasonableness of concluding that human life begins at conception.</i>

The life/soul distinction isn't really philosophically tenable. At least not insofar as many who put it forward attempt to use St. Thomas Aquinas as support for their position.

It is true that St. Thomas, following the received embryology of his day, did not believe that ensoulment happened some few months after conception. What is never mentioned is that, given St. Thomas' understanding of the relationship between body and soul, this means that there was no human life until after ensoulment.

The soul is the substantial form of the body. This means that the soul makes the body be the kind of being that it is and grants to it all the powers that it possesses. Now, a human being is a rational animal, which means that it possesses a rational soul, from which stem its powers of intellect and will. But, since the soul is the substantial form of the body, this rational soul is also the origin of a man's vegetative and animal powers, i.e. the powers of life, reproduction, growth, nutrition, sensation and local motion.

Now, in the received embryology of the day, the life in the womb first possessed only a vegetative soul. Thus it possessed only the powers of vegetative life, nutrition, growth. After some development this vegetative soul was replaced by an animal soul. Thus the being no longer had simply vegetative life, but animal life. Thus, in addition to the powers of nutrition and growth it now began to develop the powers of sensation and local motion, as seen through the development of sense organs and limbs. Finally, when this animal development had reached a fitting stage, God would infuse the being with an immortal, rational soul. Animal life would now be replaced by human life, and the rational soul would be the origin not only of the powers of nutrition, growth, sensation and local motion, but also of the powers of intellect and will.

As this brief sketch hopefully makes clear, there was no human life before the infusion of an immortal, rational, human soul. For to have a human life is to be a human being, to be a human being is to be a rational animal, and to be a rational animal is have an immortal, rational soul.

Thus those who would use St. Thomas as cover for their pro-abortion positions demonstrate only that they know nothing of St. Thomas. For in St. Thomas there can only be human life were matter is informed by an immortal, rational soul. If it can be demonstrated that human life begins at conception, then, for St. Thomas, it would be demonstrated that a human soul is has been infused by God and is present at the moment of conception. To say otherwise would be to imply a duality between body and soul that is entirely foreign to the thought of St. Thomas.

An interesting note: The Council of Vienna formally declared that "whoever shall obstinately presume in turn to assert, define, or hold that the rational or intellective soul is not the form of the human body in itself and essentially must be regarded as a heretic" (Denzinger, 30th ed., no. 481). The conclusion that can be drawn from this pronouncement and the brief philosophical sketch given above I will leave to the reader.

I think Ann has a really good point. Reaching out to women who have had abortions is one think, but when you add in all the people who know and love those women, it's hard to conceptualize how to reach them. A woman who, years after the fact, is in denial of what her abortion truly was may be "reachable," but it would be much more difficult, I think, to ever convince, say, her grown children, of the moral implications of abortion, considering what it would mean about their mother. It's sometimes much easier to admit that you've done something wrong than to admit that someone you love has.