Thank you for your response. I had not realized that development begins while the egg is still in the fallopian tube. However, I think my illustration still stands on the grounds that the status of a developing egg is still ambiguous. Without invoking the belief in an immaterial soul that enters the body at conception, we are left with something that is not recognizably human at the moment of conception, yet is fully human nine months later. There seems to be no logical basis for delimiting the non-human from the human, so we must resort to means other than logic.
I agree with your first statement, if I understand it correctly. However, again there are problems in reconciling ethics with logic. Most people believe (and I think your church agrees, if I am not mistaken) that in certain cases, such as rape or incest, abortion is permissible. Most (though not all) would stop short of insisting that a victim of rape should be forced to endure nine months of additional trauma. However, if we maintain that 1) abortion is murder and 2) it is permissible in cases of rape or incest, then we have to conclude that murder is permissible in cases of rape or incest. We would then, logically, have to allow the mother to terminate her child's life at any point, if the child is the product of a rape. This is logically consistent, but ethically untenable.
To close, I fully respect your position in regard to abortion, but respectfully submit that it is a battle that should be fought on the religious/philosophical front, not through legislation.
--Mark Borok
**********
Dear Mark,
Sorry I am so slow in replying. This is a most difficult--and crucial question.
You rightly recognize the child is "fully human nine months later." I assume you would not under any circumstance kill a newborn baby. Am I correct?
If my assumption about you is correct, then I would have to ask if you would sanction taking the life of a baby right before it is about to be born? Once again I assume you would not. If we went back one day at a time, at what point would you say it is OK to destroy it? It cannot be on the basis of appearance because there are people badly disfigured by fire and accidents and (once again) I assume you would not say it is all right to terminate their lives.
Do you see what I am getting at, Mark? I personally cannot see any cut off point except conception (fertilization)*. For that reason abortion cannot be justified even in the case of rape or incest. I know this is hard, but I remember being with a friend who picked up a lovely three year old girl. The girl clasped her arms clasped around my friend's neck. He was later talking about what a beautiful, affectionate child she was. I told him something which startled him, "That girl's mom was raped by one of her uncles." One of the reasons the mom has some measure of dignity today is because she made the hard decision to keep the baby.
By the way, Mark, you are on the right track with your logic, but the conclusion is: abortion never, not even in the case of incest or rape.
And yes, legislation is only a tiny part of the battle. But it has its importance since laws express moral values. For example, no one says, "I am against wife abuse, but I don't think there should be a law against it."
I hope you are having a good summer and that you will write again. I will try to be more prompt in replying.
Fr. Phil Bloom
P.S. I have not forgotten your other letter. I will try to respond when I have more time.
*Even though medically it may be convenient to say that "pregnancy" begins at implantation, they are really talking about a stage in the process. Implantation is sometimes called "nidation" from the Latin word for nest. It's like the egg dropping into its nest.