|
Forty years ago Pope Paul VI issued his now famous papal encyclical, Humanae Vitae, establishing the inseparability of the bonding and procreating aspects of human sexuality that need honor and respect throughout the course of marriage. The encyclical also endorsed the principle of “responsible parenthood,” but largely frowned upon all forms of contraception for Catholics. It is probably true that few Romans Catholics have actually read Pope Paul VI’s encyclical, but it remains a key, guiding light for how the Church thinks about human sexuality and birth control.
Perhaps more relevant today on how to apply this encyclical is Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s (now Pope Benedict XVI) reflections on Humanae Vitae. He cites three major objectives that the Church has in applying this encyclical:
- To insist on the value of the child.
- Not to lose sight of the inner connection between sexuality and procreation that keeps children from becoming “products” rather than the outcome of a relationship.
- To resist the illusion that humanity can resolve “great moral problems simply with techniques” rather than “morally, with a lifestyle.”
Overall, I am not an advocate of Roman Catholic theology per se. But the fact is often true that the Church has consistently been a strong advocate for life, even life in the mother’s womb. Some of the most significant critiques of abortion, euthanasia or doctor-assisted suicide have come from Catholic theologians. For that, we Protestants can be most thankful.
For that reason, on this 40th anniversary, allow me to summarize a Christian ethic of life as it relates to the fetus:
- Is the fetus a human being? At conception, all aspects of humanness, as defined by DNA, are present. Genetically, it is quite difficult to argue otherwise.
- Is the human fetus a person? This is an increasingly pressing question today. The biological term, “life,” has been exchanged for the legal term, “person.” This is a critical switch in terms because only “persons” have rights, including the right to life. Paul and John Feinberg argue in their book, Ethics for a Brave New World, that at conception the DNA strands of the embryo are species-specific. Furthermore, although the fetus is dependent upon the mother, he or she is an independent individual. Finally, there is substantial identity between the embryo, the viable fetus, the infant, the child, the adult and the elderly person (p. 58 ff.). The fetus is a “person.”
- How do the rights of the fetus relate to the rights of the mother? American culture has so totally focused on the rights of the mother that it gives no credence to the rights of the fetus. This is wrong. There must be a balance of rights. Somehow Christians must make the case for protecting the rights of the unborn child. Paul and John Feinberg have suggested a starting point:
“While it is difficult, and perhaps impossible, to convince a pro-abortionist of the personhood of the fetus, nevertheless from a purely ethical point of view it still makes sense to demand that human life should not be arbitrarily terminated, particularly when less dramatic solutions exist. Such solutions should be sought on the side of both the fetus and the mother. Having once been conceived, the fetus has no choice but to grow, just as it had no choice in its conception or its blond hair or blue eyes. Hence, the fetus is without recourse or remedy. The same is not true of the mother, who has at least three alternatives other than abortion. She can exercise initial will power by abstinence, which is grossly out of fashion today. She has the option to use contraceptives to prevent the unwanted child. And finally, given the birth of the child, the mother can allow the living but unwanted infant to be put up for adoption (p. 71).”
Fundamentally, human life is valuable and significant because it bears the image of God, the governing proposition when it comes to all life issues.
See Peter Seinfels, New York Times (2 August 2008) and James P. Eckman, Biblical Ethics, pp. 30-31. |
