Don't You Understand That Thing Inside You Is Alive?

Thanks to Al Kimel of Pontifications, J-Tron of the Propaganda Box, and the Salty Vicar (now known as Gawain de Leuw) the fire is hot on the issue of abortion and ECUSA. J-Tron is worth reading. Al Kimel is worth reading, too. Just ignore that part where he thinks being in communion with the Bishop of Rome gives him some authority to decide what the Church is. The Salty Vicar is a bit of a muddle, because he has become too incensed at the political pro-life lobby to give an objective reading of the situation.

OK, I have a confession to make. I'm pro-life. If you were to send me a petition empowering Congress to define the beginning of human life as some point between conception and birth, you would get it signed forthwith. You also might see me trying to tack on some sort of rider involving universal health care. An America with healthcare for everyone who needs it and without abortion is a dream of mine.

My other confession is that I am not particularly loud about being pro-life. My parents are pro-choice. My school leaned pro-choice. My churches generally have been pro-choice. My present church's vestry passed a resolution about it. Put that on the chalkboard as reason #1 I might have to leave ILEOS.

But I think the reason I am not particularly loud about being pro-life is that it remains a purely academic issue for me. I've never been the cause of involuntary pregnancy (I prefer this to unplanned and unwanted, because pregnancies are rather difficult to plan and can be wanted at any time, but it's only voluntary pregnancy if you really wanted to get pregnant.) I've never known anyone involuntarily pregnant. OK, that's not true. I've known a few women who have pleasantly surprised by involuntary pregnancy. But I've never known anyone who's ever told me they were going to have an abortion. Perhaps, it is written on my face, "This man will try to talk you out of it and may volunteer to be your Lamaze coach to boot." I've always liked Lamaze. The only time abortion becomes non-academic for me is at the ballot box, where it seems pretty pointless.

What is it that Creed says? "Only in America...we kill the unborn to make ends meet." John Wilkins has something right. Abortion is a sign that we don't want to spend money on children. We don't want to spend money on their food, their clothing, their healthcare, and their primary, secondary, and tertiary educations. In the latter days of the Roman Republic, there is some indication that the aristocratic birthrate declined. My usual explanation for this is that the cost of a political career had spun so out of control that the expense required to produce two consuls could cripple the family finances. And remember that infanticide was legal at Rome. This is clearly not the entirety of the explanation, since reproduction wasn't very easy in those days anyway. But when the birthrate of the most well-fed women in a society declines precipitously, something must be going on.

But mourning the dissimulation of the powers that be is not a sufficient end to one's thinking. If the kid is alive, there is no excuse to end its life. You can't kill your born children to minimize costs, why should you be able to kill your unborn children? That's the core issue. Everything else is commentary and excuse.

What Rev. Mr. Wilkins should have said is this: We live in a deeply sinful society full of racial and economic inequity and thus iniquity. Young African-American women disproportionately abort their babies, because they are the segment of our female population that is least well-educated, least well-employed, and has the least ties to family and a social support network. In some places, this only has been true for about a generation. This about the same period in which we have had legal abortion. The reduction of abortion rates in the 1990s coincides with the widespread use of long-term intravenous birth control devices, which are cheaper over the long-term and easier to obtain (in some sense) than oral birth control. You may laugh. But when I lived in Philadelphia during the 1990s, these devices were big news for young African-American women. In addition, the 1990s were a time of economic prosperity. A rising tide is a Kolgomorov cascade for all boats, which in non-science talk, implies that a rising tide lifts the higher boats to a much greater degree than the low boats.

This is not to say that all abortions are by African-American women, but it is such a great disproportion that the greatest common ground between me, Alan Keyes, Maya Keyes (his famously lesbian daughter), and her ex-girlfriend is that abortion has been involuntarily genocidal for African-Americans. Involuntary, only because the policymakers have been reading the demography for a generation (and have been doing little about it).

At the same time, our society continues to fail children, especially those with one or no suitable parents or guardians. We slash their healthcare benefits, slash their food aid, spend too little on their education (especially in this state), and keep them in a variety of unsuitable living situations. A good foster parent is a blessing from God. A good adoptive family is two. And I want to thank all of the families, Christian and otherwise, who have given temporary and permanent hospitality to the least in our midst. But there aren't enough. There is a theory, which might be the stuff of ius naturale , that infertility and homosexuality are nature's way of providing supplementary caregivers. Thus, I am especially incensed at the potential iniquity of denying partnered gay couples the ability to adopt foster children. And those who are worried about instability just can get into line with those who support legalizing civil fratrimony and sororimony. For those who are fertile, I would urge them to consider the halakhic interpretation of the command of God "to be fruitful and multiply" and limit one's childbearing to one boy and one girl (if God wills it) at the greater mitzvah . If you want more children, consider adoption. If we are to end abortion, up to one million more children a year may need homes. Christians are commanded by Christ to give food and shelter to the least among us as we would Christ. Hmm... Well, it's an idea.

Our society continues to fail parents. Throughout the country, there are workplace cultures in which parents are looked down upon or feel obligated to spend more time away from their families to establish their equal partnership in the "team." There remains something called, "the corporate mommy track." Good daycare is so hard to find. I will admit that we may have to rethink the two-income household. But I would argue that we really may have to rethink the traditional "office" workplace. With a little bit more equipment and software, I could work from home. I presently am a student, who does rather sophisticated climatological research. I'm not arguing for complete telecommuting, but I think reduction of the hours of "face time" required in white-collar professions will free up some "quantity time" for children.

In other occupations, we must continue to insist on 40 hour weeks and paid overtime at a living wage. I swear that the only thing Walmart wouldn't do to externalize its labor costs would be to require its female employees abort. The list could go on and on.

The reason Episcopalians (either pro-choice or pro-life) tend to be more reponsive to "social concerns" about abortion is that we have a strong theological commitment to seeing that no person nor moral action exists in vacuo . This is a different thing than saying all moral judgments are subjective, because being able to observe matters in context is the truest moral objectivity. I cite the authority of the Angelic Doctor on fornication, who says that the only difference between licit sex and simple fornication is the relationship and intention of the partners. And because no moral action exists in isolation, it is hard for some of us to argue for a legal ban on abortion. For in an iniquitous society, we recognize that abortion nearly always arises from a distorted act of love. Love, as the Pope hopefully will say on Wednesday, consists in seeking the good of the object of one's love. The woman who aborts almost always seems to think: how is this child going to live? It would be bad for this child to be born. Anne Lamott, for instance, only has her Sam, because when she thought about aborting again, her church community stepped in and said that they would do all in their power to support that child before and after it was born. The distortion of love occurs when we do not know the true good of our beloved. The good of a rational being is not "never to be born" as Sophocles said (the Preacher suggests similarly in a somewhat different context in Eccl. 6:3-5), but it is to seek to know and be known within the marvelous creation of Almighty God and to partake eventually in the new creation that is to come through the victory of Christ Jesus. The second requires regeneration and sanctification. But the first just requires a little caution and a bit of painful pushing.

Rev. Mr. Wilkins says that views like mine do not respect the consciences of women. I am afraid my lack of respect for the consciences of others stems from a lack of confidence in my own. Like Paul, I constantly feel and often yield to the yearning of my flesh to do ill to myself, others, and God for some momentary satisfaction. I am fortunate that God and my neighbor are so merciful to pass over most of my faults in this regard. But it is because I know my conscience is so poor that I am willing to tell women the truth of what they would be doing if they aborted. I would wish to offer them alternatives.

I also have little respect for the consciences of the men who are co-heirs of iniquity. From what I understand, they are the ones who typically first suggest abortion. Although the archetypal abortion story involves the matter being kept secret from the father, this appears to be a myth to salve the conscience. The boyfriend offers to pay. The boyfriend offers to drive. As far as I am concerned, the boyfriend should be driving to the prenatal appointments, the Lamaze classes, and the adoption agency (if necessary). The boyfriend should be paying a half-share of the costs of the baby being born. My driving instructor used to say that you should drive a car seeing all of the cars as your money and your car as fire. If we are to be so iniquitous and churlish as to reduce babies to money, I think every heterosexually active man should take a similar viewpoint. All contraception can fail, after all.

What my social conscience does recognize is that bans on abortion per se are legally and socially reprehensible legislation. They do nothing to remove the fog of the distorted love women have for their embryos. Moreover, abortion laws do not recognize the truth they supposedly acknowledge. Although the consequences of putting the old common-law principle of quickening into effect or similar efforts would be dire, I might be amenable (if my other concerns were addressed) to a crime of "statutory murder," which made it a misdemeanor to cause death to an embryo of a certain age. But unfortunately, there is one ontological problem that arises from such a definition.

On the Ensoulment of Human Creatures

First, there is no civilly objective definition to the beginning of human life. However, I do believe Congress or a state legislature has the right to set the definition of human life arbitrarily. The age of sexual consent is arbitrary. The age of suffrage is arbitrary. There are no objective ways to decide when someone is able to consent to sex or to vote. Every distinction American statutory law makes about age is arbitrary. Unlike Shariah, we do not use puberty as an indication of anything.

Second, most views on the beginning of life talk about "ensoulment." It is yet to be a settled principle of the Magisterium (I think) or of evangelical Christian theology, but the burden of opinion on "ensoulment" states that it happens at conception. I respectfully disagree along with other Anglican moral theologians (well, that's what ++Peter Carnley says).

In the interest of full disclosure, the consequences of "ensoulment" being defined at conception are rather significant. Chemical contraception would become a deadly weapon. And embryonic "stem cell" research would be illegitimate so clearly from its means that its ends would be of no consequence.

Roman Catholics would say, "Why should you care? The Fathers were against contraception." Ah, yes. The classical Fathers certainly were against contraception. Reading various Patristic texts cited by Roman Catholics on this issue, I have noticed three things. 1. Contraception was rather dangerous in the ancient world. Its use might sterilize women against their will, because their husbands insisted. I agree that a husband or wife who insists on the sterility of a marriage against the will of the partner diminishes its sacramental quality. 2. Contraception became a license for men to have sex with prostitutes or concubines more readily. From what I can tell, fornication is the problem in this case, not what makes it easier. 3. Contraception of various methods was said to kill "potential children," whereas abortion killed "active children." The Fathers were basing this assertion on Greek medical theory, in which the seed of the man essentially was the clay from which the child was built (conservation of mass being a poor consideration in medical science of the day). Thus, a man who wasted semen in any way was wasting the material from which the soul was made, too. If we held to the principles of the Fathers, even having unprotected sex would be an act of mass murder greater than Hitler and Stalin's entire careers. NFP would be as horrific as artificial methods. Let's stop the logical contradictions here.

From the time of the classical Fathers to the invention of the microscope, opinions on the beginning of human life seem to have varied. The broad consensus of the medievalists, based on evidence from the penitentials, was forty days. Although I suspect the medievalists would have had different things to say about intentionally causing a miscarriage before forty days, their line of argument would be similar to that of the classical Fathers but they would be less certain about the medicine. The invention of the microscope had interesting consequences for moral theology. Without the Jesuits discovering "homunculi," we would never have heard the wonderful song of Monty Python fame, "Every Sperm Is Sacred."

Thus, I think the question of ensoulment must be "reassessed." Take that look of abject horror of your face. We will take two approaches, since I just nixed the ontology of Tradition. We will first consider a Biblical argument for the beginning of human life. Then we will present a supplementary argument from reason.

Being pro-life at a pro-choice parish, I have to hear every once in a while that the Bible says nothing about abortion. And this is true insofar as the only directly juridical passage is Exodus 21:22-25, which mandates that anyone who strikes a woman and causes her to miscarry owes a fine to her husband. There are some very interesting property relations suggested here, but I'll pass over it. Reason tells us that the question to pose to Scripture is not directly juridical. We want to know when a human being gets a soul. In my view, the most relevant passage to this issue is not anything in the Psalms, but three passages in the Old Testament and one in the New Testament. The Old Testament passages are Genesis 2:7, Genesis 9:4, and Ezekiel 37:1-14. In the first, God breathes on the dust of the earth and Adam becomes a living creature. In the second, Noah is forbidden to eat from which blood has not been drained, because "the life of the creature is in the blood." In the third, bones are symbolically animated from the wind coming from all directions. In the New Testament, we see a similar idea in the effective chrismation of the Apostles by the Risen Lord in John 20, "Then he breathed on them, saying, 'Receive the Holy Spirit.'"

The suggestion of all of these passages is life is sacred and that the medium of life is somehow located in the breath and in the blood. Medicine now knows that blood and air come to the zygote through the mother at implantation in the uterine wall. Respiration (beyond some export of wastes) is very unlikely in the first fourteen days of development. Moreover, blood exchange is impossible. The other key to these passages is that the animating quality of breath has its ultimate agency in God but is potentially communicable. Our mothers, by giving us breath, become the source of our lives. Some were arguing on Pontificator that the details of the Incarnation had some bearing on this question. The instinct seems right to me, but our ignorance is great. Jesus would have been conceived in a very interesting condition, because His body would have been animated as Adam was, by the very breath of God. Thus, one of the Gospels names both Jesus and Adam the sons of God. But the concept of synergy implies that the fullness of of His human nature was imparted by his mother, not by the provision of her seed (for the Fathers would not have agreed on this), but because she was more than a straw through which water passed. That human nature was imparted when Jesus came into contact with the circulation of her breath and her blood. From the moment, her oxygen touched His cells, He was a human being. Some Anglican moral theology comes to this position from the argument that twinning can occur at any time before implantation, thus ensuring that only implanted zygotes or blastocytes (my embryology terms aren't stellar, I'm afraid) have unique identities. The fact that the onset of cellular respiration coincides with this event is no coincidence in my mind.

From a scientific perspective, we are at a loss with regard to this issue. I tried to explain the immortality of the soul to one my colleagues recently. It's beyond the ken of our methods to detect. But let's make a quick thermodynamic argument. Life only arises because there is a potential for systemic entropy to increase in the approximated closed Earth-Sun system while life acts to minimize entropy. This allowance for a large production of negative entropy by life on Earth arises from the large difference in temperature between the Sun and the Earth. Hence, the most objective definition for life anyone can come up with is that it resists entropy or produces negative entropy. Before the concept of entropy was discovered, Joseph Priestley, the English chemist and Nonconformist preacher, noted that the reversibility of reactions, which the existence of entropy limits, was a foretaste of the resurrection of the body. From a thermodynamic perspective, the immediate result of conception and its sources do not differ substantially in entropy production. The blastocyte depends on the stored nutrients of the sperm and ovum to live until implantation. Now, it could be argued that the embryo is dependent on the negative entropy production of its mother during most of gestation, since it cannot breathe independently. However, the implanted zygote's cells do have the ability to export waste and obtain oxygen from the environment (its mother). Although its dependence does not cease, it is hard to find any other moment when it can be said to be producing negative entropy by its own will. Michael Liccione might call such an argument sophistical, but it addresses the issues I think are important.

QEDC

With these matters addressed, let us consider a couple of other important matters. First, J-Tron complains that the only Episcopal pro-life group is anti-homosexual. wb+ insists that homosexuality and abortion are somehow connected. Such a view depends on an uncritical reading of the Fathers, which I have rejected. Even if homosexual acts were objectively immoral, they would not be a form of abortion. Life doesn't work that way. Even Al Kimel says that it is one thing to bless same-sex unions and another thing for ECUSA to associate with abortion rights groups. But if you read the relevant classical Fathers literally, there is no difference whatsoever. And let's not talk about NFP...

Furthermore, I would like to strenuously disagree with Al Kimel's continued insistence that ECUSA is no longer a Church. If supporting distorted love unto death could remove such status in the eyes of her Head, the Roman Catholic Church and every other ecclesial body on Earth would be in trouble. Converting people at the point of the sword, for instance, is as objectively immoral.

But like the famous Karen B., I can't help to feel ashamed by ECUSA's joining of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Rights. I can't help to feel ashamed by the pro-choice stand of ILEOS' vestry. I really expect better from the heirs of a richly nuanced Anglican moral theology. Ours ought to be a strange witness that is foolishness to all. For "choice" does not stem from Christian liberty but from the larger immorality of our society. This immorality does not merely consist of the worship of one's own genitals, as an Orthodox friend of mine puts it, but in the entire ordering of American socioeconomic life. Rev. Mr. Wilkins seems to know this. But he can't go any further. I'm afraid to say that abortion is not merely personal but systemic evil. And by our countless little negligences to the ill of children, we have become the abortionists.

Until next time, the Holy Brothers pray that the altars of Mammon and Moloch will be smitten from the earth and all those who are most like the citizenry of heaven may see the light of the Sun.