Abortion and Public Policy
Fr. Peter J. Pappas
1995
One of the challenges facing the Orthodox Christian in modern American society is discerning the relationship between personal ethical convictions and questions of public policy. If one of the responsibilities of American citizenship involves voting for state and federal officials who will create and execute the laws, decisions regarding how personal convictions will affect public policy cannot be avoided. In simply voting for a candidate for public office, one must responsibly consider the implications of one's decision and the impact it will have on public policy. The issue of abortion, without question the most divisive social issue in America today, presents special problems in the formation of the Christian conscience regarding responsible citizenship. The Orthodox Church has consistently maintained an outspoken condemnation of abortion from apostolic times to the present. While the humanity of the unborn is rooted in both the Old and New Testaments, the oldest authoritative document that specifically condemns abortion is the Didache, which dates back to the early second century. Similar teachings appear in the writings of Athenagoras of Athens, Cyprian of Carthage, Clement of Alexandria, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Jerome, and John Chrysostom. The scriptural, patristic, and liturgical traditions forma consistent witness recognizing the humanity of the unborn from conception and consistently identifying abortion as the killing of a human being. The loss of life of the unborn child was regretfully tolerated only in cases where the life of the mother was endangered.(1) The Church's teaching on abortion took its most developed canonical form in Canon 91 of the Council in Trullo. This canon prescribed a penance of up to ten years excommunication, the same as that for a repentant murderer. Such penances have virtually disappeared today, the emphasis being on reconciliation with God and with the faith community. Nevertheless, the ethical teachings of the Orthodox Church regarding abortion are clear and unambiguous.
To what extent these teachings should affect society at large needs further clarification. While the various Orthodox jurisdictions in America have not been silent on the issue, the lack of adequate explanations for these positions leads clergy and laity alike to adopt positions present in the popular culture which may not be informed by the consciousness of the Church. Thus, some maintain personal opposition to abortion as an immoral act, but do not believe the state should legislate against it.
This "pro-choice" position has become pivotal in the shaping of public opinion regarding the abortion issue. It has also been influential in the policies of Orthodox and Roman Catholic politicians who maintain personal opposition to abortion but do not wish to impose this view on others.While this position holds a certain attraction, it also reveals a fundamental confusion regarding the limits of reproductive freedom. In a poll conducted in 1989, seventy-four percent of the respondents agreed with the statement, "I personally feel that abortion is morally wrong, but I also feel that whether or not to have an abortion is a decision that has to be made by every woman for herself."(2) In another poll conducted the same month, only forty-one percent agreed with the statement,"Personally I believe abortion is wrong, but I think it should be legal."(3) While this position has never been supported by any official declaration of any Orthodox body in America, it is a position which has been adopted by many of the faithful, clergy and laity alike. However,this position will be shown to be morally indefensible in light of Orthodox Christian ethical teachings regarding the sanctity of life and the responsibility of the Christian to the state. Rather, Orthodox Christians should oppose abortion both on a personal level and seek its prohibition by the government. The ethical justification for this approach can be demonstrated by an examination of the presuppositions which underlie Christian ethical teachings on abortion, the responsibilities of the state in light of Christian Tradition, and the history of the abortion controversy in the United States.
Of primary importance to Christian ethical teaching on abortion is the principle of the sanctity of human life and creation in the image and likeness of God. Both these principles underlie the historic ethical teaching on abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide. To uphold the sanctity of life means affirming that human life possesses an intrinsic sacred quality which mandates its preservation and maintenance. While a sacred category of existence requires a religious foundation, purely secular societies can also use terminology derived from religious presuppositions which may have since been abandoned. Thus, reference to the sanctity of human life in the popular culture means that it has intrinsic value or worth. A system of ethics which upholds the sanctity of life will advocate the unconditional value and equality of all human life and will seek to advance its well being even in the face of conflicting values. Frequently placed in contradistinction to the sanctity of life is a"quality of life" ethic. Such an approach seeks to evaluate the worth of a particular human life based on the quality of existence the person experiences. Thus, at its best, the quality of life ethic seeks to improve the lives of people by taking into consideration a number of factors. Ethical choices should increase their ability to participate in relationships and activities which give expression to meaningful membership in the human community. Related factors include adequate food, clothing, shelter, health care, and an environment which allows for the pursuit of meaning, purpose, and happiness without fear of persecution or other circumstances which would detract from these aims. However, when this concern for quality is placed in opposition to the sanctity of life,the resulting choices ultimately cheapen the value of life and place in danger the ability to pursue such goals as those stated above. Quality of life is an ambiguous concept which frequently depends for its definition on a subjective evaluation of human life and what constitutes a meaningful existence. Christians recognize that quality of life consists in a relationship with the Holy Trinity which allows for growth toward the image and likeness of God through the saving acts of Christ in the Holy Spirit.Jesus said, "I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly."(4) In a contemporary secular society, those making decisions regarding quality of life would for the most part not share this perspective. Therefore, the affirmation of the sanctity of life is necessary as a basis for the proper treatment of human life both in personal relationships and for the maintenance of a just and well ordered society.
Human life derives its sacred character from its creation in the image and likeness of God. The Biblical account of creation affirms this belief:"God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him;male and female He created them."(5) This doctrine is foundational for the Christian faith and provides the basis for resolving ethical questions involving human life. Orthodoxy affirms that even after sin entered the world, the image of God, while distorted, remained as a characteristic of the human person and that human moral capacities were not completely obliterated. Through sin, human beings have broken communion with God and thus have in some degree become "less than human."Because all human beings share this state, full human "personhood" cannot be a criterion for determining the value of one's life. All life has intrinsic worth as being because it is created in the image and likeness of God.
The idea of sanctity of life, to varying degrees, also appears in natural law. The Orthodox Church accepts and teaches the reality of a natural moral law which may be discerned through experience and reason and through which the fundamental rules and laws of human moral and social life are acknowledged.(6) When various cultures of diverse times and places adopt similar standards of behavior, this is an indication of a common moral sense among people derived from faith, reason, and experience. For example, nearly every human culture in recorded history has been characterized by laws against murder. While some cultures condone or even enjoin murder, the condoned murder tends to be highly selective. Murder may be approved for one's enemies but not for members of the group themselves.(7) Biological science also illustrates some aspects of natural law at its most basic level. Living organisms make attempts of immense magnitude to stay alive and reproduce. Thus, a universal law of self-preservation manifests itself in nature. So strong is this instinct, in fact, that one of the goals of Christian life is to subdue this desire and channel it into acts of self sacrifice on behalf of others. In terms of human reproduction, the force of nature is even more astonishing. While a fertile female produces one egg per month, during intercourse the male releases between thirty and sixty million sperm toward the target egg to increase the chances of fertilization. The fertilized egg must then survive a myriad of crisis stages, including implantation, development, and birth, before a child can be born. The struggle to produce a healthy living baby is one of the most amazing feats of nature, which includes a system of human reproduction that promotes the survival of the species.(8) In the case of abortion, the natural process is interrupted by the willful act of one of its own kind, frustrating the cycle of nature's survival mechanisms. Thus, a number of sources of natural law testify to the sanctity of human life.
The sanctity of life created in the image and likeness of God has historically provided the Church's basis for the proscription of abortion, which previously was accepted in some ancient societies. The practice of abortion was widespread in ancient Greece and was usually allowed by the law, which even prescribed it in certain cases. The medical community opposed the practice, and so the Hippocratic Oath required physicians to bind themselves not to give women poisonous drinks which would abort the fetus they were carrying. In ancient Rome the father had power of life and death over his family. The fetus was not regarded as a person, and abortion was widely practiced in Roman society.An exception to the frequent practice of abortion in antiquity was found among the Jews. Despite the absence of a specific prohibition of abortion in their scriptures, research has discovered no mention of a non-therapeutic Jewish abortion in any text of Jewish literature through A.D. 500.(9) The early Roman Empire continued the ancient Roman policy and prescribed no punishment for abortion with the consent of the father, unless the mother died.
This was the context in which the early Church formulated its teaching. The Didache as well as the Epistle of Barnabas give absolute strictures against abortion and refer to the fetus simply as a "child." In the second century, Athenagoras outlines the common, accepted Christian position that abortion is murder, that the guilty must give account to God, and that the fetus is a living being.(10) The late second and early third centuries give evidence of an increasing Christian effect on Roman law concerning abortion. Through the witness of Christians, many pagans were acquainted with their ethical perspective, which was similar to that of some pagan moralists. Christian apologists such as Athenagoras and Tertullian had addressed Roman emperors and governors concerning the standard Christian view.(11) When the empire enacted laws restricting abortion in the third century, including the prescript of Septimus Severus and Antonios Caracalla and the application of the Lex Cornelia to abortifacient drugs and drug dealers, it was quite likely due to the growing Christian population's influence on public opinion toward punishing abortion and promoting life. For Clement of Alexandria, an abortion of one child is a contribution to the destruction of the entire human race.(12) Likewise, both Basil the Great and John Chrysostom equate abortion with murder. It is true, as Vigen Guroian points out, that these statement shave a unique context and purpose:
In point of fact, the statements about abortion in the letters of St.Basil or the homilies of St. John Chrysostom were not intended to be metaphysical pronouncements about the beginnings of human life. Nor are they statements about basic human rights in the profoundest sense, leave aside the shallow nominalistic and voluntaristic way in which our society has come to define human rights. They are primarily exhortations directed to a specific community about what kind of a people it is and what behavior is or is not fitting with its identity as the bride of Christ and the sacrament of the Kingdom of trinitarian love open to all life.(13)
However, their statements are nonetheless applicable to the present discussion because the issue of abortion in the social context calls into question what kind of community is or is not to be promoted by the civil authorities and what behaviors are or are not appropriate for ANY civilized people. The danger Guroian points out is that regarding many issues of public policy, the Orthodox Church runs the risk of accommodating itself to the "common faith" of American civil religion. The basic doctrine of this perspective asserts that there exist individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which are of absolute public concern while other transcendent questions regarding human relationships with God and with each other are only of relative legitimacy and have no place in public discourse. Thus, the faithful must view their position in terms of a prophetic call to adherence to basic truths of which the Church is the guardian.
Issues of church and state were not absent even from the ministry of Christ. He spent much of His time dispelling the notion of the zealots that the messiah was to be an earthly ruler who would end Roman occupation of Palestine and establish a theocratic state. Thus it was a supreme irony that Jesus was crucified by the Romans precisely because he viewed Himself as a King and was seen as a threat to the civil authorities. Because the Gospel presents itself as the 'politeuma', the community of the coming age, it must accordingly see as its most intrinsic concern its disposition toward the present 'polis', the secular state.(14) St. Paul provides a clear summary of the character and purpose of the state:
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil."(15)
At the same time, Paul does not advocate an uncritical participation in the institutions of the state. Thus, in another passage, he asks the believers in Corinth, "Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?"(16) While St. Paul recognizes the legitimate authority of the state and instructs the believers in Rome to do the same, he exhorts the Corinthians not to avail themselves of this authority, even though it is within the sphere of competence of the state to make judgments. A unique set of methods and attitudes based on values such as love and mercy should differentiate the Christian community from secular institutions. Furthermore, in the end God's people will stand in judgment of the principalities and powers which stand behind the institutions and authorities of this world.
The Gospel does not confuse the kingdom of God with the state according to any theocratic ideal, and given the eschatological nature of the kingdom, it sees a certain tension between the earthly state and the heavenly kingdom. However, it does not reflect an ontological dualism between the Church and the world. The relationship found in the New Testament is a chronological tension between now and the future which affects the Christian's attitude toward the state. While the state is not divine in essence, it is willed by God as an instrument for the present age. The earthly state is God's servant so long as it remains in the order which is willed by God.(17) This order entails the ability to discern good and evil and the use of methods appropriate to its function to restrain evil. Hence the Christian must be obedient to the state while maintaining a critical stance toward it to see that it remains in the divine order. When its laws become unjust, the Christian must seek revision of these laws. When it commands what God has forbidden or forbids what God has commanded, then the Christian must disobey.Therefore, a Christian can remain obedient to any state up to the point where it becomes totalitarian.
While Orthodox Christians throughout history have sometimes confused the 'politeuma' with the earthly state, such as in the Byzantine empire or in Czarist Russia, the Church has never endorsed any particular form of government. However, the Byzantine concept of the 'symphonia' has often been a guiding principle in the relationship between church and state.The theory of 'symphonia' envisions a system of harmony and mutuality between church and state which is based on the sufficiency and independence of the two cooperating principles within one common society, without the subjugation of one to the other. This harmony is based on the belief that both church and state are instituted by one Lord: the Church "to initiate the Kingdom of God and to prepare for its eschatological realization" and the state "to serve the worldly needs of humanity,providing order, peace, justice and external harmony."(18) This concept provides a historical perspective which can inform contemporary reflection on the relationship of church and state. Given contemporary social realities this idea can never be realized in its fullness, nor would it be desirable. As John Meyendorff has pointed out, the Constantinian period out of which it emerged was characterized by two fundamental theological flaws: "in thinking that the authority of Christ could be identified with the political power of the state, and in considering that the universality of the Gospel is defineable in political terms."(19) At the same time,Christians must also avoid the doctrine of strict separation which seeks to silence the voice of the Church on matters of public policy. This doctrine implies an ontological dualism between the Church and the world,while the Gospel reflects a chronological and ethical tension. The separation doctrine perpetrates the secular notion that the world really does not need the Church or God.(20) Thus the Church must act in a spirit of obedience but must also maintain a critical posture toward the state.
At the same time, in a pluralistic setting such as the United States, it is impossible to resolve public policy issues solely on religious grounds. A precedent of translating purely religious doctrine into public policy would allow this to occur in a number of different areas where the dominant religious groups may want a particular version of scientific creationism taught in the public schools which would be sectarian in nature. Another example would be the unconditional support for the state of Israel advocated by many Christians based on a dispensationalist interpretation of Scripture. Consequently, something other than a religious definition of when human life begins is needed as the basis for legislation.
Human life is defined spiritually and philosophically in a multitude of different ways. Therefore, a biological definition of human life provides the only basis for enacting legislation. Any organism would clearly have to meet three criteria to determine whether human life is present: Is this being alive? Is this being human? And is this being complete? At no time during the entire period of gestation are any of these requirement slacking in the prenatal human life. This being has the characteristics of life. That is, the prenatal human life can reproduce his or her own cells and develop them into a specific pattern of maturity and function.(21)This is a unique being, distinguishable totally from any other organism,completely human in all of his or her characteristics, including a genetically unique set of 46 human chromosomes. Life is clearly present in the fertilized ovum and at subsequent stages of development.
Once it has completed the process of implantation, at the end of the second week, the embryo can only develop into a human being. Before this time, it can become a hydatidiform mole, a product of an abnormal fertilization which is formed of placental tissue.(22) However, the fact that an abnormal fertilization may occur which is only evident after the fact does not reduce the humanity of the normal zygote which is present from fertilization. Similarly, a large percentage of zygotes die before implantation and a significant number are lost afterwards through miscarriage due to severe chromosomal abnormalities. This does not reduce their humanity, but simply reveals a high mortality rate for this stage of life. Therefore, the prenatal life is distinctly human.
This being is also complete. Nothing new will be added from the time of fertilization except growth and development of what is already there at the beginning.(23) The zygote does require genetic information from the maternal mitochondria, and the maternal or paternal genetic messages in the form of messenger RNA or proteins.(24) However, this information is conveyed through interaction with the molecules already present in the zygote. Therefore, this fact does not reduce the humanity of the zygote from the completion of conception. A critical finding of modern biology is that conception is a process beginning with the penetration of the outer layer of the egg by a sperm and concluding with the formation of the diploid set of chromosomes, a process that takes about a day. Thus one cannot properly speak of a "moment of conception."(25) However, both fertilization and conception have traditionally been identified with the union of the sperm and ovum. Consequently, even though it refers to a process that takes several hours, conception is recognized as the beginning of a new human life because the three above stated criteria are present beginning at this point. Viability, that is, the ability to survive outside the mother's body, is of no value in determining the beginning of human life. Improvements in medical technology are continually moving backward the point at which the fetus can survive outside the womb. Thus,at best, viability is an imprecise measure of current technological capabilities, not a measure of the human capacities of the fetus. In 1981 the United States Senate conducted extensive hearings (8 days,57 witnesses) on the proposed "Human Life Bill." The official Senate report states:
Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception [they defined fertilization and conception to be the same] marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.(26)
The report lists a limited sample of 13 medical textbooks, all of which state categorically that the life of an individual human begins at conception. The report then quotes several authorities who testified personally:
Professor J. Lejeune, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome: "Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."Professor W. Bowes, University of Colorado: Beginning of human life? -"at conception."Professor H. Gordon, Mayo Clinic: "It is an established fact that human life begins at conception."Professor M. Matthews-Roth, Harvard University: "It is scientifically correct to say that individual human life begins at conception."
Dr. Leon Rosenberg, from Yale University, stated that he knew no scientific evidence showing when actual human life begins. But, he then defined human life in a philosophic way, and spoke to a value judgment. To quote the Senate report:
Those witnesses who testified that science cannot say whether unborn children are human beings were speaking in every instance to the value question rather than the scientific question. No witness raised any evidence to refute the biological fact that from the moment of human conception there exists a distinct individual being who is alive and is of the human species.(27)
Abortion advocates decry the "biological reductionism" in this argument because, as one writer states, "the beginning of human life is not the issue, for it can be argued that fetuses, even if they are `human life,' are still not human persons."(28) The same writer states, "The doctrine of fetal personhood is morally offensive from a feminist, socialist, and humanist standpoint because what makes human life distinct is its capacity for consciousness and sociability."(29) Since "personhood" is frequently defined by subjective criteria, legal definitions must be based on the biological evidence and previous legal precedent. Thus, as former President Ronald Reagan correctly stated, "The real question today is not when human life begins, but, What is the value of human life?"(30)
A synthesis of these Biblical, patristic, historical, and canonical formulations in light of contemporary social and political realities and scientific evidence will yield a number of principles which are readily applicable to sanctity of life issues. The state is instituted by God to promote good and to restrain evil. The church and the state not only have different ends, but employ different means to achieve those ends.The church employs public witness to proclaim the Gospel to the world and invites all people to respond to this call. As a charismatic body, the Church seeks to demonstrate God's love for the world through obedient service to the kingdom and offer it to God through eucharistic celebration. The state employs the rule of law and the use of force to enjoin compliance with that law. The church, in its capacity of prophetic witness, can seek to influence the state in its promotion of good, most notably when it has lost touch with the content of good and evil. In the past, the Church has not always exercised this capacity wisely and has sometimes employed it in a manner contrary to her own principles, such as using the powers of the state to confront heresy. However, the church must confront the state when unjust laws do not restrain evil or prohibit that which is good. In a republic such as the United States, the ability of the church to influence the state is expressed in the form of voting by the church's members in elections to choose the representatives who will create, interpret, and enforce the laws. In addition, this influence takes the form of voting for public referenda, lobbying elected officials,drafting legislation, and holding public office.
While Christians are called to address the state in certain instances and in the United States are able to do so in a variety of different ways,there remains the question of what responsibilities the state should assume and when Christians should address the affairs of state with a united voice. As has been clearly stated, the natural moral law indicates the necessity for a society to protect human life. Prohibitions against murder have been a part of nearly every society in recorded history. On the whole, the patristic tradition identifies in large part the content of the natural law with the Ten Commandments.(31) The commandment, "You shall not murder"(32) is a basic moral and legal precept without which no society could long endure. Since the state is the institution authorized to use force to enact compliance with the laws, the state is the only institution that can effectively prohibit a particular action. All theories of the state accept the thought that the political system,whatever else it does, must protect its members from physical harm caused directly by others. This responsibility is the minimum requirement for any state, whatever its form or ideology. A state that does not fulfill this responsibility is no state at all.(33)
The Church can affirm the sanctity of life, but it must look to science to answer the question, "When does life begin?" Therefore, the fact that abortion has consistently been viewed as a form of murder and that opposition to abortion was consistently due to concern for the life of the fetus, along with the state's responsibility to protect human life,provide a clear mandate for the state to take a role in prohibiting the practice of abortion. Consequently, to be personally opposed to abortion yet support its legalization (i.e. that it is a decision to be left to the woman and her doctor) is a morally untenable position. Christians and other citizens of good will must stand opposed to all efforts to make legalized abortion and euthanasia the practice of the nation. At the very least, the incarnational dimensions of the Orthodox Christian perspective do not allow for a withdrawal from engagement with the moral issues of the nation and state.(34) When the issue at hand involves the taking of human life, it becomes imperative that Christians respond.
If in fact the protection of human life has been a universally recognized function of government and abortion has long been recognized as taking a life, it becomes necessary to examine the causes of the breakdown of this consensus in the United States and other modern societies. The central issue of the regulation of abortion practices is whether abortion is, or can be assimilated to, homicide.(35) The historical evidence reveals a legal tradition that has consistently equated the two in the past. As was the case with the Roman Empire after the third century, the rise of the Western societies influenced by Judeo-Christian values was accompanied by laws prohibiting abortion. The earliest compilations of English common law reflect the fact that abortion was regarded as homicide. Bracton, who administered the King's law in the thirteenth century, includes in his list of provisions concerning homicide:
If there be someone, who has struck a pregnant woman, or has given her poison, whereby he has caused abortion, if the fetus be already formed or animated, he commits homicide. Abortion is homicide, but a dividing line is fixed at the formation or animation of the fetus.(36)
Punishments were not as severe in the early stages of pregnancy, before quickening because, medically speaking, people did not recognize the humanity of the unborn before this point.
American law, which developed in close relationship to British law,delegated to the states the responsibility for legislation on abortion.Generally, the old provisions of common law applied in the United States until the situation was clarified by the passing of statutes in each state. The earliest statutes were usually severe with abortion after quickening, but lenient or silent concerning abortion before that event. Amendments gradually eliminated the silence and even removed the distinction from the law of all but ten states. The reason for the development of the statutes is not to be found in any religious doctrine,but in the progress of scientific knowledge.(37) The campaign for enactment of stringent abortion laws in the United States between the 1860s and 1880 produced what historian James C. Mohr characterized as "the most important burst of anti-abortion legislation in the nation's history." At least forty anti-abortion statutes of various kinds were placed upon state and territorial law books during that period.(38)
As a result of this legislation, for over one hundred years abortion was prohibited throughout the United States except when the mother's life was threatened. The first permissive law was passed in Colorado in 1967, which by 1970 was followed by fifteen other states. After that, only one more state legalized abortion (because of a court order), while thirty-three states debated the issue in their legislatures. All of them voted against permitting abortion for any reason except to save the mother's life.(39)However, in 1973 the laws in these states were struck down by the Supreme Court. The Roe v. Wade decision, together with the companion case Doe v.Bolton legalized abortion in all 50 states for the full nine months of pregnancy. Specifically, the court allowed no legal restrictions for the first trimester, some restrictions in the second trimester until the point of viability, and only in the third trimester to protect the "life or health" of the mother. In defining "health" the court said that abortion could be performed "in the light of all factors - physical,emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health."(40)
Thus abortion-on-demand until birth became the national policy.
While this policy was not voted on by the citizens or enacted by legislators, there developed enough of a consensus in certain sectors of society to allow for the acceptance and maintenance of this policy. In the statements and writings of those involved in efforts to repeal abortion laws a number of themes were emphasized. One theme sounded in the statements is simply that abortion laws were outmoded and that a new thinking must be allowed to shape the laws. A second theme which had a great effect was that the laws were "cruel" and "uncompassionate."(41) Coupled with an emphasis on "quality of life" and a situational approach to morality, the major theme became that the abortion decision should be left entirely to the woman, in accordance with her own conscience. It is not made clear if there are norms that the conscience is to be shaped by. A final theme is the attempt, particularly by the press and some religious groups, to paint the anti-abortion position as a Catholic position, and to view the controversy as a sectarian struggle.(42) Dr. Bernard Nathanson, founding member of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL, today known as the National Abortion Rights Action League), documents how the organization portrayed the Catholic hierarchy as the force behind opposition to abortion and used latent anti-Catholicism in American society, with the help of the media, to win support for their cause.(43) Dr. Nathanson subsequently became an outspoken opponent of abortion based on his study of the science of fetology.
These approaches appear in much of the public discourse surrounding the abortion issue. Typical is the reaction of the New York Times to the Roe v. Wade decision: "Nothing in the Court's approach ought to give affront to persons who oppose all abortion for reasons of religion or individual conviction. They can stand firmly as ever for those principles, provided they do not seek to impede the freedom of those with an opposite view."(44) The Richmond News Leader responded in this way:
Catholic Church leaders may call the high court's position an `unspeakable tragedy' but the Catholic injunction against abortion is of rather recent origin in a religion two thousand years old. While Catholic spokesmen's horror at the decision can be understood, a majority of the high court properly recognized that no religion has a constitutional license to force its beliefs upon others.(45)
The religious, legal, and medical data previously stated clearly demonstrate the inconsistency of these positions. The only way to make abortion an issue of private morality is to make murder an issue of private morality, an unconscionable position for anyone who believes in the sanctity of life.
Two objections to this position should be noted at this point. While the equation of abortion and homicide has been well established, and with it the need for legislative action, could abortion be considered the lesser of evils given circumstances that may result if were not available? While many examples are cited to support the availability of abortion most concern social or economic factors which have a lesser significance than the value of a human life. Therefore, factors such as unwanted children, overpopulation, or pregnancy due to rape or incest cannot be used to justify the availability of abortion. However, one example that concerns protection of human life is the consideration of maternal deaths due to illegal abortions.
One of the arguments for legalized abortion prior to the Roe v. Wade decision was that thousands of women were dying from illegal "back-alley"abortions. One figure often quoted during this period was "5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year" due to illegal abortion. This figure was consciously fabricated by NARAL to gain public support for their position. Dr. Nathanson states, "I confess that I knew the figures were totally false,and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the `morality' of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?"(46) In 1972, the last year before Roe vs. Wade, the death toll from illegal abortion was 39 women. The death rate due to illegal abortion had been consistently declining each year due to improved surgical techniques and better antibiotics. Furthermore, the abortion technique itself was revolutionized at this time through the widespread introduction of suction curettage in 1970. Though safer if done by a licensed physician, one can expect that if abortion is ever driven underground again, even non-physicians will be able to perform this procedure with remarkable safety.(47) Therefore, while legal proscription of abortion would drastically reduce the number of abortions,some would occur, but these would certainly not cause widespread maternal deaths, a high of number of which could still not justify the 1.5 million fetal deaths each year due to legal abortion.
Another proviso frequently cited is that abortion must be considered within the framework of a number of issues which involve the sanctity of human life. For example, the abortion issue is frequently connected with the question of capital punishment. Thus, many adopt the position that it is inconsistent to support capital punishment and oppose abortion. The basic question concerns whether capital punishment violates the sanctity of human life. The book of Genesis indicates that capital punishment was instituted for a specific reason: "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man."(48) The moral basis for capital punishment in this account is the sanctity of life. Because man is endowed with the image of God, his life is so sacred that any malicious destruction of it must be punished by execution.(49) While Jesus consciously and explicitly reversed this practice of retributive justice for the Christian community, the state frequently and legitimately uses methods contrary to what the Christian is called to do personally. This viewpoint was probably why Ephraim the Syrian (ca. 306-373) recommended capital punishment for abortion.(50) There are a number of reasons why Orthodox Christians should oppose capital punishment today. It is at best an unfortunate necessary evil, precludes the possibility of rehabilitation, and is inconsistently applied. However, it is fundamentally a question of social justice and not a sanctity of life issue. Likewise, other issues cannot be considered to be of equal significance to sanctity of life issues such as abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia.
When considered in light of the responsibilities of the state,decisions regarding such priorities involve the question of single issue politics. Is the abortion issue alone a sufficient criterion by which to evaluate the qualifications of a candidate for public office? While an affirmative answer to this question could be taken to extreme lengths, a commitment to the sanctity of all human life, born and unborn, clearly should be the most important consideration. American society in the nineteenth century faced a similar problem regarding the issue of slavery. The Supreme Court, in its Dred Scott decision of 1857, declared that black Americans could not hold citizenship according to the Constitution. As a result, the abolitionists began a movement which sought equal treatment under the law for all races. A number of significant problems confronted the nation at that time and many abolitionists went to extreme lengths to advance their position.However, they recognized the most important issue at that time was whether a court of law could declare a person of a certain race to be anything less than a person. In the same way, those who recognize the humanity of the fetus must do no less than to share this truth with others, and to call on the civil authorities to fulfill their responsibility in upholding the sanctity of life for all human beings.
The implications of the preceding arguments are clear. First of all, public officials cannot in good conscience take the position they are "personally opposed" to abortion but support a woman's "right to choose."Likewise, unless an Orthodox Christian is willing to abstain from the political process entirely, one cannot take refuge in the position that the Church bears witness to the sanctity of life but does not become involved in the political arena. Simply voting for a candidate who holds a "pro-choice" position amounts to indirect support for the continued practice of legalized abortion. The Church bears a significant responsibility to inform and educate the faithful. As one Orthodox pro-life activist has written, "it is essential that the Church make clear to those people involved in abortion including the woman, those who have given her counsel, those who have actually performed the abortion and even those whose support of abortion is limited to intellectual acceptance,that to continue to be considered part of the Orthodox Church, they must repent, turn away from their sinful ways and undergo a reconciliation into the Body of Christ."(51) Likewise, those involved in the struggle against abortion must make available viable options for women and families in crisis pregnancy situations. St. Basil states concerning abortion, "there is involved the question of providing justice for the infant to be born."(52)
The various Orthodox jurisdictions have taken a hopeful step in speaking out on the issue. The Twenty-Third Clergy-Laity Congress of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America in 1976 issued the following statement:
The Orthodox Church brands abortion as murder; that is, as a premeditated termination of the life of a human being... Decisions of the Supreme Court and State Legislatures by which abortion, with or without restrictions, is allowed should be viewed by practicing Christians as an affront to their beliefs in the sanctity of life.(53)
In 1986, Rev. Ed Pehanich, a priest of the American Carpatho-Russian jurisdiction and John Protopapas, a member of the Orthodox Church in America founded a pan-Orthodox Pro-Life organization, Orthodox Christians for Life to serve as a resource for sanctity of life issues and to coordinate activities.(54) In 1989 both the Orthodox Church in America and the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America issued resolutions opposing abortion on demand.(55)
The same year forty-five bishops and other spokesmen from every Orthodox jurisdiction in the United States filed an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court's Webster decision. The brief points out that the issue of abortion has a moral and a legal dimension that have historically been intertwined and that laws have traditionally been positive expressions of moral norms.(56) It carefully situates the specific Orthodox position on abortion in the mainstream of the Judeo-Christian tradition of western civilization while emphasizing Orthodoxy's unique role as a witness to the teachings of the early Church. It also asserts that modern science has vindicated the ancient insight that a fetus is a human being with rights equal to those who have been born. Thus, it is appropriate for the court to make a statement on the constitutional value of human life,at whatever point it begins. This document provides a cogent legal argument which can serve as the basis for Orthodox Christians to proclaim their views at every level of government.
The position of the Orthodox Church regarding abortion is informed by a firm commitment to the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception. The scriptural, patristic, and liturgical sources of the Orthodox Tradition consistently reflect this position, which is found in the canonical formulations of the conciliar process. The modern science of fetology has affirmed the presence of human life throughout the entire period of gestation, thereby confirming the historical Christian position. Because of the state's responsibility to protect life, Christians must unite with one prophetic voice to call for the restoration of this protection which has been taken away in the United States. However,the secular forces in American society which deny the sanctity of life have influenced the thinking of many of the faithful on this important issue. Therefore, by promoting dialogue and reflection on this issue,the Church can encourage participation in appropriate and effective actions based on firm personal convictions. Orthodox Christians will thus be able to defend the rights of every human person so that they may have life,and to proclaim the new life in Christ so that they may have it more abundantly.
Notes:
(1) John Protopapas, "An Eastern Orthodox Christian Perspective on the Sanctity of Human Life," p. 1.
(2) George Skelton, "Most Americans Think Abortion is Immoral," Part 1, Los Angeles Times, March 19, 1989, p. 1.
(3) Ethan Brommer, "Most in US favor ban on majority of abortions, poll finds," The Boston Globe, March 31, 1989, p. 12.
(4) John 10:10, Holy Bible: The New King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984).
(5) Genesis 1:27
(6) Stanley S. Harakas, Toward Transfigured Life (Minneapolis: Light and Life Publishing Company, 1983), p. 120.
(7) R.C. Sproul, Abortion: A Rational Look at an Emotional Issue (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1990), p. 41.
(8) Sproul, pp. 43, 44.
(9) Michael J. Gorman, Abortion and the Early Church (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1982), p. 33.
(10) Gorman, p. 54.
(11) Gorman, p. 61.
(12) John Kowalczyk, An Orthodox View of Abortion (Minneapolis: Light and Life, 1979), p. 14.
(13) Vigen Guroian, Incarnate Love (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1987), p. 126.
(14) Oscar Cullmann, The State in the New Testament (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1956), p. 4.
(15) Romans 13:1-4
(16) 1 Corinthians 6:1.
(17) Cullmann, p. 89.
(18) Stanley S. Harakas, "Orthodox Church-State Theory and American Democracy," Greek Orthodox Theological Review 21 (1976), p. 401. (19) John Meyendorff, Living Tradition (Crestwood: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1978), p. 143.
(20) Guroian, p. 159
(21) John C. Willke, Abortion Questions and Answers (Cincinnati: Hayes Publishing Co., 1985), p. 52.
(22) Thomas A. Shannon and Allan B. Wolter, "Reflections on the Moral Status of the Pre-embryo" Theological Studies 51 (1990), p. 608.
(23) Willke, p. 53.
(24) Shannon and Wolter, p. 608.
(25) Shannon and Wolter, p. 610.
(26) Willke, p. 40.
(27) Willke, p. 42.
(28) Rosalind Pollack Petchesky, Abortion and Woman's Choice (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1990), p. 341.
(29) Petchesky, p. 345.
(30) Ronald Reagan, Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), p. 22.
(31) Harakas, Toward Transfigured Life, p. 133.
(32) Exodus 20:13
(33) Fred M. Frohock, Abortion: A Case Study in Law and Morals (Westport, CN: Greenwood Press, 1983), p. 168.
(34) Stanley S. Harakas, Living the Faith: The Praxis of Eastern Orthodox Ethics (Minneapolis: Light and Life, 1992), p. 260.
(35) Frohock, p. 169.
(36) Grisez, Abortion, pp. 186-8 in CAC Abortion Debaters' Handbook (Washington, DC: Christian Action Council, 1984), p. 41.
(37) Grisez, p. 191.
(38) William Brennan, The Abortion Holocaust: Today's Final Solution (St. Louis: Landmark Press, 1983), p. 8.
(39) Willke, p. 19.
(40) Willke, p. 21.
(41) Stephen M. Krason, Abortion: Politics, Morality, and the Constitution (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984), p. 49.
(42) Krason, p. 51.
(43) Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America (Toronto: Life Cycle Books, 1979), and The Abortion Papers (New York: Frederick Fell, 1983).
(44) The New York Times, New York, NY, January 24, 1973.
(45) The Richmond News Leader, Richmond, Virginia, January 24, 1973.
(46) Nathanson, Aborting America, p. 193.
(47) Nathanson, Aborting America, p. 194.
(48) Genesis 9:6.
(49) Sproul, p. 33.
(50) Gorman, p. 65.
(51) Valerie Protopapas, "Orthodox Action Plan Against Abortion," p. 1.
(52) D. Cummings, trans., The Rudder (Chicago: Orthodox Christian Educational Society, 1957), St. Basil the Great, Canon 2, p. 789.
(53) Stanley S. Harakas, Let Mercy Abound: Social Concern in the Greek Orthodox Church (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1983), p. 145.
(54) For more information, write to:
Valerie Protopapas, Executive Secretary
Orthodox Christians for Life
P.O. Box 805
Melville, NY 11747
phone: (516) 271-4408
(55) Rachel's Children, Fall 1989, Vol. 3, No. 2, p. 1.
(56) James George Jatras and Paul Farley, in the Supreme Court of the United States, October Term. 1988, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, Brief Amicus Curiae of the Holy Orthodox Church, p. 2.
Rev. Peter J. Pappas is a priest in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America.
source:
Originally published in St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, Volume 39 - No. 3, 1995
Republished in Orthodoxy Today.