I don’t think this is politically practical, but I would find it reasonable to permit only first trimester abortions under somewhat the same conditions as Germany and Israel. There might be a panel of professionals (doctor, social worker, counsellor) who discussed all options with the woman — without attempting to coerce her — and if she still chose abortion, then she could have one up to 12 weeks. After 12 weeks there would have to be special circumstances to permit abortion (rape, incest, clear life or health threat to the mother).

I would not support legal personhood for the unborn, since it is unprecedented, unnecessary, and would undoubtedly have unintended consequences. If you want to put a fetus on an equal footing with the woman carrying it, you could have bizarre results like arresting a pregnant woman who had a glass of wine for serving alcohol to minors. If that sounds foolish, there have already been cases of pregnant women incarcerated for taking illegal drugs while pregnant to protect their unborn babies.

If people really want to settle the debate and be able to find common ground, then we really need to get past the limits imposed by Roe v. Wade.

As I said, I don’t believe it is necessary to establish a fetus is a person in order to say it should not be destroyed except for serious reasons. American law prohibiting abortion prior to Roe v Wade did not regard the fetus as a person with a right to life. Abortion was never prosecuted as murder.

Why should I have to answer this question when there are many others that affect me more directly? (For example, how can I, in good conscience, allow myself anything but the bare necessities of life while there are children starving? How much should I give to charity? It’s a question I have posed since I was in high school, and I still don’t know the answer! ) It seems to me you are attempting to bully me into answer a question by accusing me of intellectual dishonesty if I don’t answer it. There are some things it is difficult or impossible to know. Why doesn’t the Church give a definitive answer to the question of what happens to babies who die unbaptized?

I write a lot about these questions because they are fascinating, and because I believe the people who are so sure they have the answers (one way or the other) are basing their position on gut feelings and then looking for reasons to support what they already believe. (Probably that’s what most of us do most of the time, and I am not knocking it. It might be thought of as going with what comes from the heart.)

The outline of the answer is this, though. If an immortal soul is infused at the moment of conception — a soul that can leave the body when the person dies — then personhood begins at conception. If that is not the case, then it seems to me personhood must be identified with something like a certaub kevek if consciousness and self-consciousness (or maybe intellect and will). Without brain activity in human beings, there is no consciousness. So I would say personhood is dependent on some kind of meaningful brain activity. Certainly, based on such criteria, a fetus would not be a person within the first trimester (12 weeks) of pregnancy.

An interesting question is how to come up with a definition of person. If we were to come upon some new form of life (say, from outer space), how would we know if the beings were persons. What’s the difference between a very smart animal (like a dolphin or a chimp) and a human being. It is not, of course, whether or not a brain is present. But it is what the brain is capable of. We say that God is a person (or three person), and presumably angels are persons. Certainly the character ET in the Spielberg movie was a person. I would say that even the robots R2D2 and C3PO were persons. Personhood doesn’t depend on what your DNA is or what species you belong to.

By the way, it does not seem to me to be necessary to establish personhood to make a case for protecting the unborn. As I have discussed above, Orthodox Jews don’t consider the unborn child a human life, not a human person. It can be agreed that all human life is precious without arguing that all human lives are persons with a right to life. I remember a famous issue of Life magazine from decades ago that had spectacular photos of babies in the womb. One need not consider a fetus a person in order to be in awe of the process between conception and birth. From that point of view, one might still permit abortion in serious cases, but oppose it for, say, sex selection.

Their are plenty of protestant sects that can promote contraception, and that doesn’t seem to matter much. The Catholic church stands out because the church has drawn a line in the sand on contraception. I’m sure you already have heard all the reasons why. I think the biggest problem with the contraceptive society that we have is that people think that sex should have no consequences. Young women and girls are shocked when they get pregnant. The Catholic church is one of the few voices out there telling every one that the natural purpose of sex is babies. Self evident, but with the current culture, it needs to be constantly said because you would never know it by watching TV and the movies.

- A quick little detour –
I don’t mind it if you see your task as pointing out to me that I am mistaken or wrong. I do mind if you feel your task is to force me to admit that I am intellectually dishonest because the truth of your position is so self-evident that I can’t possibly question it.

It’s not that you can’t question it, it is that you don’t bother to. If you never actually try to answer the question of what person-hood is and when it begins – you are being intellectually dishonest. All the information is there, and it isn’t that complicated. If you are pro-choice, then you can say that it is the mother who decides when person hood begins. Shrugging your shoulders and saying ‘Who can know’ means that you don’t really care. For someone who doesn’t care, you spend a lot of time debating the issue?

You have already said that you support some restrictions on abortion, so you recognize that the unborn becomes a person, deserving of protection – In your view, when does that happen?

jeremy,

I do not think the fact that Planned Parenthood provides abortion services should necessarily be a barrier, but it’s a moot point, in any case, since the way Planned Parenthood prevents abortions is by contraception. Although it’s estimated that 90 to 95 percent of Catholic married couples (not to mention cohabiting Catholic couples) use “artificial” birth control, I can’t imagine any Catholic organizations working with Planned Parenthood on contraception. So while I think Planned Parenthood can and does play a role in preventing abortions — in addition to providing them — I don’t imagine any joining of hands between Planned Parenthood and Catholic pro-life organizations.

It does seem to me a little ironic, given the numbers of Catholics who use “artificial” birth control, that Catholic organizations would probably be wise not to appear to promote it. But of course the official position of the Church is against contraception, no matter what the majority of Catholics do in private.

It does seem to me that it’s unfortunate that Catholics can’t promote contraception, since in my opinion it’s the surest way to decrease the number of (or need for) abortion. I am sure most people would find it the lesser of two evils, except, of course, it is an “intrinsic evil,” which complicates matters.

Planned Parenthood

Do you think Catholics should make common cause with Planned Parenthood to reduce the number of abortions?

You know I think it is a healthy way to live to accept the fact that our society reserves the right to organically develop laws – even those with clear moral implications like Abortion and Gay rights. These things cut both ways – the very same society that abolished Slavery and made Torture illegal gravitated towards the current status quo on Abortion. Why? IMHO not because we are infiltrated by a majority of evil cynical selfish fellow Americans, Europeans, Russians, Chinese, Japanese and whoever else with Abortion related laws on the books?
These things do not fall out of the sky but are results of rather long societal developments.
IMHO it will take time to adjust this properly – I trust it will be done – but likely it will not be the “All Abortions are criminal” type of adjustment.

Planned Parenthood

1.94 MILLION UNINTENDED PREGNANCIES AND 810,000 ABORTIONS ARE PREVENTED EACH YEAR BY PUBLICLY FUNDED FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES

Six in 10 Clients Consider a Family Planning Center
Their Main Source of Health Care

$4 Saved for Every $1 Invested; Expanding Medicaid Services to More Low-Income Women Would More Than Pay for Itself

By providing millions of young and low-income women access to voluntary contraceptive services, the national family planning program prevents 1.94 million unintended pregnancies, including almost 400,000 teen pregnancies, each year. These pregnancies would result in 860,000 unintended births, 810,000 abortions and 270,000 miscarriages, according to a new Guttmacher Institute report.

Absent publicly funded family planning services, the U.S. abortion rate would be nearly two-thirds higher than it currently is, and nearly twice as high among poor women.

Publicly funded family planning services are highly cost-effective. More than nine in 10 women receiving them would be eligible for Medicaid-funded prenatal, delivery and postpartum care services if they became pregnant. Avoiding the significant costs associated with these unintended births saves taxpayers $4 for every $1 spent on family planning.