Who is wrong in abortion debate?

Today’s post is an expansion of a “Letter to the Editor” to the Tallahassee Democrat newspaper, Tallahassee, Florida. The letter is a response to “Both sides are wrong in abortion debate,” an opinion piece by retired psychologist Gary Whittenberger, published on December 6th. (If you cannot view it on their site, it is also available at Yahoo News.)

Dr. Whittenberger gets some things right and some things wrong. He rightly denounces the viability and privacy problems with the Roe v. Wade decision. Viability from that day and time (26 weeks) is now out the window. Lyla Stensrud was born in 2014 at 21 weeks.[i] Richard Hutchinson was born in 2020 at 21 weeks. Curtis Means of Alabama was recently certified as the “world’s most premature baby to survive,” his time of birth making his about 24 hours less than Richard’s time of birth. Whittenberger wisely knows that with advances in medical technology “viability will continue to go downward.” He further states, “nobody should have the right to hide an unethical or illegal act in private, and sometimes killing a fetus is like that.”

However, when he represents what is wrong on the pro-life side, he gets it wrong, writing:

The pro-lifers are wrong because they give an answer to the wrong question, i.e. “When does life begin?” That is totally irrelevant, and we already know that the zygote is alive. The relevant question is “When should the fetus be considered a person and assigned basic human rights?”

I suppose he does not intend to misrepresent the pro-life position. Nevertheless, in that statement he does so. Pro-lifers are not arguing that some unknown life form begins at the moment of conception – but that two humans create another human life, a person.  To pro-lifers “when does life begin” means “when does human life begin, including with it personhood and basic human rights.” Whittenberger is free to disagree with the pro-life position, but he should not misrepresent it, either knowingly or unknowingly. We are contending that at conception the life that begins at that time (which he admits is life) is a person, entitled to basic human rights, and that our laws should support and protect those rights.

Finally, Whittenberger disagrees with pro-lifers because he believes that a “human fetus cannot be a person until its brain matures to the point that it acquires the capacity for consciousness,” and that “this occurs at the end of the 24th week post-conception.” This agrees with a common scientific view that “the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation.” (This disagrees with the living lives of Lyla Stensrud, Richard Hutchinson, Curtis Means, and others born before 24 weeks!)

According to the APA Dictionary of Psychology, consciousness is “an organism’s awareness of something either internal or external to itself.” This view proves to be a dangerous concept for determining personhood, not only for the children less than 24 weeks, but also for adults in comas.[ii] Are they no longer persons and entitled to basic human rights? Sadly, this is where we have arrived and what many people think. Snuff them out unceremoniously. They have not consciousness. They are not persons.

Biblically, humans – all humans – have value because God made us in his image (Genesis 1:27, Job 33:4, Psalm 119:73).[iii] We are fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14), in ways beyond the comprehension of man’s thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9). Let us, if we err, “err” on the side of life.

Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.

---

[i] Or less, according to some unofficial reports.
[ii] It is also dangerous because this is unsettled science, subjective and subject to change. “Consciousness in general and the birth of consciousness in particular remain as key puzzles confronting the scientific worldview.” – “The Emergence of Human Consciousness: From Fetal to Neonatal Life” (Lagercrantz, H., Changeux, JP. Pediatr Res 65, 255–260, 2009). How much better to walk into the unknown, uncertain, and unsettled with the old medical adage, primum non nocere (first, do no harm). Where you are unsure, “err” on the side of life, not death.
[iii] Often expressed in the theological terminology imago Dei (Latin for “image of God”).