Abortion And Personhood - Averthanus L. D’Souza

GOA, Jan. 18, 2010, 10.00 Hrs (Averthanus L. D’Souza):

The public discussion on the evil of abortion brought to the fore some important assumptions which underlay the positions taken by some of the participants. These “assumptions” need to be addressed because they determine the conclusions reached by those who hold them. It will be helpful to the clarification of the position that abortion is intrinsically evil if we consider some of the arguments advanced by those who hold the view that the arbitrary termination of pregnancy is not an act of murder. (Dr.?) Santosh A. Helekar claims that: “I had affirmed that science had nothing to do with defining murder. . .” This affirmation is both outlandish and illogical. It is the widespread understanding of the common people that doctors are ‘morally’ responsible for ‘all’ the actions performed by them in their professional capacity – otherwise there would be no scope for litigation on the grounds of negligence or malpractice or carelessness. The legality (hence also the morality) of the professional actions of the medical practitioner extends even to the unavoidable function of the physical examination of patients. We are all too familiar with the accusations sometimes made by some women patients that a (male) doctor has ‘molested’ them in the course of physical examination. It is totally unacceptable, therefore, to claim that the act of destroying an embryo, a foetus or an infant, is of no moral concern to medical science. He seems to make a strict distinction between medical practice on the one hand and morality (legality) on the other. Consequently, his claim that the medical procedure of embryocide does not constitute murder.

Incidentally, some smart-aleck bystander threw in his two pence worth of comments to the effect that science should not be fettered by faith. He fails to see that science itself is grounded on “faith.” - that truth can be known by us; that “reality” (or truth) is “objective” and does not vary with the whims and fancies of those who perceive it. If we lived according to today’s relativistic standards, an apple would be an apple only for the one who ‘believed’ that it was an apple; it could very well be a mango for another perceiver. As a matter of fact, it is precisely this kind of epistemological relativism which lies at the root of many of the problems which modern man is grappling with. Epistemological relativism gives rise to moral relativism, which, in turn, has destroyed the very basis of peaceful existence.

Ruchika at 55 is not the same Ruchika who she was at 15, and she is not the Ruchika she was at 5 years of age; but in a very real sense, Ruchika is the same Ruchika whether at 5 or 15 or 55. By some very mysterious design, (which even science has not yet been able to decipher), Ruchika has always been Ruchika despite physiological, sociological, cultural and psychological changes. We can safely assert (without fear of being contradicted) that Ruchika began her existence at the time when a human zygote was formed by the fusion of two independent gametes – one from her father and the other from her mother. The zygote is a “human being”, independent from both her father and her mother. Even if she does not have a name at that (initial) stage of her being, she is still the very same Ruchika. Logically, it follows that if the zygote or the embryo or the foetus or the infant is destroyed at any stage in the development of that “human being”, a human life is being wantonly destroyed. At the other end of the spectrum, if Ruchika is killed at the age of 85 because she has Alzheimer’s or is in a coma, or for whatever other reason, it will still be an act of killing of a human being. Common sense?

Which brings us to the question of whether a human being is a person. Our good doctor asserts that ““Human person” is a term derived from religious philosophy. It is not a term invented by medical science.” (please note.) He proceeds to inform us that “according to modern philosophy, (presumably a “non-religious” philosophy) a person is a self-conscious being.” He goes on to clarify that “A self-conscious being does not have to be human.” He informs us that “the latest developments in neuroscience indicate that personhood is a dynamic state continuously created every waking moment.” He even claims that there are circumstances under which a human being ceases to be a person, such as when s/he is in a coma or when s/he is in an advanced stage of Alzheimer’s. He would like us to believe that the act of destroying an embryo or a foetus or a person in a coma, or a patient suffering from Alzheimer’s disease is not necessarily an act of murder.

Our learned adversary trips over himself in a dreadful contradiction when he asserts (further in his article) that: “Nonetheless, it is important to recognize that advances in brain science are already contributing to an increasingly precise scientific definition of personhood (sic), and to a clearer understanding of its biological basis.” Our learned doctor obviously needs to make up his mind, once and for all, whether the term “personhood” is derived from “religious” philosophy or from biology.!

At this stage, we are faced with the question of what constitutes murder, and our learned adversary refers us to the U.S. Code at Title 18 which defines murder as: “murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.” Even by this definition, abortion is murder. But let us not go down that road, just yet, because we will be digressing into a legal minefield, which is not strictly relevant to our present discussion.

In pursuance of his position, our worthy opponent claims that some “higher” anthropoids are also persons. He informs us that some “developed” countries are in the process of conferring personhood on the “higher” apes, which, presumably, will require them to carry passports when they cross national borders, and not indulge in subversive activities which are prejudicial to the integrity of the State. Most of all, (God forbid) they will be allowed to carry out research in medical laboratories. After acquiring legal personhood, these apes will be liable to prosecution if they commit adultery or theft or murder - but, of course, we are here entering into an highly controversial arena because, according to our good doctor, “science has nothing to do with defining murder, and that in secular (sic) law the definition of murder is not necessarily tied to the definition of personhood, as is clear from the fact that killing of soldiers and innocent bystanders in war, killing in self-defense and judicial executions are not considered murders.”

Our fundamental disagreement with the stance (philosophy?) of our good doctor, is his insistence on disassociating “personhood” from “human being.” Our unambiguous position is that it is precisely “personhood” which distinguishes humans from all other animals – including the “higher” apes. Our learned doctor has made his own position amply clear by stating: “I have already stated that a human being is an animal belonging to the genus Homo.” By this assertion, the good doctor forecloses the possibility of any further (rational?) discussion because human beings are only animals – no different, according to him, from the “higher” primates, who, he claims are our “evolutionary cousins.”

The (real) underlying problem which seems to be needling our learned doctor is the presumed “religious” basis for our assertion that the destruction of embryos, fetuses, infants, the disabled, the mentally challenged, the comatose and others, constitutes murder. He seems to be rattled that “a sectarian point of view . . . has misrepresented scientific facts and views that [I] had presented recently. . .” Like Don Quixote, our redoubtable defender of secular values is actually tilting at windmills, because the argument/s advanced for the inviolability of human embryos is based, not on any religious principles, but on those very scientific facts and views which he is so ardently defending. Nowhere in our article/s have we relied on any “religious” or theological bases to prove our point that destroying an embryo is an act of murder. This, however, can be the subject of yet another debate. Meanwhile, all the red herrings which he has drawn into the discussion - assertions that many religions such as Judaism, some Christian denominations, Buddhism, Islam etc. permit abortion - are not only misleading; they are demonstrably incorrect. We can prove that these assertions are not factual. But, that again, is grist for another discussion.