John M. Swomley

In the following viewpoint, John M. Swomley provides a rebuttal to a November 1998 Catholic bishops’ statement, which counseled Americans to protect human life from conception to death. Swomley contends that the bishops’ argument cites the Bible out of context and imposes an anti-abortion agenda on the Scriptures. The Bible actually contains no statements against abortion, he explains; in addition, a fetus is scientifically defined as a person when brain activity begins—about twenty-eight weeks after implantation—not at conception. Abortion may be necessary when a woman’s life, health, or family is endangered by her pregnancy, Swomley asserts. Ultimately, he concludes, women should have the right to control their destinies. Swomley is a professor emeritus of social ethics at St. Paul School of Theology in Kansas City, Missouri.

As you read, consider the following questions:

1. Under what circumstances did colonial America permit abortion, according to Swomley"
2. In the author’s opinion, what is problematic about the phrase “sanctity of life”"
3. How does Swomley define “fetal idolatry”"

The 27-page Catholic bishops’ statement, “Living the Gospel of Life,” begins with a statement of the pope and also the bishops as to why American political, economic and cultural power, which have “reshaped the world” should now accept Vatican morality and lead the world in that direction.

This document is factually incorrect at essential main points.

Distortion of History

The bishops try to appeal to American Catholics’ pride in our country’s history: “As Americans, as Catholics, and as pastors of our people, we . . . call our fellow citizens back to our country’s founding principles, and most especially to renew our national respect for the rights of the unborn.”

Fact: In colonial America and even after the Constitution was adopted, English Common Law was in effect. It permitted abortion before fetal movement or “quickening,” which was generally detectable after about the 16th week of pregnancy. The Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution have no mention of any rights for the unborn. There were no laws with respect to abortion in the U.S. prior to 1821 in Connecticut, 1827 in Illinois, and 1830 in New York.

A New Jersey case, State vs. Murphy, explained the purpose of the state statute of 1849. That decision said: “The design of the statute was not to prevent the procuring of abortions, so much as to guard the health and life of the mother against the consequences of such attempts. . . . It is immaterial whether the fetus is destroyed or whether it has quickened or not. . . .”

America’s founding principles made no reference to rights of the unborn, as the bishops assert. It is dishonest to attempt to make the phrase in the Declaration of Independence about the “laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” mean what the pope means by natural law. It is also dishonest to assert that “all men are created equal” refers to male and female fetuses, when it didn’t even refer to slaves and women as having equal rights.

When the bishops also quote the phrase, “certain inalienable rights. . . . Among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” they emphasize life for a fetus instead of the life and liberty of a woman to choose whether or not to continue a problem pregnancy. The authors of the founding documents of the United States did not even consider these words as dealing with fetal life or abortion.

A Sectarian Statement

The bishops state: “The inherent value of human life is not a sectarian issue any more than the Declaration of Independence is a sectarian creed.”

Fact: The word “sectarian” refers to issues or actions that are fostered by church dogma on which some or all other religious groups differ. The Declaration of Independence is not a creed, but a political manifesto which referred to men (not the unborn) as having “inalienable” rights. The bishops’ statement is sectarian in its reference to embryonic and fetal life and is not concerned with the life or health of a woman but only with the contents of her womb.

The bishops’ statement, which is intended to implement papal doctrine, is also sectarian precisely because it is a statement by the Catholic hierarchy, not accepted by many Catholics and most Jews, Protestants and Humanists. The bishops also, again and again, direct it to Catholic members, Catholic politicians and voters, and invoke quotations from the pope. The statement also ends with a prayer to Mary, mother of the church.

Biblical Distortion

The bishops’ statement quotes Jeremiah 1:5 at the very beginning. Jeremiah says, “Now the word of the Lord came to me saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you: before you were born, I consecrated you; a prophet to the nations I appointed you.’”

Fact: Jeremiah is making a claim about his credentials and authority to preach. He did not make a comment about whether God creates every conceptus, or has known us before we were conceived and, therefore, wills that every conceptus come to term.

Until the present abortion controversy, this passage was identified as a vocational call, having nothing to do with abortion. Later, in Jeremiah 15:10 and 20:17, Jeremiah regrets that he was born and that he did not die in his mother’s womb.

The bishops should know that an important principle in understanding Scripture is exegesis: what does the writer say in context? Exegesis does not permit us to take a passage that deals with a specific situation or issue and turn it into a partisan or modern abortion text.

Jesus and Sanctity of Life

The bishops say Catholics should “recover their identity as followers of Jesus Christ and be leaders in the renewal of America’s respect for the sanctity of life.”

Fact: Jesus never mentioned abortion or sanctity of life. Nowhere in the Scriptures is there any reference to sacredness or sanctity or respect for fetal life. The only reference that comes close to this is Luke 2:23: “Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord.” It is characteristic of both Jewish and Christian Scripture that one must be born to be respected or to participate in the holy.

Just what does “sanctity of life” mean? Does it mean that all life must be treated with reverence and respect? Does it mean that embryonic life is more sacred than the life or health of the woman? The problem which cardinals and bishops do not face is that of conflict between existing persons and potential persons. They don’t face the question of whether there should be a bias in favor of the woman. They promote a bias in favor of an embryo or fetus that may miscarry up to 50 percent of the time. What about a woman with diabetes, epilepsy or some other disease that would jeopardize her life if she continued a pregnancy to term? Is her life sacred"

Catholic ethicist Daniel Callahan refers to “the case of a mother with too many children and too few material, familial, social or psychological resources to care for them” and concludes that “the full human meaning of the act of abortion is preservation of the existing children.”

Apparently the bishops define “sanctity of life” as fetal life that is inviolable. This means that all other human rights are ignored by the need to preserve embryonic and fetal life. In other words, Vatican legalism does not permit an examination of the context in which pregnant women find themselves. For example, a mother with three or four children whose husband with a recent heart attack can no longer support the family and she has to do so. Or a woman with one disabled child who is told she is bearing another deformed fetus that will require full-time care. The bishops do not take responsibility for such problems. They won’t even take such problem children into their parochial schools without complete government funding.

Emergency Abortions

When the bishops launched the campaign against “partial birth abortions,” they did not take into account that such late-term emergency abortions were performed on women who wanted a baby, many of them Catholics opposed to abortion. There are numerous case studies of such abortions, medically known as dilation and extraction (D & X), but one must suffice here:

Coreen Costello from Agoura, California, in April 1995 was pregnant with her third child. She and her husband found out that a lethal neuromuscular disease had left their much-wanted daughter unable to survive. Its body had stiffened and was frozen, wedged in a transverse position. In addition, amniotic fluid had puddled and built up to dangerous levels in Coreen’s uterus. Devout Christians and opposed to abortion, the Costellos agonized for over two weeks about their decision and baptized the fetus in utero. Finally, Coreen’s increasing health problems forced them to accept the advice of numerous medical experts that the intact dilation and extraction (D & X) was, indeed, the best option for Coreen’s own health, and the abortion was performed. Later, in June 1996, Coreen gave birth to a healthy son.

Again and again, the bishops try to associate their antiabortion position with the Gospel. Although abortion was widely practiced in the ancient world, there is not one reference against abortion in the entire New Testament. Even in the Hebrew Scripture or Old Testament, the only reference to individual abortion is in Numbers 5, where God commanded an abortion with respect to an unfaithful wife. Elsewhere God is quoted as having ordered many hundreds of abortions. In Isaiah 13 and Hosea 13 there are references to “ripping up women with child” and destroying “the fruit of the womb.”

When Does Human Life Begin"

The bishops state: “The point when human life begins is not a religious belief but a scientific fact.”

Fact: Human life exists in the sperm and ovum. The real question is when does human life become a human being or person. It is misleading to speak of “a moment of conception” when sperm meets egg following sexual intercourse. Conception is not complete until the fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus, which generally occurs about 10 days to two weeks after ovulation. Up to 50 percent of fertilized eggs do not implant, and in those cases it is not possible to speak of conception. Except in cases of in vitro fertilization, it is impossible to know that fertilization has taken place until implantation occurs.

Charles Gardner, who did his doctoral research on the genetic control of brain development at the University of Michigan Medical School’s Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, says, “The ‘biological’ argument that a human being is created at fertilization . . . comes as a surprise to most embryologists . . . for it contradicts all that they have learned in the past few decades.”

Gardner notes that “in humans when two sibling embryos combine into one, the resultant person may be completely normal. If the two original embryos were determined to become particular individuals, such a thing could not happen. The embryos would recognize themselves to be different . . . and would not unite. But here the cells seem unaware of any distinction between themselves. . . . The only explanation is that the individual is not fixed or determined at this stage.”

Gardner also notes, “The fertilized egg is clearly not a prepackaged human being. . . . Our genes give us a propensity for certain characteristics. So how can an embryo be a human being". . . The information to make an eye or a finger does not exist in the fertilized egg. It exists in the positions and interactions of cells and molecules that will be formed at a later date.”

Such research and discoveries lead to the conclusion that it is a developmental process taking about nine months that produces a human being or person. Therefore, the Vatican idea that a human exists at conception is a theological statement rather than a medical or scientific fact.

Gardner concludes that “fertilization, the injection of sperm DNA into the egg, is just one of the many small steps toward full human potential. It seems arbitrary to invest this biological event with any special moral significance. . . . It would be a great tragedy if, in ignorance of the process that is the embryo, state legislators pass laws restricting the individual freedom of choice and press them upon the people. The embryo is not a child. It is not a baby. It is not yet a human being.”

The Human Person

The bishops attack abortion as a “violation of the human person’s most fundamental right—the right to life.” In fact, the bishops use “human life” and “person’s life” interchangeably, even though the Vatican has not proclaimed an embryo or conceptus as a person. When is there a person? The brain is the crucial element of personhood, and a statement by 167 scientists indicates that “at about 28 weeks of gestation, brain development is marked by the sudden emergence of dendritic spines in the neocortex. Dendritic spines are essential components in the brain’s cellular circuitry.

Michael V.L. Bennett, chair of the Department of Neuroscience, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, wrote that “personhood goes with the brain and does not reside within the recipient body. . . . There is none, not heart, kidney, lung or spleen that we cannot transplant, do without, or replace artificially. The brain is the essence of our existence. It cannot be transplanted.”

The Right to Life

The bishops speak about the “most fundamental right—the right to life.” In discussing this claim we must distinguish between a virtue, that is, doing something that may be desirable, and a right. If I am walking along a river and someone who can’t swim falls or jumps in, she/he cannot claim that I must jump in to rescue her because she has a right to life. The mere fact that I ought to rescue another does not give that person or society a right against me.

The common law rule is that we have no duty to save the life of another person unless we voluntarily undertake such an obligation, as a lifeguard does in contracting to save lives at a swimming pool. No woman should be required to give up her life or health or family security to save the life of a fetus that is threatening her well-being. At the very least she is entitled to self-defense. Moreover, the act of intercourse is not a contract for pregnancy. Even less should the act of rape be regarded as a guarantee, to a resulting fetus, of the right to life.

The bishops also appeal to the Sixth of the Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt not kill.” This was and is not applicable to fetal life but refers to those who are human persons, as do all the other commandments. However, in the same Mosaic law there is a listing of those to be put to death, such as those who curse father or mother. In so doing the bishops show their lack of regard for biblical admonition and are special pleaders for a position not validated in the Bible.

Fetal Idolatry

The bishops refer to “idolatry of the self” or the placing of “my needs, my appetites, my choices to the exclusion of moral restraints.” Actually, the bishops are engaging in fetal idolatry in absolutizing the sacredness of the fetus. Like an Old Testament idol, the fetus is something for which a sacrifice must be offered. Fetal idolatry denies a woman’s right to control her body, her life, her destiny, which must be sacrificed to an embryo or fetus once she is pregnant.

Fetal idolatry is bolstered by two other idolatries. One is patriarchy and the second is religious hierarchy. Both are evident in the subordination of women to men, who have historically made political, economic and religious decisions for women. In this “sanctity” of fetal life, a male hierarchy is attempting to make a virtue out of women’s subordination. For years the Republican Party platform echoed Vatican doctrine with this statement: “The unborn child has a fundamental right to life that cannot be infringed.” This means, as does the bishops’ statement, that men and fetuses have a fundamental right to life, but pregnant women do not.