A Seamless Garment of Love: A Review and Reflection on Is the Fetus a Person?
By Wilton H. Bunch,
Professor of Christian Ethics
Beeson Divinity School, Birmingham, Alabama
The divide between advocates of fetal rights and women`s rights advocates is deep and wide. These differences rest on explicitly defined, but not always well articulated philosophical assumptions.
Fetal rights advocates assert that there is no fundamental difference between a day-old single-cell embryo and a twenty-five year old man. Each has the requisite forty-six chromosomes that determine a person`s unique genetic identity. As one has said, "Contained within the single cell who I once was, is the totality of everything I am today."
In contrast, women`s rights advocates believe that the interests of the fetus cannot be separated from those of the woman. Just as the fetus and woman are biologically united during pregnancy, so should their interests be viewed as unitary, and the woman should be empowered to make decisions for both. To women`s rights advocates, the distinction between a day-old, one-cell fertilized ovum and a twenty-five year old man is patently obvious; to deny this difference is the worst form of biological reductionism.
Intertwined with these assumptions of what it means to be a person are two narratives concerning the intentions and motivations of those who advocate fetal rights. The pro-life narrative is that fetal life is sacred and must be nurtured and protected. The strength of this fetal rights position is its moral imperative that society must take care of its weakest and most vulnerable persons. The pro-choice narrative is that this talk of concern for the fetus is nothing but a smoke screen for the continued subjugation and oppression of women.
Jean Reith Schroedel, in Is the Fetus a Person? A Comparison of Policies across the Fifty States (Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 2000) looks for data that might suggest which of these two narratives is more creditable. The first aim of this study is to compile and understand the legal policies of the various states regarding fetal protection. The second is to examine the relationship between state fetal policies and the role of the states in protecting society`s most vulnerable citizens. By examining what citizens do through the police, courts and legislatures one is able to infer what citizens believe to be important. This study is conducted to determine if there is a consistency between what the citizens of a state say about fetal status and how they act toward it.
The pro-life advocates have as their guiding principle that every innocent human being has a right to life. It should follow that states where this view is widely believed would have laws and legal practices that make fetal well being a top priority. Policies that protect and nurture human life would protect the fetus from harm and provide good prenatal medical care.
Pro-choice proponents believe that most "fetal protection" policies are hypocritical because the real purpose is subjugation of women, not a defense of the fetus. If this view is correct, states with a large pro-life population may support criminal actions against pregnant drug users because the policies target women for punitive actions, but there is no reason to treat battering of pregnant women as two crimes or to expect them to support benign policies such as adoption and prenatal care.
Schroedel and her graduate assistants have combed the laws, court cases and arrest records, state by state, to develop an impressive data base of actions concerning the fetus. The book contains extensive compilations of information on laws restricting abortion, laws and police actions against pregnant women who abuse drugs or alcohol, and laws against third parties (men) who batter pregnant women. She has uncovered information about state support for prenatal care, adoption, and early education. Finally, she correlates this with the 1988-1990 National Election Series Senate Panel Study that provides information about what people say concerning abortion and protection of fetal life.
Schroedel found a great deal of variation in the actions taken by the various states, but there are general trends that can be summarized. Pro-life states are more likely than pro-choice states to adopt restrictive abortion laws for both adults and minors. Local district attorneys in pro-life states are far more likely than those in pro-choice states to prosecute pregnant women who use drugs or alcohol, often using existing criminal statues, such as child abuse laws. There is no relation between the strength of the pro-life opinion and laws concerning battering women that results in the death of the fetus.
Having gathered and analyzed the data, Schroedel returns to relate it to the two narratives. If the fetal rights narrative is correct, we should expect pro-life states to have bans on abortion, laws against maternal drug use and third-party killings. Also, because of the moral imperative, saving lives should outweigh secondary considerations such as the cost of such policies. Conversely, if the women`s rights story is accurate, states should differ in the protection they accord fetuses, with policymakers caring deeply about fetal life threatened by the actions of the woman and caring less when that life is threatened by men who commit acts of violence against pregnant women and their fetuses.
She concludes that, overall, the evidence supports the women`s rights proposition because pro-life states do not consistently treat the fetus as a person in these other areas of the law. This opinion is buttressed by finding that the percentage of low birth weight babies is higher in pro-life states. There is an inverse correlation between adoption subsidies and pro-life sentiment of states. Foster care payment rates are lowest in pro-life states. The willingness of the state to aid needy children who remained with their mothers was negatively correlated with pro-life content of the laws. In other words, pro-life states are determined to prevent women from having abortions but seem unwilling to provide a decent level of support for those children after birth.
The final measure of state willingness to aid children-the level of education spending per child enrolled in kinder-garten through twelfth grade-also was negatively correlated with the pro-life content of state abortion statues. In fact, it appears that the pro-choice states are more committed to providing for the society`s weakest and most vulnerable than are the pro-life states.
Schroedel has thrown down the gauntlet to people who claim to be concerned about the life of children. Her data clearly shows a complete disconnect between opposition to abortion and a more global concern for protection and care for the fetus and child. This cries out for a response of action.
I believe that such a response can be based on three assumptions. First, that people who oppose abortion do so from a genuine concern for the fetus. Second, the great disparity between the vocal concern for the fetus and the lack of supportive actions has been unrecognized and unintended. Third, any response should have a scriptural basis. We now turn to a tentative outline of how Scripture might lead people to think and respond.
I would suggest that, in the past, the scriptural basis for opposition to abortion has been based on an appeal for justice, a constant theme in both Testaments. Justice is rooted in laws that produce obligations, but also provide rights. Thus, it was appropriate to frame opposition to abortion as respect for a "right" to life and as an obligation of society to provide that right. It was appropriate to include unborn children within the commandment against killing the innocent. These were legitimate, but had the consequence of focusing all of the attention on abortion and missing the larger issues of protection and support of fetal and early life.
Another approach to using Scripture to guide our ethics is to remember and respond to the love of God as manifest in the life and ministry of Christ Jesus. This is summarized in the new commandment given at the final meal with his disciples: "As I have loved you, so you should love one another." This command was not only for the original disciples, but also for all subsequent Christians, who also share in the obligation to love one another as Jesus has loved us.
The Gospels are filled with examples of how Jesus modeled for his disciples, and for us, what it meant to love. Specifically, he welcomed children to him and rebuked those who tried to keep them away. He was attentive to women in need (Mary, Martha, Mary Magdalene, the woman at the well). These provide guidance as to how we might express love for women and children.
The term "seamless garment of life" was developed by Cardinal Bernardin as an attempt to link together all human life as valuable. We can have a more modest goal as we think about a "seamless garment of love" for children, born and unborn, and the women who nurture them.
A seamless garment of love for children could include laws to restrict abortion including waiting times and, in the case of minors, parental permission. It would include medical treatment, not incarceration, for women addicted to drugs or alcohol. Love would take this stance recognizing that drugs are widely available in prisons and that babies born to prisoners are frequently of low birth weight and do not thrive. This seamless garment of love for unborn children would demand severe laws against men who batter their pregnant wives.
A seamless garment of love for unborn children would recognize their need for medical care similar to all children and demand that pre-natal care be available to all pregnant women. It would anticipate and pay for preventative care such as immunizations for the young child. It would assist in adoptions when the mother could not adequately care for the child and provide support if the mother kept the child despite difficult circumstances. A seamless garment of love for children would support education.
Doubtless there are other ways to respond scripturally to the challenge presented by the data of this book. Others may find more creative ideas to link opposition to abortion with a program of broad support for life. But there must be an active response. The world for those who oppose abortion is not the same as it was before Schroeder`s research. No longer can opponents of abortion focus on the fetus and forget the child. Schroedel has shown that, at the present time, "anti-abortion" and "pro-life" are not synonyms. They must become identical in meaning if opposition to abortion is to remain a respected moral enterprise.
