CHRISTIAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE

P.O. Box 8500, Charlotte, NC 28271

FeatureArticle:DA360

DEADSILENCE: MUSTTHEBIBLESAYABORTIONISWRONGBEFOREWECAN KNOWITSWRONG?

byScottKlusendorf
ThisarticlefirstappearedintheChristianResearchJournal,volume27,number1(2004).Forfurtherinformationorto subscribetotheChristianResearchJournalgoto:http://www.equip.org

SYNOPSIS AbortionadvocatescontendthattheBibleissilentonabortionandthatnoneofthebiblicalpassagescited by prolife advocates actually say the unborn are human. Are we to conclude from this alleged silence that elective abortion is morally permitted? There are good reasons to say no. First, the Bibles lack of explicit prohibitions against abortion does not mean that it condones the practice; instead, Scripture writersdidnotbelieveprohibitionsagainstabortionwerenecessarybecauseneithertheHebrewsofthe OldTestamentnortheChristiansoftheNewTestamentwerelikelytokilltheirunbornchildren.Second, theBibleneednotexplicitlysayelectiveabortioniswrongbeforewecanknowthatitswrong.TheBible affirmsthatallhumansarevaluablebecausetheybearGodsimage.Scienceclearlydemonstratesthatthe unborn are unquestionably human from the earliest stages of development. Biblical commands against the unjust taking of human life, therefore, apply to the unborn as they do other human beings. Third, abortion advocates cannot account for basic human equality. If humans are valuable only because of someacquiredpropertysuchasselfawareness,thenitfollowsthatsincethisacquiredpropertycomesin varyingdegrees,basichumanrightsalsocomeinvaryingdegrees.Itsfarmorereasonabletheologically to argue that although humans differ immensely in their respective degrees of development, they are nonethelessequallyvaluablebecausetheyhaveincommonanaturemadeintheimageofGod.

AbortionadvocatesfromboththeReligiousCoalitionforReproductiveChoiceandPlannedParenthood Federation of America contend that the Bible is silent on abortion. None of the Scriptures traditionally citedbyprolifeadvocatesestablishthehumanityoftheunborn,theyproclaim.OnethingtheBibledoes notsayisThoushaltnotabort,writesRoyBowenWard,professoremeritusofcomparativereligionat MiamiUniversityofOhio.1ReverendMarkBigelow,amemberofPlannedParenthoodsClergyAdvisory Board,writes,EvenasaministerIamcarefulwhatIpresumeJesuswoulddoifhewerealivetoday,but one thing I know from the Bible is that Jesus was not against women having a choice in continuing a pregnancy.Heneversaidawordaboutabortion(nordidanyoneelseintheBible)eventhoughabortion wasavailableandinuseinhistime.2PaulD.Simmons,formerprofessorofChristianethicsatSouthern BaptistTheologicalSeminary,findstheBiblessilenceonabortionprofoundandremarksthatnotonce doesthesubjectappearinanyoftheapostlePaulslistsofprohibitedactions.3SupposewegrantthatWard, Bigelow,andSimmonsarecorrectinthattheBibleissilentonabortion.Letsfurthersupposethatnoneof the specified passages cited by prolife advocates (Ps. 51:5; 139:1315; and Luke 1:4144 to name a few) explicitly say the unborn are human. Does it follow, therefore, that Scripture teaches that women have a Godgiven right to abort their unborn offspring? The purpose of this article is to show that the case for electiveabortionbasedontheallegedsilenceofScriptureisflawedboththeologicallyandphilosophically.

CRI

Web: www.equip.org

Tel: 704.887.8200 1

Fax: 704.887.8299

DOESSILENCEEQUALPERMISSION? AbortionadvocatesarecorrectthattheBibledoesnotspecificallymentionabortion,butwhatsthebest explanation for its silence? The hidden (andundefended) premise in the argument advanced by Ward, Bigelow,andSimmonsisthatwhatevertheBibledoesntcondemnitcondones.Itseasytoseethatthis premiseisflawed,sinceitleadstosomeabsurdconclusions.TheBibledoesnotexpresslycondemnmany things, including racial discrimination against blacks, killing abortion doctors as a means of fighting abortion, and lynching homosexuals, and yet few people would argue that these acts are morally justified.Weknow,infact,thattheyarewrongbyinference.Scripture,forexample,tellsusitswrongto treat human beings unjustly. Lynching homosexuals treats human beings unjustly. Scripture, therefore, condemnsthisactivityevenifthetopicoflynchingisneverexplicitlyaddressed. A century ago, racists argued from the alleged silence of Scripture that blacks were not human. Some wentsofarastodenythatblackshadsouls.4Thisargumentwashardlypersuasive.Scripturedoesnot mentioneveryspecificraceandnationality,butitdoesteachthatallhumansaremadeinGodsimage andwerecreatedtohavefellowshipwithHim(Gen.1:26;Gal.3:28;Col.3:1011).Theinferenceisclear:if blacks are human beings, they, too, are made in Gods image. No further proof from Scripture is necessary. Asweshallsee,thesameistruewiththeunborn.Ifembryosandfetusesarehumanbeings,thenbiblical commands that forbid the unjust taking of human life apply to them as they do to other humans. AppealingtotheBiblesallegedsilenceonabortionmissesthepointentirely.Thatiswhywhenabortion advocatesarguetheircasefromthesilenceofScripture,Iask,AreyousayingthatwhenevertheBible does not specifically condemn something, it condones it? When they say no (and they must), I reply, Thenwhatisyourpoint? ContrarytoWardandBigelow,therearegoodreasonstosupposetheallegedsilenceofScripturedoes not mean the biblical writers condoned abortion, but that prohibitions against it were largely unnecessary.WeshouldrememberthattheBibleasawholeisnotacomprehensivecodeofethics;rather, the Bible is the story of Gods redemption of His people. In other words, the biblical writers, under guidance from the Holy Spirit, selectively discussed topics relevant to their intended audiences while leavingmanyothertopicsunstated.IfneithertheHebrewsoftheOldTestamentnortheChristiansofthe New Testament were inclined to abort their unborn offspring, there was little reason for the biblical writerstoaddressthematter. TheOldTestamentContext Biblical and cultural evidence suggests that the original audiences of the Bible were not inclined to consider abortion even though it was practiced in surrounding cultures.5 Turning first to the Hebrew worldviewfoundintheOldTestament,wefindthat: Humans have intrinsic value because they are made in the image of God. The shedding of innocentbloodishencestrictlyforbidden(Gen.1:26;9:6;Exod.23:7;Prov.6:1617). Childrenareseldomseenasunwantedorasanuisance(unlesstheyturnwicked),buttheyare consideredgiftsfromGodthegreatestpossibleblessings(Ps.127:35;113:9;cf.Gen.17:6;33:5). Immortalityisexpressedthroughonesdescendants.GodpromisedAbrahamtomakeofhima greatnationandthatpromisewaspassedontoIsaac,Jacob,andsoon.Sonsareaheritagefrom theLord,childrenarewardfromhim,wrotethepsalmist(Ps.127:3;cf.Gen.48:16). Sterility and barrenness are a curse, a source of great shame and sorrow. Peninnah therefore harshlyridiculedHannah,theprophetSamuelsmother,becauseofthelattersinitialbarrenness (1Sam.1:6;cf.Gen.20:1718;30:1,2223).

AstheologianGermainGrisezpointsout,amongapeoplewhosawchildrenasagiftandbarrennessasa curse, it wasunthinkable that an Israelite womanshould desire an abortion. In such a context, the Old Testaments silence on abortion suggests that prohibitions against it were largely unnecessary and not thatthepracticewastacitlyapproved.6

CRI

Web: www.equip.org

Tel: 704.887.8200 2

Fax: 704.887.8299

Ward disputes this conclusion, noting it was common for authors of both Testaments to condemn the practicesofneighboringnations,suchasidolworship,sacredprostitution,andthelike,yettheydidnot choosetocondemnabortionapracticecommoninthosesurroundingcultures.7 Wardsrejoinder,however,isnotpersuasive.Unlikeabortion,idolatrouspracticeswerenotrestrictedto neighboringcultures,butattimeswerepervasiveamongGodsownpeople;indeed,Wardoverlooksthe factthatIsraelandJudahweretakencaptiveonnumerousoccasionspreciselybecauseoftheiridolatry (Ps.106:3543;Jer.1:16;2:23;Ezek.6:110).Itisnosurprise,therefore,thatthebiblicalwritersmentioned thispracticebutnotabortion;althoughIsraelsneighboringculturespracticedabortion,itdoesnotmean theHebrewspracticedabortionaswell.Inshort,WardfailstointerprettheOldTestamentwithinitsown intellectualandhistoricalculturalframework. Wardsargumentfromsilence,moreover,impliestoomuch.TheBibledoesnotmentiononeofthemost heinouspracticesofthesurroundingancientworld,femaleinfanticide,butitdoesnotfollowfromthis that the act is therefore morally justified. The view that the absence of a direct prohibition meant that women had a Godgiven right to kill their offspring would have been utterly foreign to the Hebrew cultureofthetime. TheNewTestamentContext AbortionwasaforeignthoughtintheNewTestamentaswell.ProfessorMichaelJ.Gormanwritesthat thefirstChristianswerelargelyJewish,withanessentiallyJewishmorality. 8IfaJewishconsensusagainst abortionexistedatthetime,theearlyChristiansmostcertainlywouldhavesharedthatconsensus. As Gorman points out, firstcentury Judaism was, in fact, quite firmly opposed to abortion. Jewish documents from the period condemn the practice unequivocally, demonstrating a clear antiabortion consensusamongJews: TheSentencesofPseudoPhocylides(writtenbetween50bcandad50)says,Awomanshouldnot destroytheunbornbabeinherbelly,norafteritsbirththrowitbeforethedogsandvultures. The Sibyline Oracles includes among the wicked those who produce abortions and unlawfully cast their offspring away. Also condemned are sorcerers who dispense abortifacients (an abortioninducingsubstanceordevice). First Enoch (a first or second century bc document) says an evil angel taught humans how to smashtheembryointhewomb.

Josephus (a firstcentury Jewish historian) stated, The law orders all the offspring be brought up, and forbids women either to cause abortion or to make away with the fetus. A woman who did so was consideredtohavecommittedinfanticidebecauseshedestroyedasoulandhencediminishedtherace.9 Thesetexts,writesGorman,bearwitnesstothegeneralJewishandJewishChristianattitudeofthefirst and second centuries, thus confirming that the earliest Christians shared the antiabortion position of theirJewishforebears.10 Finally, we should remember that the theology of the New Testament epistles is primarily task theologywrittentoaddressspecificissuesinspecificchurches.Paul,forexample,islargelysilentonthe historical career of Christ (he mentions it only in passing while underscoring the importance of the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15), but this does not mean that he questioned the facts of Jesus earthly ministry. A discussion of those facts simply never became necessary. New Testament scholar George EldonLaddstated,WemaysaythatweowewhateverunderstandingwehaveofPaulsthoughttothe accidents of history which required him to deal with various problems, doctrinal and practical, in the lifeofthechurches. 11 Thebestexplanation,then,fortheNewTestamentssilenceonabortionisnotthatitsauthorscondonedthe practice,butthatadiscussionoftheissuewasunnecessary.AsGormanpointsout,therewasnodeviation from the norm inherited from Judaism. Unlike the surrounding pagan cultures, the early Christians to whomtheNewTestamentwaswrittenweresimplynotinclinedtokilltheirchildrenbeforeorafterbirth.

CRI

Web: www.equip.org

Tel: 704.887.8200 3

Fax: 704.887.8299

WHATISTHEUNBORNANDWHYSHOULDWECARE? Themoralityofabortioncomesdowntojustonequestion:Istheunbornamemberofthehumanfamily? Ifso,electiveabortionisaseriousmoralwrongthatviolatesbiblicalcommandsagainsttheunjusttaking of human life (Exod. 23:7; Ps. 106:3738; Prov. 6:1617; Matt. 5:21). It treats the unborn human being, madeintheimageofGod(Gen.1:26;9:6;James3:9),asnothingmorethandisposabletissue.Conversely, iftheunbornarenothuman,electiveabortionrequiresnomorejustificationthanhavingatoothpulled. Scripture (we will grant) is silent on the humanity of the unborn (as it is on the humanity of whites, blacks,Asians,etc.);however,itisclearthatwearenottotakehumanlifewithoutjustification.Itfollows thatifapositivecasecanbemadeforthehumanityoftheunbornapartfromScripture(as,e.g.,weknow theFrencharehumansapartfromScripture),wecanlogicallyconcludethatbiblicalcommandsagainst theunjusttakingofhumanlifeapplytotheunbornastheydootherhumanbeings.Atthispoint,science assists theology; that is to say, science gives us the facts we need to arrive at a theologically sound conclusion. What the facts of science make clear is that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. True, they have yet to grow and mature, but they are whole humanbeingsnonetheless.Leadingembryologytextbooksaffirmthisconclusion.12 AnEmbryoIsMorethanHumanCells AbortionadvocateVirginiaRameyMollenkott, whose work is prominentlyfeatured in the literature of theReligiousCoalitionforReproductiveChoice,insists,however,thatwegainnotheologicalknowledge from these facts. The fetus is biologically human only in the sense that any part of a human body is human:everycellcarriesthefullgeneticcode.Aseveredhandisgeneticallyhumanaswellbutwedont call it a person.13 In other words, Mollenkott would have us believe there is no difference in kind betweenahumanembryoandeachofourcells. Thisisbadbiology.Mollenkottismakingtheratherelementarymistakeofconfusingpartswithwholes. The difference in kind between each of our cells and a human embryo is clear: an individual cells functionsaresubordinatedtothesurvivalofthelargerorganismofwhichitismerelyapart.Thehuman embryo,however,isalreadyawholehumanentity.RobertGeorgeandPatrickLeearguethatitmakesno sense to say you were once a sperm or somatic cell when science clearly states that you were once a human embryo: Somatic cells are not, and embryonic human beings are, distinct, selfintegrating organismscapableofdirectingtheirownmaturationasmembersofthehumanspecies.14 MaureenCondic,assistantprofessorofneurobiologyandanatomyattheUniversityofUtah,pointsout that embryos are living human beings precisely because they possess the single defining feature of humanlifethatislostinthemomentofdeaththeabilitytofunctionasacoordinatedorganismrather than merely as a group of living human cells. Condic explains the important distinction between individual body parts and whole human embryos overlooked by Mollenkott: The critical difference between a collection of cellsand a living organismis theabilityofan organism to actina coordinated mannerforthecontinuedhealthandmaintenanceofthebodyasawhole.Itispreciselythisabilitythat breaksdownatthemomentofdeath,howeverdeathmightoccur.Deadbodiesmayhaveplentyoflive cells,buttheircellsnolongerfunctiontogetherinacoordinatedmanner. 15 From conception forward, human embryos clearly function as organisms. Embryos are not merely collectionsofhumancells,butlivingcreatureswithallthepropertiesthatdefineanyorganismasdistinct from a group of cells; embryos are capable of growing, maturing, maintaining a physiologic balance betweenvariousorgansystems,adaptingtochangingcircumstances,andrepairinginjury.Meregroups ofhumancells[e.g.,aseveredhand]donothinglikethisunderanycircumstances.16 WHATMAKESHUMANSVALUABLE? Do humans come to be at one point, but come to be valuable only later by virtue of some acquired property (i.e., characteristic)? In his article, Personhood, the Bible, and the Abortion Debate, Paul D.

CRI

Web: www.equip.org

Tel: 704.887.8200 4

Fax: 704.887.8299

Simmons concedes that zygotes (early embryos) are biologically human, but he denies they are complex or developed enough to qualify as persons in a biblical sense. No one can deny the continuum from fertilization to maturity and adulthood, writes Simmons. That does not mean, however,thateverysteponthecontinuumhasthesamevalueorconstitutesthesameentity.17 Simmonss larger purpose is to defendabortion rights by tellingus who doesand does not bear Gods image.Hearguesthathumansbearthatimage(andhence,havevalueaspersons)notbyvirtueofthe kindofthingtheyare(membersofanaturalkindorspecies),butonlybecauseofanacquiredproperty, in this case, the immediate capacity for selfawareness. A person, he contends, has capacities of reflective choice, relational responses, social experience, moral perception, and selfawareness.18 Zygotes, as mere clusters of human cells, do not have this capacity and therefore do not bear Gods image. ThreecounterexamplesunderscorethearbitrarynatureofSimmonssclaim.First,newbornscannotmake conscious, reflective choices until several months after birth.19 What principled reason, therefore, can Simmons give for saying infanticide is wrong? Peter Singer points out in Practical Ethics that if self awarenessmakesonevaluableasaperson,andnewbornslikefetuseslackthatproperty,itfollowsthat bothfetusandnewbornaredisqualified.Onecannotarbitrarydrawalineatbirthtosparethenewborn.20 AbrahamLincolnraisedasimilarpointwithslavery,notingthatanyargumentusedtodisqualifyblacks asvaluablehumanbeingsworksequallywelltodisqualifywhites: YousayAiswhiteandBisblack.Itiscolor,then:thelighterhavingtherighttoenslavethedarker? Takecare.Bythisrule,youareaslavetothefirstmanyoumeetwithafairerskinthanyourown. YoudonotmeancolorexactlyYoumeanthewhitesareintellectuallythesuperiorsoftheblacks,and thereforehavetherighttoenslavethem?Takecareagain:Bythisruleyouaretobeaslavetothefirst manyoumeetwithanintellectsuperiortoyourown. Butyousayitisaquestionofinterest,and,ifyoucanmakeityourinterest,youhavetherighttoenslave another.Verywell.Andifhecanmakeithisinterest,hehastherighttoenslaveyou.21 Inshort,Simmonscannotaccountforbasichumanequality.AsGeorgeandLeepointout,ifhumansare valuableonlybecauseofsomeacquiredpropertysuchasskincolororselfawarenessandnotinvirtueof thekindofthingtheyare,thenitfollowsthatsincetheseacquiredpropertiescomeinvaryingdegrees, basic human rights also come in varying degrees. Do we really want to say that those with more self awarenessaremorehuman(andmorevaluable)thanthosewithless?Thisrelegatesthepropositionall menandwomenarecreatedequaltotheashheapofhistory.22Theologically,itsfarmorereasonableto arguethatalthoughhumansdifferimmenselywithrespecttotalents,accomplishments,anddegreesof development(acquiredproperties),theyarenonethelessequallyvaluablebecausetheyhaveincommon anaturemadeinGodsimage.Humansareequallyvaluablebyvirtueofbeingequallyhuman. Second, if the immediate capacity for consciousness makes one valuable, many nonhuman animals qualifyaspersons.ThisisPeterSingerspoint.Singercontendsthatavarietyofnonhumananimalsare rational, selfconscious beings that qualify as persons in the relevant sense of the term; consequently, dogs,cats,andpigsarevaluablepersons,whilefetuses,newborns,andvictimsofAlzheimersdiseaseare not.Singerconcludesthattofavorthepreconsciousinfantoveraselfconsciousdogsimplybecausethe infantisbiologicallyhumanmakesoneguiltyofspeciesism,acrimeakintoracism.23Itshardtosee howSimmonscanescapethissameconclusiongivenhisbeliefthatGodsimageinhumansisgrounded inthepropertyofselfawarenessperseratherthaninhumannature,whichallowsforselfconsciousness amongothercapacities,giventherightconditions. Third,humanembryoshaveabasic(root)capacityforselfconsciousness,lackingonlytheimmediate,or current,capacityforit.AsGeorgepointsout,humanembryospossessthisbasiccapacitybyvirtueofthe kind of thing they are members of a natural kind, a biological species whose members (if not preventedbysomeextrinsiccause)induecoursedeveloptheimmediatecapacityforsuchmentalacts. 24 Wecan,therefore,distinguishbetweentwotypesofcapacitiesformentalfunctions:(1)basic,ornatural, and (2) immediate, or current. On what basis can Simmons require for the recognition of full moral

CRI

Web: www.equip.org

Tel: 704.887.8200 5

Fax: 704.887.8299

respectthesecondsortofcapacity,whichisanaccidental(i.e.,nonessential)attribute,andnotthefirst, which is grounded in the kind of thing one is?25 I cannot think of any basis that is not arbitrary. One growsintheabilitytoperformmentalactsonlybecauseonealreadyisthekindofthingthatgrowsinto theabilitytoperformmentalacts,thatis,ahumanbeing.Mythoughtsandmyfeelings,indeedallofmy functionalmentalabilities,cannotexistunlessIfirstexist.Icanexistwithoutthem,as,forexample,when Iamsleeping,buttheycannotexistwithoutme.26 Intheend,Simmonsscaseforhumanvalueisadhocandarbitrary.Itcannotanswerwhyselfawareness isthebiblicallyrelevantfactorratherthananother,norwhyacertainlevelofdevelopmentisnecessary. FLAWEDTHEOLOGY Exodus21:2225isafavoriteofabortionadvocates,thoughitdoeslittletobolstertheircase.Thepassage readsinthenasbasfollows:Andifmenstrugglewitheachotherandstrikeawomanwithchildsothat shehasamiscarriage[givesbirthprematurelyinnasb1995update],yetthereisnofurtherinjury,he shallsurelybefinedasthewomanshusbandmaydemandofhim;andheshallpayasthejudgesdecide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. Abortion advocates argue that this Scripture proves the unborn are not fully human because the penalty for accidentallykillingafetusislessthanthepenaltyforkillingitsmother. Thisargument,however,isflawedonseveralcounts.First,assumingforthesakeofargumentthatthe proabortion interpretation of this passage is correct (i.e., that the unborns death is treated differently from the mothers), it still does not follow that the unborn are not fully human. The preceding verses (21:2021)presentasituationwhereamasterunintentionallykillshisslaveandescapeswithnopenalty atall(thelackofintentbeingprovenbytheintervalbetweentheblowandthedeath),andyetithardly followsthatScriptureconsiderstheslavelessthanhuman. Second, this passage does not even remotely suggest that a woman can willfully kill her unborn child through elective abortion. Nothing in the context supports this claim. At best, the text assigns a lesser penalty for accidentally killing a fetus than for accidentally killing its mother. It simply does not follow fromthisthatawomanmaydeliberatelykillherchildthroughabortion. Third, the proabortion interpretation of this passage (that a lesser penalty applies for accidental fetal death)ishighlyquestionable.WhenreadintheoriginalHebrew,thepassageseemstoconveythatboth the mother and the childare coveredby the lex talionis the law ofretribution. According to Hebrew scholarGleasonArcher,Thereisnosecondclassstatusattachedtothefetusunderthis[lextalionis]rule. Thefetusisjustasvaluableasthemother. 27 Taken together, the cultural, exegetical, philosophical, and scientific considerations weve examined prove that the Bible neednot explicitly say electiveabortionis wrong beforewe can know it is wrong. AlthoughtheBibledoesnotsayThoushaltnotabort,itdoesprohibittheunjusttakingofhumanlife, whichappliestotheunbornasitdoestootherhumans. NOTES
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. RoyBowenWard,IstheFetusaPerson?TheBiblesView,MissionJournal(January1986)<http://www.rcrc.org/pdf/isfetusa person.pdf>. MarkBigelow,lettertoBillOReillyofFoxNews,November22,2002.Letteravailableat <http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about/pr/021126_gloria_letter.html>. PaulD.Simmons,Personhood,theBible,andtheAbortionDebate,ReligiousCoalitionforReproductiveChoice <http://www.rcrc.org/pdf/personhoodandbible.pdf>. JosiahPriest,BibleDefenceofSlavery:Origin,FortunesandHistoryoftheNegroRace,5thed.(Glasgow,KY:W.S.Brown,1852),33, citedinMillardJ.Erickson,ChristianTheology,2nded.(GrandRapids:Baker,1998),560. ImindebtedheretotheresearchofGermainG.GrisezandMichaelGorman,whoseworksIcitebelow. GermainG.Grisez,Abortion:TheMyths,theRealities,andtheArguments(NewYork:CorpusBooks,1970),12327. Ward. MichaelJ.Gorman,WhyIstheNewTestamentSilentaboutAbortion?ChristianityToday,January11,1993.

CRI

Web: www.equip.org

Tel: 704.887.8200 6

Fax: 704.887.8299

9. 10. 11. 12.

13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

Ibid. Ibid. GeorgeEldonLadd,ATheologyoftheNewTestament(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1974),37778. SeeT.W.Sadler,LangmansMedicalEmbryology,5thed.(Philadelphia:W.B.Saunders,1993),3;KeithL.Moore,TheDeveloping Human:ClinicallyOrientedEmbryology,4thed.(Toronto:B.C.Decker,1988),2;RonanR.ORahillyandFabiolaMller,Human EmbryologyandTeratology,2nded.(NewYork:WileyLiss,1996),8,29. VirginiaRameyMollenkott,RespectingtheMoralAgencyofWomen,ReligiousCoalitionforReproductiveChoice <http://www.rcrc.org/pdf/moralagencywomen.pdf>. RobertGeorgeandPatrickLee,Reason,Science,andStemCells,NationalReviewOnline,July20,2001 <http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/commentgeorge072001.shtml>. MaureenL.Condic,Life:DefiningtheBeginningbytheEnd,FirstThings133(May2003):5054. Ibid. Simmons. Ibid. ConorListonandJeromeKagan,BrainDevelopment:MemoryEnhancementinEarlyChildhood,Nature419,896(2002).See alsoORahillyandMller,8. PeterSinger,PracticalEthics(Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress,1997),16971. AbrahamLincoln,TheCollectedWorksofAbrahamLincoln,ed.RayP.Basler,vol.2(NewBrunswick,NJ:RutgersUniversity Press,1953),222. RobertP.George,CloningAddendum,NationalReviewOnline,July15,2002 <http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document071602.asp>;PatrickLee,TheProLifeArgumentfromSubstantial Identity(paperpresentedattheTollefsenLectureSeries,St.AnselmsCollege,November14,2002). HelgaKhuseandPeterSinger,ShouldtheBabyLive?(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1985),123.SeealsoSinger,11719. George,CloningAddendum. PatrickLeeasksthisquestion(thoughnotaddressingSimmons)inTheProLifeArgumentfromSubstantialIdentity. GaryR.HabermasandJ.P.Moreland,BeyondDeath(Wheaton,IL:Crossway,1998),27. CitedinJohnAnkerbergandJohnWeldon,WhenDoesLifeBegin?(Brentwood,TN:WolgemuthandHyatt,1990),19596.See alsoMeredithKline,LexTalionisandtheHumanFetus,SimonGreenleafLawReview5(19851986):7389.

CRI

Web: www.equip.org

Tel: 704.887.8200 7

Fax: 704.887.8299