Peter Espeut | Abortion is more than a religious issue

In its editorial yesterday, the Jamaica Observer reveals that it views abortion as a religious issue – “Once the debate enters the realm of religion, it is no longer possible to find consensus on whether abortion is wrong or right”.

It is true that religious people have strong views on abortion, but I would have expected serious journalists to rise above the fray and argue the merits of each side from the standpoint of philosophy and reason and logic.

The Observer editor resiles from an objective debate in favour of the individual assessing “what is in her best interest and that of the foetus she is bearing”. Is this subjective post-modernism the stance of the Observer: that what is right is what is good for me, and anything not in my best interests is wrong? We environmentalists have a hard time battling this amoral position held by businessmen with dollars in their eyes.

At the same time, the Observer sympathizes with American feminist Katha Pollitt who they quote as saying: “We need to say that women have sex, have abortions, are at peace with the decision, and move on with their lives”.

In this libertine position there is no such thing as irresponsible sexual activity, for there is a plan for every pregnancy. I wonder if the Observer has thought through this hedonistic philosophical position?

In yesterday’s Letter of the Day in this newspaper, Dr. Horace Levy – a trained philosopher – engages the issues, and advances rational arguments in favour of abortion which are worthy of debate.

Horace agrees with anti-abortionists like myself that the zygote – the fusion of a sperm cell with an egg cell – is human, but he disregards this fact as trivial. A cheek cell, Horace argues, is also human – as are skin cells – but no one argues that killing cheek or skin cells is murder.

Of course, there is a big biological difference between a cheek cell and a zygote. Existentially, a cheek cell is part of a human body, and has completed its functional differentiation according to its genetic and enzymatic makeup, while a zygote is at the beginning of its functional differentiation; within few seconds it will divide, and then divide again and again, to become a blastula, and then an embryo – all the while a separate human being within the body of the mother.

Horace knows that you cannot compare apples with oranges; cheek cells are qualitatively different from zygotes; cheek cells are human, but zygotes are separate human beings.

Horace is right: fertilization takes place in the Fallopian tubes, and many zygotes never implant in the uterus, naturally passing out in the menses; but this scientific fact cannot justify scraping off the zygote when implantation is successful.

Many Christians argue that the production of new humans is a partnership with God, who contributes the soul at the moment of conception. Horace posits that “souls inserted into embryos by special divine action at the moment of fertilisation would mean that countless human beings are passed out in female menses. This throws major doubt on soul insertion at conception and, therefore, on the conclusion that abortion is murder. One humorist has asked about Heaven being ‘peopled’ with billions of embryos with souls!”

But why not, Horace? What has convinced you that innocent babies and embryos are banned from heaven?

Finally, Horace argues that because an embryo has an undeveloped body it also has an undeveloped soul, both of which make an embryo less human than a newborn baby. This is his weakest argument, for he adduces no evidence to support his hypothesis.

One does not have to have religious convictions to oppose abortion as the taking of innocent human life. Self-interest and convenience can blind us to what is essentially the denial of the human right to life to many unborn Jamaicans.

- Rev. Peter Espeut is a natural scientist and sociologist who is Dean of Studies at St. Michael’s Theological College. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com