SSP HANDOUT.docx

When is a fetus a person? Many religions, including several Christian denominations and Islam, take the viewpoint that a fetus is a person beginning at conception and, as such, possesses basic human rights, including the right to life. Many biblical passages not only mention fetuses, but refer to them as entities created by God: “Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?” (Job 31:15). “From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother’s womb you have been my God” (Psalms 22:10). “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb” (Psalms 139:13). “As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother’s womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things” (Ecclesiastes 11:5). “This is what the Lord says—he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you: Do not be afraid, O Jacob, my servant, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen” (Isaiah 44:2). The Qur’an states that children are gifts from God, with passages such as “Kill not your children for fear of want; . . . for verily killing them is a great sin” (Qur’an 17:31). “Slay not your children for fear of poverty—We will provide for you and for them . . . and kill not the soul which Allah has made sacred . . .” (Qur’an 6:151). Yet, medieval Muslim theologians reached a consensus that elective abortion was permissible (although not desirable) as long as the fetus wasn’t fully formed, which they believed happened at 120 days after conception. After 120 days, the mother’s health had to be a risk to justify abortion. In that case, the actual life of the mother takes priority over the potential life of the infant. Even though Judaism doesn’t consider the fetus to be a person (lav nefesh hu), Judaism nevertheless forbids abortion unless the life of the mother is at stake. Judaism also forbids abortion, even if the mother’s life is at stake if the fetus is partially delivered. How does Judaism use pro-choice beliefs to justify pro-life conclusions? The answer is complex, but the main point is that Judaism frames the abortion question another way. The question for Judaism is not whether the fetus is or isn’t a person but whether the fetus is or isn’t innocent. How could the fetus be anything but innocent? According to Jewish law, anything or anyone who attacks you unjustly and threatens your life is called a pursuer (rodef in Hebrew). If you can’t get away to safety, you are morally and religiously entitled to kill a pursuer. If the fetus is a pursuer, you can have the abortion. A fetus can be a pursuer, for example, if a pregnant woman had uterine cancer and needed chemotherapy or radiation treatment. The treatment would abort the fetus, but if the mother waits for the baby to be born before she seeks the necessary treatment, she may die. In this case, the fetus is a pursuer because it threatens the life of the mother, even though it doesn’t intend to. A fetus that poses no threat to the mother’s life is innocent (that is, not a pursuer), and Jewish law prohibits killing any living innocent thing (ba’al tashchit). Hinduism opposes abortion because if you abort a pregnancy, you’re interfering with the cycle of rebirth. Pro-choice religious people cite a variety of texts to show that the fetus isn’t a person. One of the most contentious verses is the only verse in the Bible that specifically refers to miscarriage: “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no harm [to her], the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is harm [to her], then you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise” (Exodus 21:22-25). The point here is that, if the fetus were considered a person, then the death of the fetus described in this passage would be a capital crime. Instead, the death requires a monetary payment. 101

Who owns a person’s body? Who owns a person’s body? The view of many monotheistic faiths is that God owns our bodies; therefore, we don’t have rights over something we don’t own. The biblical passages that support the idea that God owns our bodies are the creation story in Genesis and this verse in Ezekiel: “All souls are mine” (18:4). This issue doesn’t affect only women (men don’t own their own bodies, either), and it has ramifications beyond the abortion issue. Because of the concept that our bodies are not our own, many religions outline what is and isn’t acceptable use or treatment of the body. A few religions, for example, forbid the use of contraceptives and prohibit masturbation. Abortion is simply another issue that falls within the idea that our bodies aren’t our own. As a result, according to most religions, women are not the only ones who should decide whether to continue a pregnancy. The notion of absolute personal rights over one’s body is a relatively modern idea—one that pro-choice supporters, even religious pro-choice supporters, use to explain why a woman should be the one to make decisions about her body, especially in this age of equality and deeper understanding of human autonomy. Section 2: Euthanasia Euthanasia comes from the Greek words meaning “good death.” Nowadays, the term refers to painless death or death to end interminable and fruitless suffering. The ethical issues surrounding euthanasia involve choices between ordinary versus extraordinary treatment, voluntary versus involuntary death, and assisted suicide. The main reason euthanasia is a big ethical concern is because of medical advances that can extend the time of a person’s life without extending the quality of a person’s life. Medical treatments that cannot cure but can delay and obstruct the inevitable arrival of death seem to many people a cruel form of torture. Types of euthanasia Euthanasia occurs in two forms: active and passive, although the line between them can get quite fuzzy: Active euthanasia: Taking a deliberate action to intentionally end a person’s life at that person’s request. Passive euthanasia: Withdrawing medical procedures that are not therapeutic, with the aim of letting death happen more quickly, if death is going to occur without the procedures. Active euthanasia may involve increasing pain-killing drugs until the overdose kills the person (this is called “snowing a patient,” in some hospital parlance). Passive euthanasia may involve taking a patient off a respirator. Religious positions on euthanasia Deliberately taking a life, even a painful one, is quite a bit different from withdrawing treatment and letting nature take its course, which, in most cases, inevitably will end in death. For these reasons, every religious tradition considers active euthanasia wrong and opposes it as murder. Passive euthanasia is another matter, one that is much harder to call. When death is imminent If the action involves stopping medical treatment which only purpose is to delay death and not heal, there is good religious justification for accepting that act as a moral act. Judaism, for example, specifically prohibits doing anything to hasten the death of a dying person, but it allows the removal of “obstacles to death.” In one picturesque example, a woodchopper is making noise outside the room of a dying person and this noise is keeping the dying person from dying. The law is that the woodchopper must stop. From this, many rabbis have ruled that removing medical obstacles to death is also permitted. 102

When the quality of life is the issue Other situations aren’t so clear. What happens, for example, when a person in a persistent vegetative state will never awaken from a coma and is being fed through stomach-feeding tubes or intravenous lines. His or her condition isn’t life threatening. Can you remove feeding tubes as an act of passive euthanasia, or must you continue to feed and hydrate the patient no matter what the physical condition? Some say depriving such a patient of food and water is the same as starving the person death; as such, it’s active euthanasia and murder. Others say that such a person is dying and that feeding in such an unnatural way causes more pain and serves only to delay death. Some religious traditions don’t view suffering as evil, but as a test and a challenge and part of the spiritual journey of life into death. Islam is against any form of euthanasia. The reason is that all things, including disability and suffering, come from Allah. To surrender to Allah’s will means to trust that he knows best and accept that which he gives you. In dealing with end-of-life issues, Muslims believe in accepting tragedy with fortitude and making the suffering person as comfortable as possible: “And no soul can die but with Allah’s permission—the term is fixed” (Qur’an 3:144). Quality-of-life arguments for euthanasia are generally outside the religious frame of moral reference. Quality of life doesn’t matter to religious morality. If our lives have high quality, that’s good. Nevertheless, even lives that are full of suffering and pain are still gifts from God. Suffering, euthanasia, and Eastern religions Buddhist literature rarely discusses euthanasia. Strong Zen traditions exist in Japan that tolerate suicide, and stories are told of how Siddhartha Gautama allowed monks to kill themselves. Theravada Buddhism in Thailand, on the other hand, appears to be decidedly against any form of euthanasia. Hindus consider all life sacred and so would be generally against the taking of life. They argue the issue of euthanasia from the point of view of motive. Taking a life for personal gain is always wrong, but taking life out of compassion for the individual might be acceptable. Nevertheless, many of these religious traditions see life as a journey toward enlightenment that can take several lifetimes to achieve. The primary task of these journeys is to be purified of attachments, including our attachment to such issues as quality of life. Section 3: Suicide Most Western religious traditions condemn suicide for many of the same reasons they condemn active euthanasia. Taking your own life—for whatever the reason—shows lack of faith and trust in God. In Islam, suicide is as illegal as murder. God, who alone knows the reasons for why things are the way they are, creates and owns all souls. Life is a test, and suffering has purpose, even though you may not understand what that purpose is. Besides, suicide doesn’t really stop suffering; it simply compounds the problems. The reason is that, on earth, souls have less awareness of the truth; after death, however, things become more apparent. Only after death can people can fully realize how their actions hurt others. This knowledge plagues them because they are unable to make amends. Many Christian traditions see suicide as unforgivable. The reason? Suicide is a mortal sin, that is, a sin committed deliberately and in full knowledge of the act. The only way to get back into God’s good graces after you commit a mortal sin is to repent. See the problem with suicide? You can’t repent because you’re dead. Nowadays, some Christian traditions, including Roman Catholicism, have softened their stance on suicide being an unforgivable sin. They use the mindset of the person to determine how responsible they are for their actions. The argument is that most people are not themselves and not in control of their actions when they become desperate enough or depressed enough to see death as the only solution. Therefore, the desperate act of suicide doesn’t automatically cut people off from God’s grace (but it’s still a bad idea). 103

Section 4: Genetic Engineering The religious command to heal is absolute and unwavering. A few Christian groups believe that transfusions of blood are a violation of the biblical commandment not to eat blood. So Christian denominations, such as Christian Science and Jehovah’s Witness, refuse medical treatment. Most religious traditions, however, authorize any clinically proven application of medical science that has the chance of healing. Seen in this light, healing by giving us a new gene to replace a defective one is no different than healing by giving us a new kidney to replace a defective kidney. The biblical commandment, rapo yirapeh from Exodus, “In healing you shall surely heal,” refers to the ends, not the means. Religious ethics thus approve any new miracle cure, no matter how unique and different it is from the past, so long as it heals disease. The promise and the threat Genetic engineering holds the promise of not only coping with the symptoms of disease, but also of eliminating their causes. Gene-replacement surgery or gene therapy may someday wipe out inherited genetic diseases. The outlook for these and other such positive achievements in genetics is astounding. On the other hand, the prospect of genetic engineering run amok confronts us with horrors that more than match the miracles of healing: ✔ Genetically altered bacteria could wipe out all life in the seas or on land, because nature had never evolved a defense against it. ✔ Genetically altered food could alter the humans who eat it. ✔ Genetically engineered people may, in some way, lack the mysterious element that makes people human. In a world of unrestrained and unaccountable genetic engineering, the same science that can produce miracles of healing can also produce abominations of vanity. Cloning could produce a genetically identical version of you in every generation. Genetic counselors would meet with parents to go over all the choices about what traits they want implanted in their child (if it would be their child. After all, how many people of average size, average intelligence, and average talent could produce a child with the brain of an Einstein, the athletic ability of a Michael Jordan, and the artistic talent of a Picasso?). Genetic engineering to protect against disease and disability (a good thing, according to most people) easily morphs into an acceptance of genetic engineering for other reasons. That easy transition is what scares people. How far down the slope can you go before you end up sliding uncontrollably to the bottom? Ask yourself this question: “If some genetic engineer could offer my new baby an additional 20 points of intelligence, would I refuse that for my child?” Then while you’re at it, why not choose the nose shape and hair color and height you prefer. Designer clothing is merely a casual arrogance, but the concept of designer babies is human arrogance gone bad. The religious response If you look at all the sacred texts of all the world’s religions, you probably won’t be surprised to discover that not one of them contains a single reference to genetic engineering! The holy books do, however, contain some suggestive passages. In Genesis, when God makes all the living things on the earth, this is the description: “Then God said, ‘Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according totheir various kinds.’ And it was so” (Genesis 1:11). “So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good” (Genesis 1:21). 104

So, what’s the idea of the Creation account? Perhaps it’s the ancient religious wisdom that says what God has created, we have no permission to alter, and particularly no permission to alter in ways that have nothing to do with healing and everything to do with human vanity. Section 5: Capital Punishment Capital punishment is a tough issue for religions—and not because it pits a religious ethic against secular culture, as do the issues of abortion and homosexuality. The topic of capital punishment also isn’t a recent issue, like euthanasia and genetic engineering. Capital punishment is difficult, because the religions of the world are divided about what is right. Some religions oppose capital punishment vigorously; others endorse it vigorously. Some endorse it in theory, but in practice teach that it should never or hardly ever be done. In the case of capital punishment, you can probably find religious support for any position. Buddhism and Hinduism employ similar reasoning for both euthanasia and capital punishment. When is it allowable to kill? In general, Hindus practice nonviolence to any living thing. Yet, if you’re Hindu and a member of the warrior caste, you can—and must—kill in defense of your country and to ensure that you have a good birth in the next life. Buddhists may or may not follow the same principles; it depends on the country in which the religion is practiced and on the type of Buddhism. In the monotheistic faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the views onIn the monotheistic faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the views on capital punishment are affected by the fact that the Hebrew Bible is clearly in favor of it. Many crimes described in the Bible are capital offenses, including working on the Sabbath and insulting one’s parents. It’s not clear if Sabbath violators and parent insulters were actually executed, but the message is clear: “If there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise” (Exodus 21:23). The form of execution was stoning, in which the convicts were placed in a pit and the witnesses and judges threw stones at them until they died. After the biblical period, the rabbis preserved the general support of capital punishment in Judaism, but they severely limited its application. The rabbis put in rules of evidence for capital cases that made executing someone virtually impossible. For example, two witnesses had to see the crime, and they had to warn the person before he or she did it. Note the following: “The judge says to the witness: Perhaps you saw a man pursuing his fellow into a ruin. You followed him and found him, sword in hand, with blood dripping from it, while the murdered man lay writhing in pain. If this is what you saw, you saw nothing” (Talmud, Sanhedrin 37b). The writer of the Gospel of Matthew was ambivalent about the biblical laws of capital punishment. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus criticizes the idea of retribution: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles” (Matthew 5:38-41). Later Christian teachers such as Augustine (Letters, 133) were not as pacifist as Matthew’s gospel. They allowed that the state could execute criminals in accordance with Christian law. Despite leaders such as Pope John Paul II, who has been extremely critical of capital punishment, the Catechism of the Catholic Church still states that the state has the right to punish criminals by appropriate penalties, “not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.” Following centuries of Church-sponsored executions of heretics, the stance of Pope John Paul II is a radical departure from past teachings and past practice. In Islam, capital punishment is allowable for the gravest of crimes: ������ Murder ������ Committing adultery in public 105

������ Attacking Islam in such a way as to harm it or the people who practice it, if the attacker is a former Muslim In the case of murder, the victim’s family gets to choose between retribution and forgiveness, and forgiveness is the preferred option. In the case of adultery, execution is rarely necessary because the act must occur in public and be witnessed by four people. In the case of attacking the religious community, perhaps the gravest crime, the person can be forgiven if he or she repents. Section 6: Homosexuality No moral issue other than abortion is the source of more public debate and discussion than the issues concerning gay rights. One issue is the question of whether homosexuality and lesbianism are morally disordered states. Not every religious leader or group can agree on that. Some groups officially condemn homosexuality, while groups with other denominations support gay people. Sacred texts and homosexuality For the most part, the response of the world’s religions is to condemn homosexuality. Some religions condemn it outright; others condemn the actions, not the orientation (in other words, you can be homosexual as long as you don’t engage in homosexual activities). Because most religions see the purpose of sex as procreation rather than pleasure, homosexuality is either discouraged or condemned. You can find pretty strong language and imagery in the holy books of the Western religions that makes clear—from the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic perspective at least—that homosexuality is an unnatural act. Consider the story in Genesis 19, for example, in which Lot tries to protect the two angels from homosexual rape: The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.” “No,” they answered, “we will spend the night in the square.” However, he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof” (Genesis 19:1-8). Obviously, Lot, a fairly upright man who was spared from the destruction of Sodom, finds homosexuality disturbing enough that he’s willing to hand over his two daughters to the rapists, instead. Other passages from the Old and New Testaments and the Qur’an also deal with homosexuality: “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable” (Leviticus 18:22). “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion” (Romans 1:26-27). “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (I Corinthians 6:9-10). 106

“But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully, as knowing this, that law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for abusers of themselves with men, for men stealers, for liars, for false swearers, and if there be any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine” (I Timothy 1:8-10). “Do you come to the males from among the creatures, and leave your wives whom your Lord has created for you? Nay, you are a people exceeding limits” (Qur’an 26:165-166). The debate The arguments offered in response to this univocal tradition condemning homosexuality are the following: These texts reflect primitive and incorrect understandings of human sexuality. Because homosexuality and lesbianism are natural forms of human sexuality, these old prohibitions should go the way of other foolish and damaging prohibitions against behavior that hurts no one. Bad ideas are not made better, they argue, just because they are old ideas. Gayness is not chosen but is innate. It’s like being left-handed. This sexual orientation isn’t the majority orientation, but it is normal and natural for some. How could God make something that was innate and also sinful? Gayness is a non-coercive form of real love. A truly loving God would never condemn honest consensual love between two people. In response, those who feel that homosexuality is morally disordered make these arguments: The fact that homosexual inclinations are innate in some people doesn’t prove that this inclination is morally or spiritually proper. One can have an inclination toward many morally disordered behaviors, from substance abuse to sexual attraction to children, but the innate nature of these desires doesn’t give moral value to their manifestations. The fact that gay love is consensual doesn’t make it holy or morally proper. Adultery can be consensual, and it’s wrong. Incest between adult parents and adult children can be consensual, and it’s wrong. Agreeing to have sex does not mean that the agreement is worthy of sanctification or moral approval. The heterosexual family is not an arbitrary cultural phenomenon. Men marry women, and women marry men to create families. Such unions can produce children, reduce promiscuous behavior, and provide both with male and female models of parenting. The situation today Hardly a week goes by that newspapers don’t have some story or feature related to same-sex relationships and religion. When Disney decided to offer benefits to same-sex couples, for example, the social statement implied by Disney’s actions upset many people. Other groups applauded what they considered a progressive and courageous act. Episcopalians were the first denomination to ordain a practicing gay woman, and Reform Judaism ordains openly gay rabbis. Methodists and Presbyterians are considering whether or not to ordain gays. For years, Dignity/USA, a Catholic lay movement, has supported gay Catholics with the same types of rituals that are found in Roman Catholic churches. Obviously, this roiling debate has strong advocates—religious and secular—on both sides. 107