Many years ago, when I represented the chaplaincy department of my hospital on the Obstetrics/Gynecology ethics committee, we were presented with the case of a woman who had received assistance to become pregnant. An ultra sound revealed that two fetuses had implanted. She decided that she only wanted one child. Years later I was visiting a hospital when I saw two young people come out of the office of a doctor who specialized in heart conditions in the fetus. The young woman came out the door, placed her back against the wall and slowly crumpled to the ground. The young man walked away from her, down the hall, head in hands, stifling a primal guttural scream. Having cared for families making decisions about abortion because of genetic problems, I knew what had taken place in that office. Painful decisions had been thrust on this young couple.
How does a potential parent make decisions about a pregnancy? This question ultimately forces us to ask, “What does it mean to be human?” The definition of human speaks to the soul of a society.
Biologically we know that human beings start with a fertilized egg that is called a zygote. Within 46 successive divisions the single cell that contained one double set of genes, one set from the man and one set from the woman, has grown to 35 trillion cells. The Catholic Church states that from the moment of conception the unborn child is considered a human being.InJewish law an unborn fetus is not considered a person until it has been born but “Legal permissibility is not synonymous with moral license.” Although a fetus is not a person legally, morally a fetus has potential life. The English obstetrician R.F.R. Gardner, a Christian, describes the fetus as “at least a potential and developing human being.” There are others who have a nonpersonal view of a fetus and don’t see the fetus as having life.
The Judeo-Christian ethic, the ethic of rights and responsibilities, defines a human being as a sacred child of God created in His image. “God created man in the image of himself…male and female he created them (Genesis 1:27). Human beings must be treated with dignity and respect. Human beings have an absolute intrinsic value; we matter because we exist: whether we are obese or beautiful; intelligent or developmentally challenged; mentally ill or a genius; exceptionally wealthy or homeless. Paul considered treating a human being as a thing rather than a person to be loved immoral. Not only are we created in God’s image, we carry within us the divine spark that connects us one to the other and to God. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) developed an ethical system based on rational thinking, pure practical reason, and concluded, like the Judeo-Christian ethic, that people have an absolute intrinsic value. Kant wrote, “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.” This statement carries within it the same concept as the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Kant’s ethical system, like the ethics espoused in the Bible, demands respect for all humanity and that we “uphold the human rights of all persons, regardless of where they live or how well we know them, simply because they are human beings, capable of reason, and therefore worthy of respect.” It is a reiteration of God’s command that we care for the stranger as we were once strangers in a strange land and that, yes, we are our brother’s keeper. Both ethical systems, religious and secular, espouse the sanctity of life.
This respect for life is prioritized in both ethical systems. Both ethical systems are universally against murder and suicide. The sixth commandment, “Thou shall not murder,” comes from God and we follow the commandment because God said so. Kant would say that if it is good for one person to commit murder, it is good for all. If it is not good for one person to commit murder, it is not good for all. The admonition against murder is a categorical imperative because it is absolute and universal and true for all people all the time. The categorical imperative is absolute and universal in the same way that a commandment from God is absolute and universal.
In Kant’s ethical system there is a categorical imperative against suicide, too, because people have intrinsic value. You cannot use a human being for some ulterior motive or purpose; as a means to an end. Killing yourself is a means to an end, perhaps the means to end pain. Killing oneself is like murder; treating a person as a thing that can be disposed and failing to respect humanity as an end in itself. Another way of understanding Kant’s position is to view suicide from the perspective of a categorical imperative. If suicide is good for one it is good for all. Suicide, like murder, is counter-productive for a society. Kant’s ethical stance on suicide and murder mirrors the teaching in the Bible: “Today I call heaven and earth to witness against you: I am offering you life and death, blessing and curse. Choose life, then, so that you and your descendants may live” (Deuteronomy 30:19-20).
For Kant and the Judeo-Christian ethic, morals are absolute; objective, not subjective. In these two ethical systems subjective feelings have no place in moral decision-making. The story of the Exodus pits God, through Moses, against Pharaoh. God wants Pharaoh to let His people go. And then God does something that seems to make no sense. God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. Why would God harden the heart of this man? The great sages have come up with an explanation for God’s actions. God wanted Pharaoh to base his decision on reason, not feelings. God wanted Pharaoh’s response to be head-strong when letting His people go and not heart-felt. God did not want Pharaoh crying later that he let his emotions dictate his actions. God wanted Pharaoh to be rational, objective, in his deliberations.
