Author: Ira Abraham Golub

With the recent announcement of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement from the Supreme Court of the United States, a decades old issue has regained public attention – abortion and the rights of both a woman and the developing baby inside of her. In a landmark vote of 7 to 2 in favor of Jane Roe, an alias for the abortion-seeking plaintiff Norma McCorvey, over Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade, the highest court mandated the right to women’s privacy, as “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy” (Roe v. Wade, 1973). The most recent gossip on Capitol Hill pertains to President 45’s interest in using his power to get the rule repealed; his son Don Jr. even took to Twitter and called it “lit” that Justice Kennedy was retiring. The moral and ethical ambiguity of the very core of the issue at hand makes for an extremely difficult decision if the case were to be brought back to SCOTUS. Fortunately, many Anthropologists, Theologists and various scholars have written a variety of works attempting to interpret the rights of both a mother and her prenatal child in this scenario.

Within the most popular, sensationalized, interpreted and widely recognized religious text of all time, The Holy Bible, specifically in the first two chapters of Genesis, there is actually no reference to the prenatal nature of life in context. Verse 26 of chapter one reads, “And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness,” and continues in verse 28, saying, “and God said unto them, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion…” (Bible.com). In this interpretation, God concludes at the end of chapter two of Genesis that Adam and Eve “shall be one flesh” (Bible.com). Interestingly enough, the Cosmological story behind human creation according to this scripture does not reference the creation of child in its foundation, and God is simply able to craft man and woman with the swift of his wishes. God does not directly reference the creation thereafter right away, yet this piece of text has been widely used and interpreted by experts to form opinions on the matter of prenatal rights long thereafter its inception and recording.

In a piece referred to as Donum Vitae, published in 1987, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a branch of the Catholic Church, attempts to offer guidance to its following on the prenatal rights of a child. The Church emphasizes that Donum Vitaeis, quote, “Instruction on respect for human life in its origin and the dignity of procreation” (Donum Vitae). With the text, the authors proclaim, “Thus the fruit of the human generation, from the first moment of its existence, that is to say from the moment the zygote has formed, [it] demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in his bodily and spiritual totality” (Donum Vitae). The zygote, the literal first cell of a new organism that is produced when the nuclei of the two gametes have fused according to the text, is an indication of life. Therefore, the writers infer that a person is due respect according to this doctrine from the very moment of their existence, at the very fusion and establishment of their first cell. By this interpretation, any sort of prenatal termination of pregnancy, i.e. abortion, if purposeful, is completely and utterly frowned upon. That prenatal child, although it has yet to be birthed, has surpassed the zygotic stage of pregnancy and, according to Donum Vitae, undisputedly has a right of life. In a later section of the text, there is clear messaging as the authors reference a note at the Second Vatican Council, “Life once conceived, must be protected with the utmost care; abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes,” and further, “… since the embryo must be treated as a person, it must also be defended in its integrity, tended and cared for, to the extent possible, in the same way as any other human being as far as medical assistance is concerned” (Donum Vitae). The argument could not be clearer; once there is a zygote, there is life that deserves the same exact care as a birthed human would receive in the same circumstances.

In a review of Jewish law, referred to as Halakhah, Michael Broyde offers a perspective most similar to The Church’s stance in Donum Vitae in his work Marriage, Sex and the Family in Juadism. Enveloped quite simply in a list of statements, Broyde states, “… Activity that is prohibited (asur). For example, an abortion for reason unacceptable to Jewish law is prohibited” (Broyde 309). He addresses this topic earlier in his piece, writing, “… Jewish law prohibited the killing of a deaf-mute, a lunatic, or an infant… as the Encyoclpedia Talmudit states: ‘a person who is born from another person – in the womb of a woman – is prohibited to be killed” (Broyde 306). Essentially, Broyde is deducing from Jewish law that it is wholesomely frown upon to kill, or even harm, the life of an infant (or unborn) child. Even beyond frowned upon, he describes the act of abortion as fully prohibited (asur), which is an act of defiance towards God. It is important to note that Broyde’s piece and Donum Vitae are rather contradictory at times, and although they are not written with the same intention or yield the same conclusions, similar stances on abortion do seem clear, logical and apparent.

Thereafter Broyde’s work and Donum Vitae, a 2002 report under the presidency of George W. Bush on human cloning offers more insight to the issue at hand. Under a section on moral principles, the report states, “Even where a right to abortion is given, it is based on a woman’s right not to be encumbered, a right of privacy, not a right to directly kill the fetus.” (Kass 268). Kass and his team continue, and elaborate that there is an established principle of human life that respects the sanctity, or inviolability, of that life, that “we naturally grant as we recognize in the other a being of moral equivalence to ourselves” (Kass 268). The report clearly establishes that the justification to abort a prenatal fetus is directly related to a woman’s right to choose, and by all means surpasses the right of a baby to live and have the same ‘inalienable’ rights that a citizen of the United States is supposedly due.

Also, it is especially interesting to note that the work of Kass and his counterparts is requested upon by the president at the time of the report, and that the information gathered worked as an official government document going forward. Although the writers have a clear point to address human cloning and ultimate give President Bush recommendations going forward on the subject at hand, they are intentional to note that abortion is by no means an acceptable or necessary measure to avoid childbirth, and that it is both ethically and morally frowned upon.

Fascinatingly enough, scholar Swasti Bhattacharyya also offers key insights on the rights of a prenatal human in her book from a different angle – through the eyes of the Hindu tradition. In her study of the Mahabharata, an ancient Hindi collection of stories, Bhattacharryya establishes, “… Hindu texts reflect a respect for the developing fetal life and argue that it is deserving of protect for the developing fetal life and argue that it is deserving of protection from harm… the fetus is conscious and even has a memory of his or her previous births” (Bhattacharrya location 1312). Yet again, another interpretation of key religious texts that have helped to shape an entire society, suggest that there are certain respects to be paid to a human, even if that human is in the prenatal stage of life. Bhattacharyya’s work, while it comes later than all previously mentioned works, still reiterates ideas that are evident throughout these works.

Throughout this blog, I have examined Catholic culture according to Donum Vitae, Michael Broyde’s explanation of Jewish law in relation to cloning and prenatal rights, a government report written by a team of well-respected scholars on cloning research, and Swasti Bhattacharryya’s view on prenatal rights from a Hindu angle. It is clear that most religious and scholarly establishments would argue in favor of the rights of the prenatal human rather than outside opinions or involved parties that might not respect the wishes of the fetus or what might be best for them.

 

Sources:

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 1973

The Bible. Authorized King James Version, Bible.com, 2018.

Donum VitaeIn Shanon, Thomas A. And Lisa Sowle Cahill, Religion and Artificial Reproduction: An Inquiry into the Vatican “Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Reproduction.”(Crossroad, 1988).

Michael J. Broyde, “Modern Reproductive Technologies and Jewish Law,” In

Michael J. Broyde and Michael Ausubel editors, Marriage, Sex and the Family in

Judaism. (Rowman and Littlefield, 2005), pp. 295-328. (e-reserve)

Leon R. Kass, Human Cloning and Human Dignity(President’s Council on Bioethics, 2002).

Swasti Bhattacharya, Magical Progeny, Modern Technology: A Hindu Bioethics of Reproductive Technology(Suny University Press, 2006).

 

***disclaimer***

I do not personally agree with the opinion that I support in my blog. I realize that I am writing in a manner that suggests I am ‘pro-life’. I strongly support a woman’s right to choose, although I believe the evidence I have presented suggests that, interpretively, a prenatal human does have inalienable rights to life. This issue is currently extremely controversial, and I do not want to make my stance on it unclear or seem as though I have a controversial opinion.

 

Even in today’s world, the differences that remain apparent among people simply based on choice of religion are astounding. One’s religious identity can completely define who they are and what they believe in. Within the (very) specific lens of assisted reproductive technology, a facet of Bioethics, potential lines of thought can reflect religious roots that trace back to the very narratives that shaped religions. The modernization of these thoughts show consideration of the ancient origins throughout them. With two works on this matter in particular, both Michael J. Broyde’s Modern Reproductive Technologies and Jewish Law,and Magical Progeny, Modern Technologyby Swasti Bhattacharyya, there are differences that are quite noteworthy. While Broyde’s piece, which recognizes material from Jewish law (Halakhah), focuses more on approach to reproductive technology from the perspective of Judaism, Bhattacharyy attempts to construct a bioethical code for Hinduism, which is a field that was yet to be previously explored before her time.

Initially, Bhattacharyy and Broyde do not even attempt to pull their interpretations and bioethical conclusions from the same genres of work, as each explore essentially unrelated types of historical record. The basis for most of Bhattacharyy’s writing comes from the Mahabharata, an ancient Indian epic poem that was considered to be created after the ancient Vedascriptures. This text falls into the category of ‘traditional literature’ according to the author. She writes, “Smrti [traditional literature] literally means ‘recollection,’ but it is used practically to signify ‘tradition.’ This traditional literature ‘is the set of rules for acts of dharma[cosmic order] that are not explicitly declared by sruti[sacred texts with no orirign], but are implicitly derivable from it.’” (Bhattacharyy Location 443). Bhattacharyy is inferring that although these texts do hold weigh in Hinduism, they are more stories of recollection than they are of creation or the religion’s Cosmology. Contrarily, Broyde approaches his views by way of Halakhah, or Jewish law. This derivative of thought is more fluid in a sense, and less defined than historically recorded recollections such as the Mahabharata. Broyde notes, “… even when conduct is permissible or perhaps even a mitzvah [good deed], Jewish law recognizes that the (rabbinical) authorities of every generation have the authroity to temporarily prohibit that which is permissible based on the perception that this intrinsically permissible activity could lead to other, serious violations” (Broyde 296). By this token, Broyde is essentially quoting a source that is perpetually being updated as time progresses, and for all intents and purposes, is situational. The keen differences between these two works from which both authors derive their arguments are important when understanding their texts, both separately and in cohesion.

Although the differences in both Bhattacharyy and Broyde’s stances on bioethics are clear, the roots of those differences come from open interpretations of not only the style of texts they are drawing their conclusions from, but also the religious background of each of these religions themselves. Broyde is quick to break down acts in Judaism to three basic levels of acceptability: permissible (mutar), prohibited (asur), or a good deed (mitzvah) [Broyde 296]. Oppositely, Battacharyy focuses on storylines and six key characteristics of Hinduism: the centrality of society & underlying unity of all life, the flexibility of Dharma and multiplicity of Hindu practices, Karma, and finally Ahimsa. The very constructive frameworks through which each author writes are fundamentally different – they are essentially comparing interpretations based on two differing fields of literature. Additionally, there are key differences between Hinduism and Judaism to begin with, such as Jewish monotheistic practices versus Hindu polytheism & multiple deities, and the histories of each religion as their peoples mostly populated separate areas of the world. In addition to this, it is important to note that Battacharyy writes her work in light multiple other Judeo-Christian on the matter, acknowledging various works throughout her book, whereas Broyde is mostly using Judaism and its set of laws as the focal point for the basis of his argument.

Interestingly enough, Battacharyy and Broyde do seem to have some similar views on the prenatal stage of human life, in the sense that they both encourage respect and care for the offspring. Battacharyy, citing Hindu texts and Cambridge professor Julius Lipner, is able to draw the conclusion, “… Hindu texts reflect a respect for the developing fetal life and argue that it is deserving of protection from harm” The fetus is conscious and even has a memory of his or her previous births” (Location 1312). She is clear with her implications here – even in the prenatal stage of human life, a person deserves respect, and to be treated well, abiding by the principles of Ahimsa (non-harm). In an analogous way, words from Broyde on cloning can be interpreted in the same fashion regarding those that are birthed with defects that would be potentially uncovered prenatally. He writes, “I am hard-pressed to find any rational Jewish law argument that could justify the categorization of a person produced through cloning as not human… the absence of a human parent does not necessarily make one nonhuman – and a clone (of current technology) clearly as a mother at the very least” (Broyde 313). By this token, Broyde is inferring that having a (human) mother is a key characteristic of being human. Evidently, it could be argued that his statement can be further interpreted as saying a human with a mother, even if the human is in a prenatal state, is still is considered human. Both authors do not seem to directly respond to the concept of prenatal testing, but both have outlined clear assumptions regarding their specific interpretations of the texts they have studied, each suggesting that human life does have some value even before that human in birthed.

 

Sources:

Michael J. Broyde, “Modern Reproductive Technologies and Jewish Law,” In Michael J. Broyde and Michael Ausubel editors, Marriage, Sex and the Family in Judaism. (Rowman and Littlefield, 2005), pp. 295-328.

Swasti Bhattacharya, Magical Progeny, Modern Technology: A Hindu Bioethics of Reproductive Technology (Suny University Press, 2006).

For those who believe in a Biblical Cosmological origin story, we can trace the birth of our very existence to the Book of Genesis in the Old Testament, as it hits chapter one, verse 26. It reads, “And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth,” and is followed by verse 27, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God create he him; male and female created he them” (Bible.com). So, what was God’s first commandment to his people? According to this text, it was quite simple – be fruitful, and multiply. God had given us everything from cattle, to birds, etc., even the whole earth, under this one request. By chapter two of Genesis, God has created Adam and a woman (Eve), and offers the following insight to close the chapter: “… shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Bible.com). Objectively speaking, this is just about the entirety of light that is shed on the topic of marriage in these first two chapters of Genesis. The subjective meaning that religious peoples, whether Jewish, Christian, or more, have thereafter interpreted from whatever the original version of this text was intended to convey, has set the stage for each of their modern religious stances on matrimony.

 

As contradictory to the rather indefinite nature of the Old Testament, modern religious tradition regarding marriage and reproduction that has stemmed from Biblical Cosmology is quite contradictory. The most fundamental arguments regarding reproduction and use of modern technology differ nearly completely among two predominant Biblical people, both the Jewish peoples and the Christians (Catholics specific to this blog post). InDonum Vitae, an instruction manual for respect regarding human life through the lens of Catholicism, issued in 1987, there is a clear message against ulterior methods of reproduction beyond the more traditional route. Via interpretation of the Bible, the writers of Donum Vitae interject, “the procreation of a new person, whereby the man and the woman collaborate with the power of the Creator, must be the fruit and the sing of the mutual self-giving of the spouses, of their love and of their fidelity” (Donum Vitae). In italics, the writers further describe the fidelity spoken about as a between the spouses in the unity of marriage, and involving only reciprocal respect of their right to become a father and a mother only through each other.

 

Interestingly enough, Susan Martha Kahn’s book Reproducing Jews, which she wrote in the year 2000,actually offers a contradictory opinion on reproduction, through the lens of Judaism. The interesting twist is apparent – both beliefs are supposedly deduced from the Old Testament. Through ethnographic studies, Kahn concludes that by the Jewish teaching, “… genes are not the determinant of relatedness; nowhere in this belief more in evidence than in the fact that Jews are now deliberately reproduced with non-Jewish genetic material” (Reproducing Jews). By way of this, the focus turns the womb of the mother, and how genetically Jewish the woman might be. From the most basic commandment of “be fruitful and multiply, come two arguments that are rather conflicting.

 

The origin of these differences can be due to the very progression of time itself. According to various accounts, the Old Testament can range back to anywhere close to about 3,000 years ago. Say that is the case – Donum Vitaewas written about 2970 years after the Bible’s conception, with Reproducing Jews13 years behind that. The sheer amount of years that have passed, historical events that have occurred, and change that has progressed the entirety of the human race in that time is unprecedented. Taking this all into consideration, the events that have occurred to the groups we knew to then be the Jewish and Christian peoples are so drastically different, they almost surely prompt entirely different subsets of ideals and interpretations as they are reflected today. This is not even considering the fact that Christianity has yet to be conceived if we are basing our timing on the assumption that the Old Testament was devised Before Christ. Even in the past 2000 years, the number of separate events that have fundamentally defined each group of people are jaw-dropping.

 

If we are talking about Catholicism and Judaism, the dichotomy is simple – each group has split their own way, and created a culture that has nurtured a set of beliefs, separate from each other, which each represent what they believe to be the best fit interpretation of Genesis and the word of God. Any number of events that happened across these group’s timelines could account for interpretations, whether it be as far back as Moses freeing the Israelites from Egypt, or many thousands of years later during the Protestant Reformation, etc. Each group has a unique story that has been uniquely shaped over time due unique circumstances, and each hold a unique view point and set of beliefs based on their own unique justifications.

 

Regarding an ethnographic approach to understanding this discrepancy between religions, one is almost certainly able to better understand a culture by personally delving into its inner workings rather than simply viewing its most basic religious texts. Culture is a summation of many factors, religion included. Understanding religious texts can generate some sort of important understanding of a religious culture, but for it to truly be understood one must involve themselves it in to a further extent. Ethnography can answer the questions that most readings can’t.