Pondering an aspect of the abortion debate

“I think of a man, and take away reason and accountability” (Melvin Udall)

When I was an undergraduate I wrote my 10k word thesis on 'The relevance of speciesism to the moral argument on abortion' – essentially pointing out that if arguments around animal rights centre upon the capacity of the creature (eg to feel pain) then those same arguments also support the rights of the unborn. This came to mind the other day when I saw a comment that all of the self-declared vegans in parliament had voted to decriminalise full-term abortion!

One of the things I remember discovering when I was researching the paper was the high level of spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) in the early days after conception, often before the mother is aware of having conceived. It is estimated that around one third of all human conceptions miscarry.

This struck me as having some theological consequence. At the time I was very mainstream in my thinking (mostly still functionally atheist, although that had started to break down) and I remember in particular a seminar on abortion with an invited Roman Catholic speaker. I asked him to comment on what it would mean if we took these figures seriously, alongside the insistence that the human soul was present from conception, and unique. Specifically, did he accept that those doctrines meant that heaven had a vast population of human souls who had never been born? The answer was unsatisfying, to the effect that 'we must redouble our efforts to preserve the safety of all humans in the womb!'

Historically, whilst the Christian church has been unequivocal and extremely clear in its opposition to abortion, it was only in the nineteenth century that this was understood as applying from the moment of conception, ie that 'ensoulment' happened as soon as an egg was fertilised. Classically Aristotle believed that ensoulment happened at 40 days (for men!) and this was taken on by Aquinas, and there was therefore a difference between an embryo/foetus that was ensouled and one that was not, with a definite consequence for the moral seriousness with which any abortion was regarded (ie the more developed the foetus the greater the moral harm).

The change in 1869 was informed by the greater precision of scientific understanding then available, yet I'm not sure that this was a positive development; indeed, I suspect that this is best understood as part of a more general surrender to the scientific (ie the reductionist) which has fostered the rise of atheism and the collapse in intellectual confidence on the part of the church. There's a long argument there! Yet let me point to one aspect, drawing on McGilchrist's 'Matter with Things' – the boundaries of life, of what counts as living, and most especially the role of the telos of life, the purpose, which has such an obvious and important role in the development of the embryo – these are not matters which benefit from a spurious over-precision. There is something inherently mysterious about the unfolding of life in the womb which isn't legible, and the adoption of the 'ensoulment at conception' policy smacks of the left-hemisphere's desire to control. I think there is wisdom in the traditional position of the church that is ripe for reclamation.

As you can probably tell, this isn't a fully worked out thought, more an attempt to articulate an instinct. Ever since I properly studied it at university my position on abortion has remained steady – it's always a wrong, the taking of a life, but the degree of wrongness increases over time and, especially in the very early stages, it may be less wrong than the alternatives.

Stella Creasy's amendment, however, is a moral abomination, and all Christians are duty-bound to work towards its repeal.