I am not one who ventures often into the culture wars.  This is because, as a Christian pastor, my primary job is to proclaim the grace of God through Jesus Christ, who came not to condemn the world but to save it.  But part of the Church’s job is to speak truth to our culture, especially when it comes to speaking for those who cannot speak for themselves.

And so I have to ask, was I the only one who was horrified to read Harlan B. Miller’s statement that “not all members of the species Homo sapiens are persons” (Inconsistency in the abortion debate, Feb. 8)?  Miller went on to explain that, in his view, persons are only those who are “able to function as persons,” and that those unable to so function cannot be considered persons and therefore have no societal rights to protection.   To quote Miller, they do not have “interests that are deserving of consideration.”  He includes in this list the “very, very severely intellectually impaired,” and those in true “irreversible comas.”   Indeed, those are both sad and difficult cases, but do we really want to go so far as to say they are not even persons?

Is that really an argument pro-choice supporters wish to advocate?   That personhood stems solely from function?   Perhaps such a definition is inevitable if we detach ourselves from any outside authority and thus take it upon ourselves to define personhood.   Indeed, Miller cites no authority other than his own opinion, and yet he states it with such force that one would think it was not even up for debate.  At the same time, he provides no safeguards to keep his definition from going farther than he intended, lending itself to the horrors of the radical eugenics of the early 20^th century.   If Miller can define human worth as he sees fit, why can’t others?   What is to keep powerful and intolerant governments from declaring certain humans persons with rights and other humans “non-persons” with no rights?  Have we learned nothing from history?

Rather, what if every human being has intrinsic worth simply because we are human, and not based on whether we “can act” or not?   What if life is more than biology, that humans have souls as well as bodies and are endowed by their Creator to have certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?   What if the definition of a person and his or her rights comes not from ourselves but from the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, as Thomas Jefferson put it?

Beyond this bold and frightening assertion that human rights stem from function, Miller makes many other logical fallacies.  First, he subtly impugns the motives of those who oppose abortion, putting them all on one huge psychoanalytical couch, and suggesting that their convictions really come from a hatred of sex and women.  Such a mass ad hominem attack is simply baseless.  Second, he says that abortion opponents should all be vegetarians.  Not if we don’t buy Miller’s definition of personhood but rather believe that humans have souls in distinction from animals.  Third, he says that most Americans do not consider fetuses resulting from rape and incest to be persons since they would allow them to be aborted.  I am one of those who think that every human fetus has a right to life, regardless of how he or she was conceived.  But we live in an imperfect world and in a pluralistic society and laws are best achieved through common purpose and compromise.  To put such an exception into a law which would otherwise outlaw abortion would save millions of lives each year.  It also puts to the test the claims of pro-choice advocates that most abortions are necessary.

But I am not expecting such a law anytime soon.  Nor do I think that we can soon come to a common agreement as a society as to whether human fetuses deserve human rights or not.   So what if we just stick to the facts of nature for now?  What if we asked each mother to first look at an ultrasound picture of her fetus before she decided whether to abort it or not?   I know some say that this would be manipulation and an appeal to emotion.  But would that not be a purely scientific approach – to observe with the senses what is there in the womb before making a decision?   Ultimately, I am optimistic that society will recognize that pre-born humans have just as much right to life as the rest of us.  The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God are on our side.  More importantly, His grace and forgiveness are always there for those who know they need it.