Star Tribune opinion editor's note: This article was submitted as part of a thread of articles written in connection with the changing atmosphere surrounding abortion following the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade. They include "Abortion reconsidered — reading our collective moral compass" (June 24), by Scott Jensen, the Republican candidate for governor of Minnesota in 2022; "It's time for the pro-choice people to come clean" (Aug. 11), by Matt Birk, the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor in 2022; "In response to Matt Birk's request that pro-choice people 'come clean' " (Aug. 15), by DFL state Sen. Erin Maye Quade, and "A friendly letter to pro-life believers" (Aug. 20), by Walter McClure. Further responses will be considered. Email them to opinion@startribune.com.
Counterpoint: A response to 'A friendly letter to pro-life believers'
If human beings have any intrinsic dignity, the human organism must have it at every stage of development.
By David Hottinger
•••
Walter McClure's "friendly letter to pro-life believers" (Opinion Exchange, Aug. 20) deserves kudos for addressing the status of unborn human life, something most pro-choice arguments prefer to avoid. Unfortunately, I think his characterization of that life — "mindless and insentient" — could be applied with greater justice to the views he expresses.
McClure gives as his first reason for denying a "right to life" early in pregnancy the fact that neither nature nor Creator seem to respect such a right, since "at least half" (!) of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Aside from that remarkable claim (the National Institutes of Health puts the rate at 26%), I ask: Does nature respect a "right to life" at any age? And for those who believe in God, do we consider him to owe us anything, when every moment of life is an underserved gift? Surely, we humans owe more to each other than brute nature. And while the giver of life can take it back at any minute, we mortals do not generally share that same prerogative when it comes to the life of another.
A second and more compelling reason, says McClure, stems from conscience. He gives the hypothetical of being able to save either one newborn infant from a raging fire or a dozen 10-day-old embryos in a petri dish from the same conflagration. Since all but a monster would opt to save the infant over the embryos, all but a monster must, deep down, consider the infant to be a real human being and the 12 mere clumps of cells.
Surely, the screaming newborn — more recognizably human and therefore capable of appealing to our sympathies — would have greater emotive pull than the petri dish we must be told contains 12 humans. But it does not follow that the embryos are less human. Most people would also choose to save an infant over 12 bedridden adults in the same building, but that does not put the humanity of those 12 in question. It comes down to who can be saved: Saving the infant is relatively easy; the adults far less so. The embryos? Most difficult of all. Even if they survive outside of the laboratory environment, we would still need to save them from the monstrous condition of being outside of the womb of a mother. And so, not able to save all, we do what we can.
McClure considers "most compelling," however, the argument that denied abortion is "ruining the lives of millions of women, babies and families, and cruelly killing thousands." I followed his advice and googled "research on denied abortion." The study to which our author seems to refer — the University of California's Turnaway Study — is flawed in its design and seems to ignore the very real damage (physical, spiritual and psychological) of a granted abortion. But even if one accepts its conclusions, it still does not follow that the ends justify the means. A study could likewise show that parents' unwanted born children experience greater financial, physical and mental health distress when they are forced to keep and care for their dependents. That doesn't mean child abandonment would be good for either parent or children.
In the end, all McClure really does is bring out the old saw that unborn human life is "just" a clump of cells and therefore can be removed without ethical qualm. I ask: When, precisely, do we cease to be "just" a clump of cells and become something more? Modern embryology has long ago shown us that milliseconds after fertilization, that "clump" is a living, growing organism with its own unique genetic makeup, distinctly human and yet distinct from the mother's. It cannot be described as "mindless" after 42 days when brain activity begins, nor "insentient" after eight weeks when the sense of touch emerges. But the question is not what that cluster of cells can do or experience. The question is what it is.
McClure tries his best to avoid the obvious: It's a living human being. If human beings have any intrinsic dignity, the human organism must have it at every stage of development. We all want to help mothers with unwanted pregnancies. But being mindless and unfeeling toward the life in their wombs serves no one.
The Rev. David Hottinger is pastor at a church in St. Paul. This article represents his own views and was not submitted on behalf of his church.
