In his commentary in the July 28 issue of The Chronicle, Rabbi Mark Levin stated that abortion is a well-considered belief.
That is certainly true. By now, one would think every discussion aspect of the topic, “pro” or “con,” has been worn slick. But the rabbi has indeed opened the door to an aspect that has heretofore been virtually unexplored.
A bit of necessary background: When Roe v. Wade was decided 50 years ago, those approving the decision declared that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” Note that last word, “rare.” They acknowledged that abortion was horrible, but felt that the mother’s interests outweighed the baby’s. They recognized the cruelty of ending a child’s life, and expressed grief at the necessity of this outcome. No longer.
Now, many pro-choice advocates act as if abortion is a positive good. We see harpies on television screaming obscenities, with never a word or a thought of regret at the fate of the unborn child. Instead, that unborn child is dehumanized as an embryo, a fetus, a zygote, so that they can crush its skull, and literally tear it limb from limb without feeling any guilt. In fact, they actually and inexplicably attack any facility that offers support to a pregnant woman, as though life itself is immoral. Many who are pro-choice are similar to the bombardiers in World War II who at the mere touch of a toggle switch unleashed horror and devastation and death on thousands of civilians, but felt no personal guilt since they could not see the consequences. Dehumanizing the unborn child works the same way.
Rabbi Levin spent much of his article discussing religious aspects of the abortion debate, so let’s pursue that. Let’s ask the question, “Does the unborn child have a soul? If it does, when was it acquired?”
The obvious answer is that ensoulment comes at conception, if it comes at all. And that leaves the rabbi with a quandary. As a rabbi, he certainly cannot say that humans have no souls, even though, given the state of the world, that may indeed be the case. And if he admits that humans do have souls, how can he advocate abortion, and most particularly late-term abortion, when even the most pro-choice fanatic must agree that the viable unborn child has life.
Further, it is most surprising that he attacks the Catholic Church for the crime of believing its own doctrine. It is also strange that he alleges that if you disapprove of abortion, they are curbing your religious expression. It is even stranger that, as a rabbi, he believes the Catholic Church has no right to require that its religious doctrine be accepted by its own adherents.
The August 2 election is over. The “no” vote won, and that outcome is the will of Kansans. The abortion question is literally life and death, and both sides have powerful arguments. However, as a clergyman, Rabbi Levin brought the theological question into the discussion. Therefore, I would like to know, not as a “gotcha” question, but one of genuine interest — How can the existence of a human soul and the consequences of abortion be reconciled?
It may appear strange, or even ludicrous, to be discussing questions about the soul in this cynical, nihilistic, self-indulgent century. However, before you laugh too hard, bear in mind that no philosopher has yet been able to explain why we should be moral if indeed we have no soul.
Lee Levin, Overland Park, KS
