sume that the commandment Moses received from God was based on a definition of life on the individual somatic level of organization, rather than the cellular or organ level on one hand, or society on the other. As a biological scientist I view the proposed changes in abortion law as an attempt to switch the definition of life from the biological criteria to sociological criteria: in essence an embryo or fetus is not a social being; therefore, to abort "it" is not taking a life. Such a change in the definition of life would have been unthinkable a decade or two ago. What has brought about this change? What are its implications for the future of our civilization, imperfect as it is?

THE DEMOGRAPHIC TREND

A working hypothesis that would explain the emotional drive behind the current change of heart about abortion is the upsurge in anxiety throughout the Western world that stems from the increasing awareness of the rapid increase in world population and the inevitable deterioration resulting therefrom. In our increasingly hedonistic Western civilization, abortion can be viewed with the noble purpose of limiting population growth, thus extricating oneself from the consequences of physical pleasures-all with a minimum of personal responsibility.

A glance at a graph depicting world population growth is frightening.1

1. Ravenholt, T. R. and Lyons, T. C. Jr., "Demography and Population Control." Yearbook of Science and Technology, pp. 6-17. 1969. McGraw-Hill. New York.

At the time of the birth of Christ there were probably less than 300 million people on earth according to demographers' estimates. By A.D. 1650 the total was only about 500 million. In other words, the doubling time of the population was 1700 years. It took another 200 years to double that figure. The population then doubled again in only one hundred years, and another three billion will be added in the next 32 years (doubling time) if current trends continue. Quite obviously "Be fruitful and multiply" is one of the few of God's commands which man has pursued with unbridled enthusiasm. Catastrophe awaits us in our lifetime or our childrens' lifetime unless population growth is controlled.

Survival and ethics

If ethics has its roots in fundamental needs then it is easy to see how the desire to conserve and protect every human life was paramount throughout history and until a few years ago. Sanctity of life seems to be an outgrowth of a primal urge for survival. In the dangerous, hostile, sparsely populated environment in which man lived for several thousands of years, mere physical survival depended upon protecting and nurturing each conceptus so that enough survived to produce food and shelter for the tribe and to defend the tribe and its habitat from predators by warfare. Ostensibly the rationale was self-defense to protect the more desirable lives. Historical man seems to have found it as easy to live with the inconsistency of protecting each fetus, yet killing in war, as many moderns do who conscientiously object to capital punishment or the killing in war, yet favor killing in abortion.

Forces limiting growth

The forces limiting population growth for many centuries are numerous and complex-two major ones being disease and war.3 It is difficult fully to appreciate the ravages of disease and its effect on the attitudes and values of Western man. Some insight may be gained by reading Professor Forbes' article based on a study of the record books of the London parish of St. Botolph

2. Shils, E. et al. Life or Death: Ethics and Options. University of Washington Press. Seattle, 1968.

3. Trevelyan, G. M. English Social History. A Survey of Six Centuries, Chaucer to Queen Victoria, pp. 303 and 357. Pelican Books. London. 1967.

without Aldgate from 1558 to 1625. The stillborn death rate in the parish averaged 72 per thousand christenings. By comparison the rate in the United States for 1963 for all fetal deaths, white and nonwhite, at all stages of gestation, was 23 per thousand live births. The average death rate for "chrisoms" (infants dying during the first month after birth) from 1584 to 1598 was 162 per thousand christenings. By contrast the comparable overall figure for the United States in 1963 was 18 deaths per 1000 live births. Thus, in St. Botolph's parish in London in the 16th century, a woman would have to conceive twelve times to produce one child a month old, whereas presentday woman need conceive only once. The ravages of childhood diseases were equally startling. During this period, further, epidemics of the Plague would occur once every 17 years on the average, so the epidemics were a definite part of the health

scene.

The decreased death rate in the past century-due largely to the control of infectious diseases—has rapidly increased the numbers of young adults. There has been a lack of commensurate decrease in birth rate, thus producing an explosive increase in population. New and vigorous efforts are needed to bring births and deaths into balance.

DO WE NEED A NEW ETHIC?

The need to protect each fetus and to nurture it to diminish the risk to the survival of the species no longer exists (except in the event of an atomic holocaust). In large measure we have already "filled the earth and subdued it." The survival of the species may depend more on limiting the number of people and their inevitable pollution. Quite obviously if present population growth trends continue, within our children's lifetime world population growth will be limited by natural ecological means; namely, starvation, predation, war, and disease. It could once again reduce man to prehuman existence and the sanctity of human life unwittingly destroyed. Throughout history preservation of each individual life protected the species. Now it is a threat to the species. Indeed the maintenance of the principle of the sanctity of human life demands an approach opposite to

4. Forbes, T. R. "Life and Death in Shakespeare's London," American Scientist, 58:511-520. 1970.

the traditional, namely, the limitation of the number of new lives. The context for the application of the sanctity of life ethic has changed. Should the ethic be changed or are there other solutions? In other words, should life be defined in humanization or social terms rather than biological, because the prevailing problems are social in nature?

Is abortion the answer?

I think not! If my hypothesis proves correct and our lessening concern for the sanctity of life stems largely from the anxiety associated with the excess number of lives, unlimited abortion is an inappropriate response. Abortion is the most expensive, least efficient, and probably the most risky method of population control. Our major effort, attention, and wealth should be directed to the development of foolproof methods of prevention of pregnancy, rather than relying on abortion as last-ditch contraception. Several church organizations have propounded position papers on abortion similar to the following one by the United Church Board for Homeland Ministries.5 "A responsible position concerning abortion should be based not just on the rights of the fetus but also on a consideration of the rights of the individual woman, her potential child, her family, and society, as well as the rights of the fetus." (Italics mine.) This is a most beautiful concept, misapplied! The "rights" to decide should exist as to whether to conceive or not. After conception the right to choose is lost, unless one views abortion as last-ditch contraception and the fetus is not really alive. This is clearly not the case in a somatic life sense. The frequent mention of "rights" and "society" evokes a need for a definition of life on the sociological level.

Unanswered questions

Has our civilization evolved to such a degree that a definition of life on a social plane of biological organization can be established, or should we jettison the ethic of the sanctity of life? It seems to me that the criteria for defining "personhood" are virtually impossible to establish at this juncture in history. It seems inescapable that Hamlet's philosophy alluded to above

5. "Policy-Program Position on the Freedom of Choice Concerning Abortion." Voted by the United Church Board for Homeland Ministries, April 28, 1970. Houston, Texas.

would have its day. If abortion represents a deepseated need for population control by society, then ultimately the needs of society must prevail over the desires of the individual. "Every child a wanted child." By whom? The individual? Society? There is mounting evidence from several states and foreign countries with legalized abortion that the extent of its use varies with the socio-economic class of the pregnant woman. Should the state coerce proportionate usage by each class by incentives? Should abortion be maximized in the lower socioeconomic level to solve the poverty problem? The minority problem? Will the social predicament of the unwanted pregnancy take precedence over the needs of society? Will unlimited abortion enhance the quality of life? Social considerations in the end become a convenience factor, either for the individual or the State-to me insufficient grounds for change.

The position of the proponents of abortion on the sanctity of life ethic seems unclear to me. If they wish to maintain the sanctity of life principle but redefine life to that of a social being then they should come forth with a concise, unambiguous definition which can form the basis of a new order. It may be possible to use the existence of the electrical brain wave pattern as a feature unique to human life. Its absence during early embryogenesis and after major brain injury could be regarded as an absence of personhood or life on a social plane.

Sanctity of life should be extended

I believe that the ethic of the sanctity of life, as defined on a biological level of organization, should be not only preserved but extended in all dimensions. The taking of a human life, whether by capital punishment, abortion, euthanasia, or war, should not be condoned. To do otherwise will inevitably lessen our regard for human life and weaken our motivation to improve the quality of life. The biological fact is that the taking of life cannot be glossed over for long, in the absence of a clear, consistent, convincing social definition of life. One cannot have it both ways. Those who pretend otherwise gradually come to realize their folly. "One cannot treat a human as something less than human without becoming less than human oneself." Abortion will be one more weight to tip the scale in a decivilizing direction.