was interested in it particularly. This was just his casual reply to my question.

Which brings me to the second question that is basic, and that is how can we foster respect for life. I think that is the reason this room is so full, because we all want to foster respect for life. The question becomes: How can this best be done? Can it best be done by making abortion illegal again and turning our women into felons, the ones who feel they opt for abortion? If we make abortion illegal, increasing maternal death rates, increasing infant death rates, have we fostered respect for life, or-and this is the thing-this may be the only glad note that we will hear in this testimony, is there perhaps a more excellent way? Perhaps we have arrived at a beautiful point in the history of man where pregnancy need not ever again be considered as punishment or experienced as punishment, but perhaps we have arrived at a place which would certainly be biblically sound where parenthood can be thought of as a precious and as a gift of God and where it can be reserved for those who deeply desire it. Thank you.

Senator BAYH. Thank you very much, Mrs. Stitt.

(A Social Pronouncement of the Presbyterian Church in the United States Adopted by the 1970 General Assembly)

ABORTION

I. INTRODUCTION

There is widespread uncertainly among Christians today about the complex moral issues involved in abortion and the laws regulating abortion. Debate concerning proposed revision of existing abortion laws in twenty-five state legislatures has raised serious questions about states which forbid qualified physicians from terminating unwanted pregnancies and turn thousands of women into felons because they have had illegal abortions. Publicity about disabilities or deaths resulting from illegal abortions, the increasing number of persons seeking "therapeutic abortions," and the realization that many well-to-do Amreican women receive legal abortions overseas, have focused public attention on this problem. Pastors and friends have experienced frustration in their attempts to counsel persons involved in "problem pregnancies." The changing role of women has produced a desire on their part for greater self-determination in accepting their role as mothers and/or wage earners. In these and other ways, the moral questions surrounding abortion have been thrust upon us.

II. CHANGING PERSPECTIVES THROUGH HISTORY

Throughout the thirty centuries of recorded history, the interruption of pregnancy, whether intentional or accidental, has been widely, though not universally, regarded as a serious offense. Although many of the early Greek philosophers commended abortion when the age or economic circumstances of the parents necessitated it, the Hippocratic Oath quite early affirmed the medical profession's pledge "not to give to a woman an abortive remedy."

The early church condemned abortion on the grounds that it constituted murder. This raised for subsequent generations of theologians the question of the stage of development at which the fetus becomes a person. Augustine's distinction between a "non-animated" and "animated" fetus was formalized in Roman Catholic Canon Law and later carried into English Common Law. Thomas Aquinas further defined this distinction by teaching that life is evidenced by "knowledge and movement,” thus providing the test of "quickening" or movement within the womb as the determination of when a fetus should be regarded as a person. Interruption of pregnancy before “quickening" was thus permissible under English Common Law. Yet by maintaining that "the soul is infused immediately at the moment of conception," most Roman Catholics regarded willful abortion as a sin, regardless of the stage of fetal development.

The unqualified condemnation of abortion has been questioned in recent decades by many Christians, Protestant and Roman Catholic alike, who are less certain that a clear answer can be given to the question as to when human life begins, and hence are unwilling to assert categorically that the fertilized egg is a human being in the fullest sense. Concerned not only about the morality of requiring women to bear children conceived as the result of criminal acts, but also the potentialities for full personhood for an unwanted or gravely deformed child, these Christians see the problem in the larger context of responsible parenthood and the wholeness of family life. Subsequent medical advances have made it possible to predict physical deformity and mental retardation and to terminate an unwanted pregnancy without endangering the life of the mother. Thus abortion has become a genuine alternative to many unwed mothers and married women desiring to limit the size of their families or to avoid the anguish of bearing seriously defective children.

III. THE CURRENT SITUATION

Recent efforts at legislation reform have led ten states to revise their laws in order to permit therapeutic abortions to protect the mental and physical health of women to prevent the birth of deformed children, and in cases of rape or incest. Yet such “reforms" have not substantially reduced the number of illegal abortions. There is growing evidence that such laws discriminate in favor of the rich and are of little help to women who lack the money or power to persuade the required number of doctors that they qualify for a legal abortion.

Another approach to reform can be found in the courts where it has been held recently that antiabortion laws represent an unconstitutional infringement on individual women's rights to medical care. Those responsible for such litigation insist that abortion should be available to all women who desire it, to the poor and single as well as to the affluent and married. Hence they propose that the regulation of abortion should be removed from the criminal code and treated like other standard medical procedures, with the decision solely in the hands of the patient and her licensed doctor.

However reform comes-whether through legislation or litigation-it is clear that attitudes toward abortion laws are shifting, and Christians are being asked to clarify where they stand and what light their Biblical faith sheds upon decision making in this area.

IV. BIBLICAL AND THEOLOGICAL INSIGHTS

Because this is a matter of life and death, and involves questions about the quality of life and the conditions which make life genuinely human, few moral decisions are most difficult and complex than the ones surrounding abortion. The following Biblical and theological insights seem particularly helpful as we struggle with these issues:

(1) Biblical faith points to a God who is the giver of life and creator of man, and who charged man to "be fruitful and multiply." Faith in this God demands profound respect for human life. All who share this faith are thus called to preserve and protect human life and to show special concern for infants, the weak, the innocent, and the defenseless.

(2) At the same time, Biblical faith depicts man as a steward of life, the heir who is responsible for the proper care of his Father's world. A sense of responsibility for the care of God's world leads men of faith not only to an exploration of all creation but also to endeavors to maintain order, secure justice, and improve the quality of human life. Because human life in the Biblical sense is much more than the perpetuation of physical existence, men of faith should commit themselves to improving its quality spiritually, educationally, and culturally as well as medically. This commitment will often necessitate difficult moral choice in the midst of conflicting values.

(3) Biblical faith emphasizes the need for personal moral choice, and holds that person stand ultimately accountable to God for their moral choices. If persons are to exercise their freedom responsibly, acceptable alternatives must be available to them. The church has a responsibility to help make acceptable alternatives available. Moreover, the church has a responsibility to aid persons as they exercise their moral freedom which it can fulfill through such means as proclaiming the Biblical faith, clarifying alternatives and their probable consequences, and offering support in love to persons struggling with difficult.

choices. Christians should make their personal decisions in the context of the (4) There is no consensus in the Christian community about when human life begins. Because of this uncertainty, and because the fetus, if left to termination of its normal gestation period would become a person capable of life on its own resources, the unborn fetus must be respected for its own worth regardless of the period of gestation. However, the needs of the mother may at time take precedence over the needs of an embryonic and unformed child, and the rights of the individual woman, her family, and society, as well as the rights of the fetus should be considered in each individual case.

V. SUMMARY

(1) Induced abortion is the willful destruction of the fetus. Therefore, the decision to terminate a pregnancy should never be made lightly or in haste. (2) The willful termination of pregnancy by medical means on the considered decision of a pregnant woman may on occasion be morally justifiable. Possible justifying circumstances would include medical indications of physical or mental deformity, conception as a result of rape or incest, conditions under which the physical or mental health of either mother or child would be gravely threatened, or the socio-economic condition of the family. The procedure should be performed only by licensed physicians under optimal conditions and with appropriate medical consultation and ministerial counseling, preferably by her own minister.

(3) Laws concerning abortion should reflect principles set forth in this paper.

(4) Medical intervention should be made available to all who desire and qualify for it, not just to those who can afford preferential treatment.

(5) The church should develop a greater pastoral concern and sensitivity to the needs of persons involved in "problem pregnancies." Such persons should be aided in securing professional counseling about the various alternatives open to them in order that they act responsibly in the light of their moral commitments, their understanding of the meaning of life, and their capacities as parents.

Rabbi Brickner.

Rabbi BRICKNER. I am Rabbi Balfour Brickner. I serve as the national director of the Commission on Interfaith Activities, a joint commission of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Jewish Chautauqua Society and the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, central congregational body of Reform Judaism in the United States. That is a body which encompasses somewhat over a million men, women, and children.

I am delighted and somewhat saddened to be here: delighted by the opportunity to make known to this august subcommittee the views of Reform Judaism on the subject of abortion, but saddened by the need to do so. One would have hoped that 14 months after the U.S. Supreme Court's historic decision of January 22, 1973, in the case of Jane Roe v. Henry Wade, it would no longer be necessary to justify whether there should be available to women in this country the freedom to choose whether or not to have an abortion, especially during the early weeks of pregnancy. I am saddened that again one has to defend against those who, by constitutional amendment would seek to overturn the judicial decision of the highest court of our land in a matter which, in our judgment, ought to remain a matter of individual conscience. I do not question the right of any individual or group to seek such a reversal; that is indeed inherent in our democratic style, but it does sadden me to realize that once again the forums of government are burdened with a matter which competing religious groups have turned into an ugly, emotionally charged confrontation.

Unhappily, I find myself concurring with those reflective judges, scholars, and commentators who have perceived and deplored the fact

that historically it is religious beliefs that underlie the retention of abortion laws denying those with differing beliefs, religious or otherwise, the right to that act. It is probably quite correct to suggest as some have that opposition can be traced to organized religious bodies. The American Law Institute was undoubtedly correct when they determined that objections to abortion reform are not primarily grounded on legal considerations but rather on some religious beliefs which may deem abortion sinful.

If it is true, that religious views play an inordinately important role in determining our value judgments on the subject of abortion, then how much the more should the view of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes be heeded when he said that "moral predilections must not be allowed to influence our minds in settling legal distinctions." The coercive powers of the state must not be employed in the service of sectarian moral views. To do otherwise would be to violate the establishment clause of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion***" The presentation of that right of individual conscience was essentially, what the Supreme Court sought to support in its historic decision. Just as the state must never say—and has not said that a person not wishing an abortion must have one, so too the state must never be allowed so to legislate as to prevent a woman wishing an abortion from having one. The right of individual conscience must be maintained.

That right is now being challenged again. There are those who maintain that a fetus is a full, human being from the moment of conception. Senate Joint Resolution 119 (Senator Buckley's proposed resolution) makes that equation when it suggests that the word "person" as used in the 5th and 14th articles of amendment to the Constitution be construed as "human being" and applied also to the unborn in every stage of their biological development. Senate Joint Resolution 130 (Senator Helms' proposal) in essence makes the same equation. Were either of these resolutions to become law it would follow that anyone electing to have an abortion would be guilty of murder; that is, taking a human life. The thrust of these resolutions is clearly to make abortion illegal and therefore impossible, frustrating the effect of last year's Supreme Court decision. We in Reform Judaism must therefore oppose these amendments and any similar efforts and we do so on the basis of our understanding of our tradition of Jewish law.

Judaism does not believe that the word "person" connotes a full human being. It does not equate abortion with murder. To the contrary, in Judaism, a fetus is not considered a full human being and for this reason has no "juridical personality" of its own. Jewish law is quite clear in its statement that an embryo is not reckoned a viable living thing (in Hebrew, a bar kayyama) until 30 days after its birth. One is not obliged to observe the laws of mourning for an expelled fetus. As a matter of fact, the laws of mourning, et cetera, are not applicable for a child who does not survive until his 30th day.

In Judaism the fetus in the womb is not a person (lav nefesh hn) until it is born (Rashi, Yad Ramah, and Me'iri, all to Sanhedrin 72b). According to Jewish law, a child is considered a "person" only when it is "come into the world." Thus, there is no capital liability for feticide. By the reckoning, abortion cannot be considered murder. The basis for this decision is scriptural. The biblical text states:

If men strive, and wound a pregnant woman so that her fruit be expelled, but no harm befall her, then shall he be fined as her husband shall assess, and the matter placed before the judges. But if harm befall her, then thou shalt give life for life. (Exodus 21:22)

Talmudic commentators made the teaching of this biblical passage quite explicit. They said that only monetary compensation is exacted of him who causes a women to miscarry. No prohibition is evident from this scriptural passage against destroying the unborn child. Clearly, and here the major rabbinic commentators on the Bible agree, the one who was responsible is not culpable for murder, since the unborn fetus is not considered a person. This concept is reiterated in many different instances and in many different places in rabbinic writing. The references I will omit at this particular moment. The classic source for this Jewish attitude towards the status of a fetus and thus toward abortion may be found in the Mishnah, a preliminary code of Jewish law that dates back to the second century of the common era and forms the basis of the Talmud, the most definitive statement of Jewish law available in our tradition. Here it states: "A woman who is having difficulty in giving birth, it is permitted to cut up the child inside her womb and take it out limb by limb because her life takes precedent. However, if the greater part of the child has come out, it must not be touched, because one life must not be taken to save another." (Mishnah Ohalot 7.6) Rashi, the preeminent commentator on the Bible and the Talmud, explains the talmudic passage as follows: "As long as the child did not come out into the world, it is not called a living being and it is therefore permissible to take its life in order to save the life of its mother. Once the head of the child has come out, the child may not be harmed because it is considered as fully born, and one life may not be taken to save another."

There are, to be sure, laws relating to fetuses more than 40 days old. Laws of ritual uncleanliness must be observed for abortuses older than 40 days (see the Mishnah Niddah 3.5) suggesting that the unborn fetus though not considered a living person (nefesh) still has some status. However, nowhere does it state that killing this fetus by premature artificial termination of pregnancy is prohibited.

Thus, it is clear that Jewish law does not consider abortion murder. Moreover, it totally disagrees with those who consider a fetus "a person," certainly not a human being. In this, Jewish law agrees with the majority opinion of those on the Supreme Court who in their January 22, 1973, decisions stated:

"The Constitution does not define 'person' in so many words. The use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally." "The unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense."

Despite this plethora of evidence from Judaism recognizing the legality of abortion, some orthodox Jewish authorities have taken and continue to hold a negative view towards abortion. Indeed, most orthodox rabbis prohibit this act, except in such special instances as when a woman is impregnated through rape or incest or when it is clear that continuation of the pregnancy to birth would constitute a clear danger to the life and/or health of the mother.

I understand, Mr. Chairman, there will be representatives of this view before this body and they will testify as to that position.