Click here if you don’t see subscription options
Ellen K. BoegelApril 23, 2019

Medical “advances” have made the simple act of human reproduction bafflingly complex. New methods to prevent and promote pregnancy and birth are constantly being developed. This makes it difficult for regulators, legislators, concerned citizens and even the Catholic Church to determine what is appropriate. For example, gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT) and intrauterine insemination (I.U.I.) as marital reproductive aids are neither “approved” nor “disapproved” by the church because the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has not yet pronounced on the subject.

The religious, existential and emotional aspects of human reproduction create additional impediments to agreement concerning the propriety of reproductive technologies. Also, the lack of uniform terminology makes reasoned discourse of this most sensitive of subjects nearly impossible. But this linguistic obstacle, at least, can be remedied and is a necessary first step for consensus building.

A lexicon of life

The Catholic Church teaches that human life begins at the moment of “conception,” which is defined as the joining of a sperm and an egg without regard to the method of conception—natural or artificial through in vitro fertilization (I.V.F.). This definition differs from Merriam-Webster’s, which is “the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both.” Emphasis on the word “pregnant” implies fertilization or implantation occurs within a woman’s body, not in a laboratory.

The Catholic Church teaches that human life begins at the moment of “conception,” but legislators fail to use consistent terminology to describe various stages of human development.

According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, “[c]onception is a lay term that has no scientific validity and is not generally used in the medical literature because of its variable definition and connotation.” Researchers instead use the word “fertilization” to refer to “the union of sperm and ovum.” Such distinctions makes a difference when determining the legal status of preborn human reproductive cells.

Legislators also fail to use consistent terminology to describe various stages of human development. Some of these distinctions result from ideological differences between pro-life and pro-choice individuals, but even pro-life lawmakers use disparate language.

Pennsylvania, for example, defines “unborn child” as a fertilized human egg, while Alaska withholds that appellation until the fertilized egg is “carried in the womb.” Mississippi’s recently enacted fetal heartbeat law defines “unborn human individual” as “an individual organism of the species homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth.” Under Arizona law, the term “human embryo” means “a living organism of the species homo sapiens through the first fifty-six days of its development, excluding any time during which its development has been suspended,” but in Louisiana, a “human embryo” is “an in vitro fertilized human ovum, with certain rights granted by law, composed of one or more living human cells and human genetic material so unified and organized that it will develop in utero into an unborn child.”

The term “abortion” also has numerous statutory and regulatory definitions. Pennsylvania defines abortion as:

[t]he use of any means to terminate the clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman with knowledge that the termination by those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the unborn child except that, for the purposes of this chapter, abortion shall not mean the use of an intrauterine device or birth control pill to inhibit or prevent ovulation, fertilization or the implantation of a fertilized ovum within the uterus.

Arkansas’s newly enacted “trigger” law, which would “abolish” abortion and is designed to take effect if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, defines abortion as:

the act of using, prescribing, administering, procuring, or selling of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance, device, or means with the purpose to terminate the pregnancy of a woman, with knowledge that the termination by any of those means will with reasonable likelihood cause the death of the unborn child.

The Arkansas law adds that “An act...is not an abortion if the act is performed with the purpose to: Save the life or preserve the health of the unborn child; Remove a dead unborn child caused by a spontaneous abortion; or Remove an ectopic pregnancy.”

And Alabama defines abortion as:

[t]he use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device with the intent to terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant with knowledge that the termination by those means will with reasonable likelihood cause the death of the unborn child. Such use or prescription is not an abortion if done with the intent to save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child, remove a dead unborn child, or to deliver the unborn child prematurely in order to preserve the health of both the mother (pregnant woman) and her unborn child. The term "abortion" as used herein does not include a procedure or act to terminate the pregnancy of a woman with an ectopic pregnancy, nor does it include the procedure or act to terminate the pregnancy of a woman where the unborn child has a lethal anomaly.

This same definition is used in a recent bill proposed to criminalize virtually all abortions in Alabama.

These different definitions affect not only abortion laws but other criminal statutes, civil liability and parental rights to fertilized eggs.

Implications for criminal law

State laws punish crimes against persons differently from crimes against property, which makes the definition of “person” extremely important. New York, for example, uses a historic common law definition that limits “person” to “a human being who has been born and is alive.” New York is in the minority when it comes to preserving this common law rule. Legal abortions always are exempt from criminal prosecution, but 38 states, including California, have enacted statutes criminalizing fetal homicide. There is little uniformity among these laws.

Michigan prohibits “the willful killing of an unborn quick child by any injury to the mother.” “Quickening” is determined by “fetal movements which can be felt by the mother.” Maryland punishes those who cause death or serious injury to a “viable fetus,” which means “there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus's sustained survival outside the womb.”

State laws punish crimes against persons differently from crimes against property, which makes the definition of “person” extremely important.

Arkansas’s criminal code provides an expansive definition of “person” as “an unborn child in utero at any stage of development” and defines an “unborn child” as “offspring of human beings from conception until birth,” but it excludes from criminal prosecution “[a]ssisted reproduction technology activity, procedure, or treatment” and acts “occurring before transfer to the uterus of the woman of an embryo created through in vitro fertilization.” It is unclear how this exclusion fits within Arkansas’s strict abortion laws.

I.V.F. involves the fertilization of multiple human eggs in a laboratory and the transfer of one or more of those embryos for gestation in utero. The embryo develops into a blastocyst five days after fertilization, which is the optimal transfer time. Current international and federal rules prohibit researchers from developing human embryos in a lab for longer than 14 days, although it is likely they could survive longer. Untransferred embryos not cryogenically preserved for future implantation or research are discarded. The implantation of multiple embryos can result in more developing fetuses than desired by the mother; in many cases they are aborted during the first or early second trimester, in a process called “multifetal pregnancy reduction.”

Arkansas is one of 15 states that requires some health insurers to provide I.V.F. coverage. There is some evidence that insurance coverage for I.V.F. encourages single embryo transfer (when families must pay for each I.V.F. procedure out-of-pocket, they may opt for multiple embryos to increase the chances of a successful pregnancy). This helps reduce multiple pregnancies and “reductions,” but belies the disparity between many states’ stringent abortion restrictions and the promotion of assisted reproductive technology, which has created at least one million unused fertilized human eggs subject to destruction. As a commentator at Oregon Right to Life has noted, “there’s no moral or even biological difference between those frozen embryos and those eventually born. If you implant them in a woman’s womb and let nature take its course, approximately 37 weeks later, the result is what is undeniably a human being. [Yet] we insist on ignoring this reality.”

Implications for civil liability

Civil liability for the death or injury of unborn children and “reproductive products”—sperm, eggs, and fertilized eggs—varies by state. All states permit pregnant women to bring personal injury claims for harm done to them that causes miscarriage. Most, but not all, states also permit parents-to-be to sue for the wrongful death of their unborn viable child, either on their own behalf, on behalf of the unborn viable child or both.

Maryland permits pregnant women to recover emotional distress damages for the death of unborn children, and Indiana permits expectant fathers and mothers to sue for emotional distress. Alabama is one of the few states that permit wrongful death lawsuits brought on behalf of pre-viable unborn children, and a trial court judge recently made headlines when he ruled that a legally aborted unborn child could bring a wrongful death lawsuit against the abortion clinic and drug company that manufactured the abortion drug. Ohio currently does not recognize wrongful death actions for the negligent destruction of eggs, sperm or embryos, but lawsuits brought by numerous would-be parents against a fertility storage facility are challenging that precedent.

The term “wrongful birth” is used to cover several situations, including “wrongful pregnancy” after failed sterilization or contraception, failure to diagnose pregnancy within the timeframe for a legal abortion, and failure to inform parents of a medical condition or deformity that would have led them to abort the fetus had they known of the defect. State laws are constantly changing regarding recognition of wrongful birth claims. In 2017,the Iowa Supreme Court joined “the majority of courts” that “allow parents to sue for the wrongful birth of a severely disabled child,” holding that [t]his theory fits within general tort principles for medical negligence actions.” On the other end of the spectrum, aKansas court recently upheld a legislative prohibition of wrongful birth claims.

No state recognizes “wrongful life” claims brought by and on behalf of children against parents or medical providers for the pain and suffering caused by their very existence, but New Jersey and California recognize a limited wrongful life claim brought by a disabled child to recover the added medical and living expenses incurred because a health provider failed to diagnose a birth defect or serious medical condition when it was legally possible to terminate the pregnancy.

Custody disputes: property or persons?

Assisted reproductive technology (A.R.T.) forces courts and legislatures to determine whether sperm, eggs and “in vitro embryos” should be treated as property or persons or given “special respect status.” Most states apply contract and family (divorce) law principles to the disposition of “reproductive products.” In the absence of an enforceable contract, states balance the interests of the various parties, including sperm and egg donors and surrogate (gestational) mothers. In 2015, an Illinois court tipped the scales with regard to fertilized egg disposition in favor of the egg donor for whom they represented the “last clear chance” to procreate. Arizona recently enacted a divorce statute that requires custody of in vitro human embryos “to the spouse who intends to allow [them] to develop to birth.” Inheritance rights of posthumously “conceived” children also are impacted by state law definitions.

The last word

The legal and moral implications created by assisted reproductive technology are staggering. Medical professionals, judges, legislators and religious leaders are struggling to keep up with ever-evolving and increasingly more complex interests. There is serious disagreement at present on the legal rights of pregnant women, unborn children and human embryos, but accepting uniform definitions for reproductive terms could at least eliminate misconceptions and could build consensus on important peripheral issues—such as criminal and civil liability for violence against pregnant women that cause miscarriages and prenatal injuries and insurance coverage for reproductive assistance and contraception. If the beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms, this is a good place to start.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Brien Doyle
5 years 1 month ago

The attitudes/opinions/'answers' of the states are not relevant!!

Abortion is a natural human right bestowed by the laws of nature - not by some invisible gods, or opinionated men!!

Tyton Snel
5 years 1 month ago

I am so happy to share this wonderful testimony thank you Dr. Ogbe for the help you redeem to me I will be forever grateful now my wife is back to me and everything is alright if you want your relationship in a better state, need your ex back or any type of problem at all email Dr Ogbe for help contact directly to my email (theangelsofsolution@outlook.com) thank you.

Nora Bolcon
5 years 1 month ago

Yep! so Arkansas is the misogynistic hell hole everyone always knew it was. And here is the law to prove it:

Arkansas’s newly enacted “trigger” law, which would “abolish” abortion and is designed to take effect if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, defines abortion as:

the act of using, prescribing, administering, procuring, or selling of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance, device, or means with the purpose to terminate the pregnancy of a woman, with knowledge that the termination by any of those means will with reasonable likelihood cause the death of the unborn child.
The Arkansas law adds that “An act...is not an abortion if the act is performed with the purpose to: Save the life or preserve the health of the unborn child; Remove a dead unborn child caused by a spontaneous abortion; or Remove an ectopic pregnancy.”

You can legally have an abortion to save an unborn child but not to save it's mother's life. This law will collapse in the Supreme Court because it mandates that unborn children have to be treated with greater value than fully born citizens of the United States of America so we are not protecting the mother's constitutional right to life - liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

These attitudes from southern-western states are the reason the U.S. is the most dangerous place on earth for a woman to give birth outside of the literal third world. That is based on actual global evidence not opinion.

And more lies: "Arkansas’s newly enacted “trigger” law, which would “abolish” abortion"

No it will not ever abolish abortion!

These laws only make abortion a crime and increase its happening.

These criminalizing abortion laws exist in the majority of the world, especially, in highly Catholic Countries, and these countries, with the strictest anti-abortion laws, have the highest abortion rates and maternal death rates. (see global evidence below).

So if you hate the unborn and women, these anti-abortion laws are definitely what you want to get passed in the U.S. and fast, fast, fast. . .

In fact, since some of these new laws have been passed, the self aborting has risen already in those states, with deadly results. So right! why not let us pass those laws that get us two lives dead with one law!? Whoa Haw! - ride em cowboy!

Ain't nothin a Southern or Western man, in the US, wants more apparently than more dead fetuses and more dead women! And the Catholic Church's Hierarchy could not agree more since they have known the facts, of the results of these laws, on a global scale, for over a decade, and are still push, push, pushing em thru baby! Uh huh, I can't understand why Christian women keep leaving our church? Can any of you? hmmmm it is such a puzzle.

Evidence and Facts for those interested:

From Guttmacher: Abortion and Birth Control Stats.
(Notes from my other research on this topic - bottom)
• The highest annual rate of abortion in 2010–2014 was in the Caribbean, estimated at 59 per 1,000 women of childbearing age, followed by South America, at 48.
The lowest rates were in Northern America, at 17, and Western and Northern Europe—at 16 and 18, respectively.
• Across regions, Eastern Europe experienced the largest decline in the abortion rate, from 88 in 1990–1994 to 42 in 2010–2014. Despite this decline, there is a persistent gap in rates between Eastern and Western Europe (42 vs. 16) likely reflecting lower use of effective, modern contraceptive methods in Eastern Europe.
• The overall abortion rate in Africa was 34 per 1,000 women in 2010–2014. Subregional rates ranged from 31 in Western Africa to 38 in Northern Africa. There has been little if any change in abortion rates in these subregions since 1990–1994.
• For Latin America, subregional abortion rates range from 33 in Central America to 48 in South America. Rates have increased slightly since 1990–1994, but not by statistically significant amounts.
• Abortion rates in Asia have also fallen since 1990–1994, although not significantly. Asia’s subregions all have rates close to the regional average of 36 per 1,000 women.
• Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. When countries are grouped according to the grounds under which the procedure is legal, the rate is 37 abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age where it is prohibited altogether or allowed only to save a woman’s life, compared with 34 per 1,000 where it is available on request, a nonsignificant difference.
• High levels of unmet need for contraception help explain the prevalence of abortion in countries with restrictive abortion laws.

What I have researched from other appropriate sources agrees with Guttmacher but also indicates the below information on this subject:
The World Health Organization Research agrees with the Guttmacher Research. Their results are almost identical.
However, neither the W.H.O. or Guttmacher can give us a solid conclusion, due to lack of evidence, as to what happens when countries offer easy access to quality birth control but make their abortion laws stricter. This is due to the fact that most countries either are lenient on both issues or they are strict on access to both abortion and birth control.
We could make some confident speculation, based on the global evidence that does exist, that in countries, currently, where laws are strict for both abortion and birth control or where both are criminalized, that were these countries to loosen up laws on birth control access alone and not on abortion, the abortion rates would come down more, and likely closer to where the Western and developed nations are at. However, these countries are not necessarily or likely to get quite as low as the western, industrialized, countries since there does exist evidence that the mere difficulty of access to abortion alone lends, especially in certain cases, to higher abortion rates by itself.
Unfortunately, in the countries where the laws for abortion become much stricter than in the past, such as may exist in the U.S. for the future, the amount of abortions could increase quite a bit even if birth control access remains easy and free. One of the reasons this is true is due to the fact that, in these countries, many women who get pregnant in their later years, 40s or older, often now seek to get an amnio to see if their fetus is healthy. They can only get this during the late part of the 3rd month or beginning of the fourth month of their pregnancy. With stricter laws, some of these women may decide they don't want to take the chance the fetus is unhealthy or has downs syndrome, and instead may opt to get an early abortion thru more easily, anonymously obtained, although perhaps illegally obtained, abortion pills. These pills become not an option in later months, and testing would put women in a position to not be able to deny they are pregnant, publicly, if they wait, so this puts the women at risk they could be charged with a crime if abortion becomes illegal. (Please note: I am not suggesting this is right or moral or Christian behavior but only that the reality exist and I personally know quite a few women who would fit this category, today, in the U.S. despite anyone's opinions or beliefs)
A horrible side effect of the above situation is this: 50% of all downs fetuses naturally miscarry in the first trimester, and 40% that make it to the 2nd trimester miscarry then. Fetuses that have other severe health issues often miscarry, naturally, within the first three - four months of pregnancy as well. The amount of downs fetuses that become born infants are very small amounts even for older women. This illness is still quite rare overall. This means many women could end up aborting perfectly healthy fetuses, by the thousands, each year, or more, to avoid the possibility of having an unhealthy baby, and this number increases if women already have other children. One way some western countries avoid this issue is that they keep early abortions legal and allow later abortions into the 4th and 5th month if the fetus has tested unhealthy or the woman's life is in real danger if she remains pregnant. Many married older women think they aren't fertile when they still are and stop taking birth control.
Lastly, there is no existing evidence that easy access to abortions, even throughout pregnancy, equates to more abortions, in any country, that has free and easy access to birth control. In fact, countries with easy access to abortion and also free easy access to birth control have the lowest rates in the world, and these rates lower even more when those countries offer mandated longer paid maternity/paternity leaves, free quality universal health care, and free, quality, public daycare. (The only exception to this seems to be Sweden. Despite Sweden's similarly ease of access to both abortion and birth control and it's offering many of the benefits listed above that other Western European Countries offer, it still has quite a high abortion rate. However, there is no evidence suggesting that tightening Sweden's existing laws would lower its rate for abortion and doing so would likely only raise it even higher.)
The evidence we do have seems to indicate, on a global scale, that despite what seems reasonable in theory, i.e., harsh abortion laws will lower abortion rates, is completely false when put to the test in reality. It just may be that easy access to abortion, and lenient abortion laws, help more to reduce abortion rates than having strict laws against abortion, in any country. Perhaps some morality issues simply cannot be solved by force or threat but must instead be dealt with by respecting the situation of the people involved and helping them out of their place of fear or desperation, with physical and material protections and emotional and spiritual support. We could do much more perhaps by encouraging a choice for good, and for life, without attempting to control women. We could choose to help women in real ways, instead of trying to corner them into doing the Christian thing.

Phil Lawless
5 years 1 month ago

It is pretty clear that life requires that a zygote be implanted successfully in the mother's womb to become a real human being. Before that it is just a potential human being. That occurs with roughly 12 days before the implantation occurs, time enough to form twins, or die from abnormalities.

The latest from america

U.S. President Joe Biden, right, bends down to greet Pope Francis with their foreheads touching, ahead of a working session on Artificial Intelligence (AI), Energy, and Africa-Mediterranean, during the G7 summit at Borgo Egnazia, southern Italy, on June 14, 2024.
Pope Francis met with President Joe Biden and several other world leaders at the Group of Seven summit.
Pope Francis, seen from behind, sits at a working session during the G7 summit in Borgo Egnazia, Italy. The session discusses AI, Energy, Africa, and the Mideast. The background features a blue screen with the G7 Italia logo, and several attendees and photographers are visible.
The pope addressed leaders at the G7's special "outreach" session dedicated to artificial intelligence.
Pope Francis met with comedians to discuss the importance of humor, specifically as a tool for unity in the face of darkness and conflict.
“Sister Act” embodies the welcoming spirit of a church willing to go out into the street.
John DoughertyJune 14, 2024