The Catholic understanding that life begins at conception, and therefore must be respected and protected from that moment on, is at the heart of all of the Church’s teachings regarding beginning of life issues.

One cannot morally do to a newly conceived human being what one would not do to a human being already born, since both are already made in the image and likeness of God.

While this position is both reasonable and logically consistent, we know all too well that reasonableness and logical consistency are not always found in the positions which are opposed to Church teaching on these issues. These positions, unfortunately are often translated into policies and laws which have a direct effect on newly conceived human beings, and indeed, society in general.

These inconsistencies, if not exposed as such, will continue to mask the values which are really at stake and perpetuate further harm to human life. Some brief examples surrounding the issue of abortion may help demonstrate this.

In many places there are laws which would allow someone, such as a drunk driver, who kills an unborn child to be charged with homicide. Yet, if that same woman was on her way to the abortion clinic she would not be charged with any crime. The actions of each result in the death of an unborn child, yet the law only recognizes the child as a child if someone other than the mother or the abortionist ends its life.

Who ends the life, however, has absolutely no bearing on whether that life exists, what kind of life it is, or how much value it has.

Similar inconsistencies can be found with abortion laws dealing with minors and parental consent. Some jurisdictions allow nearly unrestricted access to abortion for minors but require parental consent for simple procedures such as having one’s ears pierced.

Some would argue that the two issues are vastly different because one deals with someone’s “reproductive rights” while the other deals with the health of a minor child. However, it is clear that while piercing one’s ears involves the health and well being of a minor, so too does abortion, but to a vastly greater extent. In fact, abortion in this case involves the health and well being of at least two minors.

The fact that one involves “reproductive rights” in no way changes it into an issue which does not involve the health and well being of a minor.

Whom does such a law really protect? The answer is, of course, no one. What the law protects is a radical, abortion on demand, ideology. And it does so while risking the health of one minor (and ensuring the death of another) without at least, the input (and hopefully the guidance) of the people most directly entrusted with that minor child’s safety — the parents.

One of the worst examples of inconsistency deals with what are often called “late-term” abortions (generally after 13 weeks). Naturally, it includes those after the child has been deemed “viable” — able to live outside the womb (typically around 23 weeks).

The term “viable” exposes the inconsistency most directly. Even if someone should ignore all the evidence and persist in arguing against human life beginning at conception, one cannot make any reasonable claim that a child who has reached “viability” is not yet a living human being, since they would be contradicting or simply ignoring what that term describes and communicates.

This point is driven home by those with us today (like Gianna Jessen) who actually survived abortions.
These three examples highlight what happens when we do not insist upon consistency and logical accuracy in moral issues. It also reminds us when defending Church teaching, to be consistent and logical ourselves. Fortunately, if we follow Church teaching there is an inherent consistency and logic — which flows from the source of those teachings and the source of all truth: God Himself.