Recently, two prominent Catholic politicians have made public statements regarding the beginning of human life that were in conflict with Church teaching. Unfortunately these statements have caused some confusion among both Catholics and non-Catholics about what the Church does and doesn't teach about the beginning of human life and the moral implications of that teaching. Senator Joseph Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi actually use radically different arguments to defend the legality of abortion, and both need to be addressed.

Speaker Pelosi's argument can be summed up in saying that she doesn't believe that the Church has a consistent teaching about the beginning of life and therefore it is simply a matter of personal choice. In her interview with Tom Brokaw, the moderator of "Meet the Press," Speaker Pelosi was asked, "When does life begin?" She responded: "We don't know. The point is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose…. I don't think anyone can tell you when life begins, when human life begins."

Brokaw: "The Catholic church at the moment feels very strongly that it begins at the point of conception."

Pelosi: "I understand. And this is maybe 50 years or something like that."

On the other hand, Senator Biden suggests that the answer to the question of when life begins is knowable, but albeit only as a matter of faith, not as a matter of scientific fact. Therefore he argues, since the USA does not allow matters of religion and faith to be legislated, it would be unconstitutional to force a "belief" on others.

In speaking to Brokaw on "Meet the Press" several weeks after the interview with Pelosi, Biden was asked the same question, "When does life begin?" He responded, "Look, I know when it begins for me.… I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society."

The positions taken by these two prominent politicians who are Catholic suggest that there may be some confusion about what the Catholic Church does teach about the beginning of human life. Three questions arise that need to be addressed:

---Do we know when human life begins?

---Has the Catholic Church been consistent in her moral teachings about the evil of abortion or is this something that is "maybe 50 years [old] or something like that."?

---Is Catholic teaching about the beginning of human life a religious imposition on society?

Do we know when human life begins?

Yes, absolutely. No reasonable scientist or physician denies that modern science, especially genetic science, makes it clear that human life begins at conception. From the moment that the chromosomes of the human sperm and egg unite, there is a new human being, distinct genetically from either their father or their mother. It's definitely not an aardvark or starfish. It is clearly and definitely and scientifically identifiable as a human being at the earliest stage of development.

The biological sciences have always understood that this new being is beyond being simply "a clump of cells" or tissue or even an organ, because unlike human tissue or human organs, the human embryo has the innate ability to grow into an adult human. Despite many attempts, no scientist, ethicist or philosopher has ever been able to adequately defend any moment other than conception as the moment when human life begins. Every argument that tries to point at another point in development --- e.g., nidation (implantation in the uterus), heart beat or brain waves as the point where "humanity is achieved" --- has proved faulty.

The point is, scientifically, that from the moment of conception we have clearly and provably a human life, a human being. It has a uniquely human genome, and it is already male or female. Any scientist who could test even a single cell of the newly conceived being would know that it was a human. By definition a human embryo is a "developing human individual." Clearly, that human life begins at conception is a commonly accepted scientific fact. Attempts to show otherwise lack either scientific validity or inherent logical consistency.

For example, let's look at a statement from an ardent pro-choice blog: "No one doubts that a fertilized egg is alive, that it contains human DNA, or that it has the potential to develop into a born person… The fundamental question is whether these facts are sufficient to establish a fertilized egg as the moral equivalent of an infant, worthy of full legal protections. ..."

What is clear from this statement is that even many pro-choicers cannot but admit that there is a human being from the moment of conception, so they are reduced to offering the argument that the new human shouldn't be accorded the legal protections of other human beings until after birth. However, they can offer no reasons for this. When and why are legal protections accorded? When the child is outside the womb? This would mean that moral status would be based on size, looks and intelligence. What reasonable person could agree with that? These arguments don't hold water because everyone knows that infants are just as dependent on others after birth as they are in the womb. Without proper attention from others every infant is doomed to death.

Another argument offered is that it is "viability," the ability to survive (breathe on their own) outside the womb that makes us truly human and worthy of legal status. This argument also fails the "reasonability" test. Why is a human in the womb less human than a person who is born? Because a child in the womb is dependent on the mother for nutrition and oxygen? Wouldn't that argument deprive "legal protections" from everyone even temporarily on a respirator, using dialysis, or a feeding tube? Should medically dependent patients be deprived of their identity as human beings because they cannot breathe or eat or metabolize blood without assistance?

This argument is akin to the Nazi euthanasia campaign against the handicapped as "useless eaters," where the right to life was accorded only to the strong and healthy. As we can see, once the new human is created at conception, there is no other time or stage of development that can be identified as the point of transition from non-human to human status.

Pope John Paul II addressed this question directly and unequivocally in his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life):

Some people try to justify abortion by claiming that the result of conception, at least up to a certain number of days, cannot yet be considered a personal human life. But in fact 'from the moment that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his or her own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already.

This has always been clear, and modern genetic science offers clear confirmation. It has demonstrated that from the first instant there is established the program of what this living being will be: a person, this individual person with his/her characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization the adventure of a human life begins, and each of its capacities requires time --- a rather lengthy time…

Even if the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained by empirical data, the results themselves of scientific research on the human embryo provide "a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person" (n. 60).

This leads us directly to our second question.

Has the Church been consistent in her teaching about abortion?

Yes, absolutely. The first non-scriptural Christian text is called the Didaché (The Teaching) and provides instructions for those preparing for baptism. It has been dated from the beginning of the second century (75-125 C.E.). In this earliest of the Christian texts devoted to catechesis, abortion is specifically addressed: "In accordance with the precept of the teaching: you shall not kill… you shall not put a child to death by abortion nor kill it once it is born."

The Christian tradition is clear and unambiguous: From the beginning until today abortion has been condemned as a grave moral evil. What Speaker Pelosi has confused with this teaching is not the moral argument about the evil of abortion which clearly is historically documented as consistent, but the philosophical discussion about "animation" or ensoulment. Indeed there has been a long debate about the moment of ensoulment, but this debate never was used to buttress a pro-abortion stance.

This issue is summed up well in footnote 19 of the 1974 Declaration on Abortion issued by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

"…Some think animation occurs in the first moment of life, others that it occurs only after implantation. But science really cannot decide the question, since the very existence of an immortal soul is not a subject for scientific inquiry; the question is a philosophical one.…

"The moral position taken here on abortion does not depend on the answer to that question: even if it is assumed that animation comes at a later point, the life of the fetus is nonetheless incipiently human (as the biological sciences make clear); it prepares the way for and requires the infusion of the soul, which will complete the nature received from the parents."

We need to remember that not everything we read in the popular press or find on the internet is an accurate articulation of what the Church in fact does teach.

Finally we can address our third question:

Is Catholic teaching about the beginning of human life a religious imposition on society?

Of course not! If human life from the moment of conception is scientific fact, how can that be a religious imposition?

We are not talking here about imposing clearly religious practices, Catholic or otherwise, on all of society, like passing laws outlawing the eating of meat on Fridays of Lent, or forcing all of society to fast and abstain on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, or imposing the restrictive dietary laws of non-Christian religions on all of American society. These would indeed violate the separation of Church and state.

But when we are looking at defending the lives of those who are among the most defenseless in society, the unborn, we are not imposing a personal "belief" but demanding only that arguments based on common sense and science be recognized. Is support of the unemployed, the handicapped and/or the sick-poor by local and federal government a "religious imposition" on society?

The fact that the Christian moral belief regarding conception as the beginning of human life is in concert with scientific data does not make it less legitimate. The Catholic Church also teaches that driving while intoxicated is a moral evil; does that make society's drunken driving laws a religious imposition? The Church teaches that murder and rape are evil; does that make the laws against these evils part of a church-led conspiracy to impose "religious beliefs" on society?

We need to get beyond the simplistic argument that all challenges to abortion are based on "mere religious beliefs" and so should carry no political weight in a country that cherishes a separation of Church and State. We need to understand that the Catholic position on the beginning of human life is based on solid scientific and sociological evidence and coincides with the American Constitution's understanding of the sanctity of innocent human life.

Catholic politicians are invited to bring the best of the Catholic social vision into the public square. This is summed up in the Catholic Church's commitment to the "Consistent Ethic of Life," which is a call to protect and cherish human life at every stage from the moment of conception to natural death --- no ifs, ands or buts. Care for all the vulnerable among us, the unborn, the unemployed, the uninsured, should be the priority of the Catholic social and political vision. This consistent vision, deeply rooted in the Catholic moral tradition, understands that an authentic pro-life position is inclusive not exclusive; in other words it involves care for every at-risk population.

Defending the unborn and the uninsured are complementary, not competitive, positions. Recognizing that human life begins at conception is not a summation of the Catholic Pro-Life position, but rather a foundation for proclaiming the dignity of all individuals and protecting their inalienable rights throughout their natural life-span.

Vincentian Father Richard Benson is academic dean and professor of moral theology at St. John's Seminary, Camarillo. His column appears monthly in The Tidings.