"But A fetus is a Human!" Well, what is a Human and what is a Person?
What is a �human being�? The answer is tricky and quite a key aspect of this debate. To give a vague answer, a human being is an agent upon whom we endow rights. If a fetus is a human being then a fetus has the right to life. If a dog is not a human being a dog is not endowed the same rights as say, your neighbor, Bob. This much can be demonstrated through a very simple thought process:
Who has rights? It would not go beyond the bounds of acceptable debate to assert that human beings have demonstratable rights. For example, a human adult cannot be legally killed under typical circumstances (there do exist mitigating, atypical, extenuating circumstances that say otherwise, however in daily life partaking in daily activities a human is not legally able to be killed). Humans also have the right not to be raped and have their bodies violated without their consent. They have the rights not to be stolen from, assaulted, or harassed. I could continue, but you get the general idea.
Do animals have rights?
Yes. Animals can be killed legally, however they cannot legally be raped, assaulted, or mutilated in �inhumane� manners. For example, you cannot catch a cat on fire without being punished, and in some circumstances the improper euthanization of an animal is also legally punishable (ie you must go to a vet, you can�t just shoot your dog in the head for no good reason). From this we can conclude that animals have some rights, however their lives are not held in the same regard as a human life.
Why don�t animals get the same protection as one of the human species?
Conclusion: There is something unique about humans. There is something about us that makes us distinctly �a human being� that we have rights granted to no other living creatures.
*****
So, How do we determine what makes something a human being, and by virtue of that who we endow rights?
Some bad arguments
Is being alive enough to be a human being?
This clearly will not suffice. Animals are alive. Bacteria are alive. Egg cells and sperm cells are alive (fetuses don�t magically come alive from dead egg cells and sperm cells). Every day you kill millions of microorganisms by virtue of being alive yourself. The fact a fetus is alive doesn�t mean much. Further if one seeks to use a purely scientific basis for asserting whether something is alive, a fetus as its own organism will fail:
To be alive an organism must:
a. Consist of cells (a fetus does)
b. Requires/uses energy (a fetus does)
c. Grows and evelopes (a fetus does)
d. Reproduces (a fetus is not able to do so)
e. Responds to stimuli (a fetus cannot do this until the latest the late third trimester, or earliest mid second trimester)
f. Has a metabolism (a fetus does not, it gains nutrients from the blood of the mother, it has no metabolism of it�s own)
g. Has a life span (debatable)
Of the seven required facets of being classified as �alive� in biology a fetus can only assuredly claim 3 (a, b, and c), at best it can claim 4 (a, b, c, g) during the time period where abortions are permitted (within the first 20 weeks in most cases), and 5 (a, b, c, e, g) by the end of pregnancy.
However, the qualifications for "alive" are not done during mere life stages, but for the entirety of something's life. IE an infant cannot reproduce, but an infant is merely a stage in human life, so it would be faulty to say it is not alive. Further all of the tissues that compromise the fetus are alive and fit the qualifications for life stated above. It would definately be COMPLETELY WRONG to say a fetus is not "alive." It is not yet able to sustain it's own existence (if you take it out of the womb it will surely die), however it
is alive
Conclusion: The fact the fetus is �alive� but that is not enough to justify calling it a human being upon which we grant it rights.
A fetus has a heart beat
It is almost painfully obvious why this does not justify calling a fetus a human being, deserving of all the rights and privileges of a human being. All sorts of animals have heartbeats. Having a heartbeat, alone, is not reason enough to consider a fetus a human being.
Once the fetus has been in uterine for X days/weeks/months it is a human
There is no rational basis to draw the line at any single day in the pregnancy as the defining moment of humanity. What�s the difference between a fetus of 100 days and 101 days? Any time limit would be arbitrary at best, as well, based on the differing nature of each individual fetus and that particular fetus�s growth rate. Not all fetuses are the same or at the exact same point in development at the same time. One pregnancy of 3 months may be slightly ahead or behind another of 3 months. And while the general state of the fetus is mostly identical, they are not based solely upon time.
Some Not-so-bad arguments
A human being is one who has his or her own unique set of human DNA, IE because something is HUMAN it is a HUMAN BEING
This argument is good because it demonstrates why we exclude animals and other living creatures that are not human; however defining personhood by merely having unique human DNA poses its own set of unique problems.
First, why must it be unique? Identical twins share DNA and surely both are their own individual human beings deserving of all the rights endowed to human beings, so perhaps unique is not necessary for humanity. This is also supported by the notion of cloning. If ever a full human clone was made would he or she not deserve the same rights as the original? Would he or she not deserve the same rights as a naturally born child? If identical twins and clones can be human beings then while human DNA is needed, it does not have to be
unique.
Second, what is special about human DNA? Cancer has it�s own unique set of human DNA. My hand also has human DNA in it, yet my hand alone is not a human being. Having human DNA makes something
human in the sense that if one had to biologically classify a sample of my hair, my skin, or an organ, he or she would be able to identify it as being
of the human species however these things in themselves are not
human beings (or persons), where as we previously stated
a human being is an agent upon which we endow rights, and no one in their right mind would say that hair, an organ, or skin ought to have the rights of a human being.
It is not enough for something to be of the species �human� to grant it rights. Merely being �of human� is not enough to classify something as it�s own agent entitled to rights, otherwise my hair, my skin, and my organs each are their own unique human beings deserving of rights because they are each �human� by definition.
It is from this that we are led into
the argument from potential, (which is detailed in the next post) that asserts it is not merely the human DNA that makes it a person, but the active potential to achieve a born human state in unison with human DNA that permits it to be granted personhood. However before tending to the argument from potential I would like to address an often used pro-choice criterion for determining personhood.
A bit more support for this argument
Courtesy of Pyrotechnic Oracle
Alexander Williams, Creation/AIG
Governments around the world are wrestling with the controversial issue of embryonic stem cell research. The Australian Government's controversial support for research is based on the (mis)understanding that a 5-day-old embryo is a 'ball of cells...not a human being'.
1 This is a widely held view in the scientific world and would appear to give rational, if not moral, support for the government's Policy.
But not any more.
The 'ball of cells' concept is that the embryo is undifferentiated; that is, all cells are the same and no individual cells have yet been assigned their final destinations to become skin, hair, bone, blood, etc. Evidence supporting this view includes the fact that the embryo can be divided to produce multiple identical babies (twins, triplets, etc), and one or two cells can be removed form the 'ball' for genetic screening without apparent ill-effect. But all this has now changed
Recent research has found that differentiation of the embryonic cells begins on the day of conception and may even be initiated by the point of entry of the sperm into the egg.2 When egg and sperm unite, they produce a single new cell, called the 'zygote', and the zygote is the first cell in the body of the new baby. When the zygote undergoes its first cell division to produce a two-celled embryo, it now appears that these two cells form the top-tail axis for all subsequent development. In other words, which part will be the head, for instance, is determined 'up front'. And similar processes of orientation appear to continue during all subsequent cell divisions.
The research has been in progress for more than a decade and early results that pointed in this direction were originally met with some hostility. Many people did not want to know that the early embryo may not be 'just a featureless blob of cells'. Why? Perhaps it reminded them that their experiments were dismembering a tiny person already in the process of formation.
3
Much work remains to be done to clarify the details, but it is certainly now clear that developmental biologists can no longer talk about the early embryo being a featureless blob of cells.
But what about the evidence cited earlier supposedly supporting the 'blob' theory? It has been suggested that perhaps damage control mechanisms in the embryo are powerful enough to overcome the impact of early cell loss. If this is true, it does not negate the new findings, it simply underlines the fact that any such manipulation do cause damage to the embryo, and those who cause the damage need to take responsibility for their action. (See box below regarding the 'twins' argument.)
Where does this leave the Australian government policy on embryonic stem cell research? It will certainly give the opponents of embryo experimentation a new weapon but it certainly won't change anything immediately because the Australian research will be carried out on unused IVF (Invetro fertalization) embryos that would otherwise be thrown out. This 'lesser of two evils' argument will probably carry the day. When that supply runs out, they expect to use donated embryos.
1 So for the present, the issue comes down to the question: 'Would you donate your embryonic children?'
4
1. Mallabone, M., Vanstone [Federal Government Minister] firm on cell reserach, the West Australian, 6 July 2002, p. 13
2. Pearson, P., Your destiny, form day one, Nature Science Update, 8 July 2002.
3. Pro-abortionists would also prefer to hold the embryo to be as 'less than human' as possible at any stage.
4. see also www.answersingenesis.org/humanlife
The basic idea is this: At conception (or at least soon afterwards) the cells that would make up each part of the body are able to be identified, whereas a true clump of skin is only skin and not the precursor of something else. Unlike cancer, skin cells, and the like, this complete-ness is what is used to determine that something is wholely a human being.
Courtesy of Digital Lucifer:
Basically.. It comes down to personhood over the definition of a person. Since a fetus is nothing other than a human, is alive [some people argue it's not... But it's incomplete. By no means is it dead or inanimate though] is distinguished as it's own entity and is offspring from another human thus giving it more of it's own individual status as say.. Cancer.
back to me
The only question that remains is whether having all the parts (that are not yet fully developed) is enough. Opinions may very and I've not yet heard many arguments on this subject (though I would love more).
There is still an issue of potential with this view, a single cell that will one day be the skin is not yet skin, it is still potential skin, however from what has been displayed all the beginings of every part are present very early on. The question is, is this enough to make something a human being upon which we grant rights? From a very basic standpoint it appears so, amputees, people with pacemakers, people who lack an organ, they are no less persons deserving of rights than their organ/peice-having counterparts. Though it still needs some development this view has a lot of potential
wink
Another Pro-life Perspective on the Humanity Issue
Courtesy of Lorysa
One of the main things I can tell you, is that we really, really don't care at all that the baby isn't sentient, or has to live on someone else temporarily, because we believe that its' life is just as worthy of continuing as yours and mine, even if it can't speak, or think for itself. I think this is important to point out, because in many arguments and debates, Pro-choicers always point this out, when the truth is, if it really mattered to us, the Pro-life side would have never existed to begin with.
You said, "we believe that its' life is just as worthy of continuing as yours and mine, even if it can't speak, or think for itself." I'd like an argument around the "why." Why is fetus's life is just as worthy as continuing as yours or mine? I understand that it is an integral pro-life belief that a fetus's life is equivalent to any other human beings... but what I was hoping to get was justification for why this belief is held.
3nodding
The reason why is because it's still human. And since we're human as well, and it's supposed to not be sentient or as sentient as we are, we don't think people should be able to just disrupt it's life with the justification that it's unsentient, hardly formed, and just has all the aspects that it's supposed to have at that time.
***
To sum it all up, potential doesn't mean "nothing" to us, the unborn is a child despite it's current abilities, and the unborn are alive and we once again don't consider the fact that it can't comphrehend a single thing to be a sign that it's inhuman, except when people want to have it. And sorry if I'm sounding rude, I'm not angry at all, I just sound it for some reason, probably because my sentences are so prompt, but nontheless I hope this information helps! PM me for more if you like, but please include some questions so I'll know what to say.
Potential matters for the pro-life side... again I understand that and will include it, but like I said a paragraph ago... I'm really trying to get to the "why" behind it. What justifies using potential as a basis for determining the permissability of abortion?
Potential matters because it matters with born people, why not unborn people? I have the potential to become an artist, but just because I'm not one yet doesn't mean anyone should have the right to keep me from becoming one. When people say that potential doesn't matter because it could die easily anyway, so that justifies abortion, it's nearly the same as us saying that since it's probably going to die anyway, so abortion is pointless considering it's only doing something that's going to happen since the fetus only has potential to live, and abortion only has the potential to be useful. Which is why I come to the conclusion that potential matters very, very much.
And these answers vary with different people, so you might get different answers from different 'Lifers. If you have any more questions, just ask!
*****
The Pro-choice argument for cognitive abilities as the determinant of personhood
There is a distinction between something that is merely
human and something that is
a human being. One method often taken by those who are pro-choice is to question everything a born human is able to do and rationalize if it is the quality that grants personhood. The pro-choice view is below, and it is
not the only way, or even necessarily the correct way, to determine personhood, however it is
a way to determine it. If you disagree, then you may offer an explanation for how we grant rights and personhood and I will gladly edit it into this post.
Does an ability to feel make one a human being?
The quick and easy answer is �no.� An ability to feel in and of itself does not grant personhood. Many animals are able to feel. They can feel pain, pleasure, happiness, and sorrow. Since animals are able to feel, our ability to feel does not make us human beings. A possible distinction is that humans are able to feel higher emotions such as love, empathy, and jealousy, however in many higher level animals such as dolphins and primates such emotions can also be found.
However the ability to feel does grant some rights, just not the rights to personhood. It is legally not permitted to arbitrarily harm animals. One can go to jail for killing an animal in a cruel manner, and one can also be heavily fined or face jail time for physically hurting an animal. Because of this we can assume that the ability to feel pain does grant a creature some rights, namely the right not to be unjustly made to feel pain. However this ability to feel pain does not guarantee one the right to life, due process, or any other right granted to human beings since animals are able to be killed for food and have no ability to seek legal help if someone does something unwanted to them.
Does having the ability or capacity to reason suffice?
An explanation that is based on one�s ability to reason and their capacity for abstract knowledge such as mathematics, logic, philosophy, religion, literature, morals, etc. would adequately explain why we do not include animals or any other life form in the �personhood� distinction. It is a singular trait that all adult humans (agents we are sure have rights) share that no other living thing possesses. Dogs, cats, bacterium, skin, plants, rocks� none of these things have in and of themselves the capacity to reason on abstract concepts in the manner that humans are able to do.
But what about when you are asleep?
This is relatively easy to answer � when one is unconscious the ability and the capacity to reason is still present. The brain is still there and still functioning even though you are unconscious, therefore the fact you are not always using this ability to reason does not negate personhood.
What about Coma Victims?
If the coma victim still has a functioning brain then the ability is present, just as the sleeping person�s ability was still present, even though the person in question is unconscious for prolonged periods of time. The capacity is there, it is just dormant.
A problem arises when we deal with not just coma victims, but those who are in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). A PVS is defined as:
Quote:
A persistent vegetative state, which sometimes follows a coma, refers to a condition in which individuals have lost cognitive neurological function and awareness of the environment but retain noncognitive function and a perserved sleep-wake cycle.
It is sometimes described as when a person is technically alive, but his/her brain is dead. However, that description is not completely accurate. In persistent vegetative state the individual loses the higher cerebral powers of the brain, but the functions of the brainstem, such as respiration (breathing) and circulation, remain relatively intact. Spontaneous movements may occur and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli, but the patient does not speak or obey commands. Patients in a vegetative state may appear somewhat normal. They may occasionally grimace, cry, or laugh.
http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/921394859.html
If one is brain dead he or she no longer has the ability to reason, to think, or to even feel since the part of the brain responsible for such things is no longer present or functioning (the cerebral cortex). They lack, completely, an ability to reason, and for all intents and purposes they have lost what it takes to be �a human being,� where personhood is defined by one�s mere ability to reason. This is demonstrateable in the law where it is legal to �pull the plug� from those who are in a PVS. It is legal to kill those who no longer are able to think or feel.
Is a fetus a person?
From the pro-choice perspective of personhood that is based on the ability to think and reason, no, a fetus is not a person. More information on the fetus's ability to think and feel pain will be added shortly.
This pro-choice view is not the end all be all for this debate! One can easily argue a fetus is a person they merely need to present an argument for this debate that details what grants persons rights and why a fetus has these qualities.