Should the Unborn be Considered Human?

Abortion is one of the most divisive issues in America today. The reasons for this are manifold, as abortion ties into many facets of American society. In this paper, I will elaborate on one part of the debate; specifically, the humanity of the unborn. The question being asked is whether or not a fetus should be considered a living human being. Viewpoints regarding this issue vary wildly, but I aim to clarify why one should be considered human from the moment of conception.

What is the fetus? According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the word is originally derived from Latin, meaning “the act of bearing young, offspring”. It is a term that describes an unborn child, usually used from two months after conception to birth. However, is this an adequate definition of a “human life”? At first, this might not seem to be true; a human has to have a conscious, doesn’t it? Doesn’t the fetus need to have a soul, commonly defined as the spiritual essence of human beings? Does a fetus have any sense of self? How exactly do these questions tie into the whole abortion debate?

For starters, when is abortion acceptable? When should one be able to abort an unborn child? Pro-Life advocates say that there should be no such acceptable time. Pro-Choice advocates say that abortion should be allowed at all times. For the moderates in this debate, answering the question becomes trickier; some say that abortion is acceptable until the second trimester, while others some say it should not be allowed after the first month passes. Time is a key factor for a moderate; tolerating an abortion depends largely on time, as well as circumstances. For instance, what if a woman were raped? Should she be forced to bear the child of the one who raped her? This question may not be difficult for some; the mother should not be forced to bear the rapist’s child. However, as Frank A. Pravone of Priests for Life says, “Suppose your father committed a terrible crime and the police came to your home, arrested you, and had you sentenced to death? The unfairness of that is obvious. Yet that is the same unfairness that occurs if a child conceived by rape is aborted.” Phrased in this manner, the question is now very difficult to answer; this would be a case of where the victim assuages her pain by victimizing another person. However, this only applies if the unborn are actually human. Now there’s a new question to solve: why shouldn’t an unborn child be considered human?

It would seem that determining the “personhood” of a human being is an easy task at first. To be a human being would require that you are, firstly, alive. Secondly, you would have to have some sense of self, or consciousness, or even a “soul”, if you will. Thirdly, you would have to be able to recognize and rationalize your own existence, via reason and reflection. These conditions seem suitable; however, these conditions would also seem to designate young infants, the mentally handicapped, and even very decrepit old people as “non-humans”. There is a lot of debate over what constitutes the nature of “being human.” Yet in the end, a person is still a person whether or not our knowledge of what personhood “is” qualifies as absolute. If one sees a fish, yet does not recognize it as a fish, that does not mean it is no longer a fish. A fish is a fish, and a person is a person, regardless of whether we recognize that person as a “non-person” or not. After all, many esteemed scientists and philosophers – such as Arthur de Gobineau, who penned An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races – recognized blacks as “lesser” than white people. Does that mean black people weren’t human back then, even though they are now considered human? No; the same principle applies here. If the unborn are human, then the debate over abortion almost becomes non-existent; abortion would be the equivalent of state-sanctioned murder.

How can one fully determine the humanity – or lack thereof – of the unborn? Can it be done? If not, then can any side in the abortion debate be right about the personhood of the unborn? There doesn’t seem to be a single logical reason to deny humanity to the unborn. What other reason is there to do so, other than to justify abortion? After all, abortion is the killing of a living organism: the unborn child within the mother’s womb. If that organism weren’t human, killing him would be far easier to contemplate. I have to say that denying humanity to the unborn might lead – or perhaps already has led – to a slippery slope with regard to American perception of life in general. When weighing the consequences of classifying the unborn as human and denying humanity to the unborn, I can’t help but come to the conclusion that a human is human from conception. The consequences of denying that conclusion are simply too severe to allow otherwise, no matter what one’s definition of personhood is.

In order to determine the humanity of a fetus, one must first determine whether he is alive. On this point, there is no debate. The Encyclopedia Britannica classifies that, for an organism to be considered alive scientifically, it must exhibit four characteristics: “metabolism, growth, reproduction, and some form of responsiveness and adaptation.” The fetus certainly metabolizes the glucose and nutrients coming in through the umbilical cord; otherwise, there would be no growth. Within the first month after conception, the heart, brain, spinal cord and nervous system have grown. Reproduction, in its most fundamental sense, implies the dividing of a cell into two more cells. Thus, a fetus is clearly capable of reproduction. An unborn child has been shown to respond to stimuli; according to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, a device has been recently invented that “can detect fetal brain activity in response to flashes of light transmitted through the mother's abdomen”. As for adaptation, one only has to look at the placenta. “A healthy placenta is the single most important factor in producing a healthy baby,” says Dr. Harvey J. Kliman. The placenta, which is part of the fetus, removes waste products, induces the mother to deliver more blood through the umbilical cord, and helps protect the fetus from the mother’s immune system. If the placenta is damaged, or if it detaches from the uterus, or even if it attaches in the wrong place, great harm can come to both the fetus and the mother. If the fetus did not grow this unique organ, he would not survive. It is evident that the fetus is alive according to the scientific definition of life; however, if the fetus is to be considered “human”, must he meet more criteria?

Perhaps one can look at the fetus’s nature from a philosophical standpoint. One common argument by Pro-Choice advocates is that, as a mass of non-sentient cell tissue, an unborn child is not equal to a living human person. Not only that, but something has to be said about the viability of the fetus and his dependence on the mother for support. If the fetus were to be removed from the womb, he would die; seeing as how he is reliant on the mother whilst in the womb, it can be said that the child is a part of the mother, and thus is subject to her whims. As T.F. Barans says, “An EMBRYO is no more equal to a BABY than an ACORN is to an OAK. Each has the POTENTIAL to become the actuality of the other.” This seems to make sense; treating an embryo as a complete human doesn’t seem logical, as the embryo is incapable of utilizing his potential like an adult human can. However, upon closer inspection, there appear to be some problems with these claims.

Even though the fetus is dependent upon the mother for support whilst in the womb, that continues to be the case long after birth. Even if the mother gives her child up for adoption, the child will still need to depend on someone to survive. Humans have varying degrees of dependence, with further variations from person to person. Also, older people generally depend upon artificial means of support in order to function (e.g. a feeding tube, an I/V drip, some form of mechanical ventilation, etcetera). The dependability argument would imply that killing older people or infants is less severe of an act than killing an adult. This goes hand-in-hand with the argument for viability; even though a zygote would be incapable of protecting himself if left outside of the womb, an infant is also just as incapable of ensuring his viability. The argument about the fetus being part of the mother also has some holes; following it logically, that would mean parts of the fetus would be parts of the mother. In other words, a mother would have a penis if her unborn child were male. Also, consider the child’s genetic code; although partly given by the mother, the child’s genes are a fusion of both parents’ genes. The resulting genetic code is totally unique and independent of the mother’s. Even though an embryo is incapable of actualizing his potential, it is still there; the process of development within the womb is merely the unfolding of what already exists. Looking at it another way, a zygote is smaller, less mobile, less developed, and more dependent upon the mother than an infant is. Likewise, an infant is smaller, less mobile, less developed, and more dependent on other humans than an adult is. Using that logic, does this mean killing an infant is not as bad as killing an adult? There doesn’t seem to be a morally relevant difference between an unborn child and an adult human; even though an embryo does not look like a human, he will not develop into anything else other than a human. That kind of reasoning would imply that a blue whale is not a mammal because it looks more like a fish.

There are enough philosophical arguments to fill a novel, so now it’s time to look at the question from a different, more culturally relevant angle. After ROE v. WADE was decided in favor of the plaintiff Jane Roe, Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court. He noted that any law proscribing abortion “that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” In other words, it was ruled that a woman had a right to an abortion, and that to prevent her from obtaining one was in violation of her legal rights. However, if one infers that the fetus is human, then this means that that the mother has a legal right to, at the very least, manslaughter. This contradiction shows how much of the abortion debate hinges upon the status of the unborn; if the unborn are human, then Justice Blackmun’s opinion transforms into one of how the U.S. Constitution protects the killing of young humans. Inconsistencies like this would be cleared up if the original question were answered.

Statistically speaking, the amount of recorded abortions is staggering; William Robert Johnston of the University of Texas at Dallas has compiled a summary of registered abortions worldwide through October 2005. The total number of reported abortions: 756,695,000. Out of a current global population of over 6,500,000,000, that’s almost 12% of all the people currently alive on Earth. It’s sensible to suggest how all of those people would’ve contributed to overpopulation; however, overpopulation can be rather hard to describe, as clearly defined measurements for “overpopulation” have yet to be agreed upon. Just to make an example, take Europe’s total land area – 3,837,000 square miles – and divide that number from the total global population. If everyone lived in five-story apartments with four people per floor, you could fit roughly 85 people per every square mile in a landmass the size of Europe. This leaves the rest of the world for other use. One could draw from this calculation that there’s room for a lot more people in this world. This brings another personal observation to mind; how many great people were aborted? I can’t help but wonder how many great scientists, philosophers, civil rights activists, and leaders were lost to abortion. After all, it only took one man – Alexander Fleming – to discover penicillin, an antibiotic that has saved countless lives. Who knows how far mankind could have advanced had these unborn lived?

Another disturbing piece of information to consider is the fertility rate; many of the world’s developed nations are not meeting the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman. According to the Spanish news agency EFE, as reported by LifeSiteNews, the National Institute of Statistics has noted that there are 8.8 abortions for every 1,000 women as of September 2006. Spain’s fertility rate is already at 1.28; well below the replacement rate. This is a dilemma facing many other European nations as well. The drop in the number of women bearing children is resulting in a population implosion of sorts. This also has another effect: with less young people in the workforce, there will be less workers paying toward the retirement of older people. In Spain alone, there have been 920,000 abortions reported since 1941. Would Spain be facing this situation had those 920,000 people lived? Would their contribution to the Spanish economy have negated this problem? Had the unborn been considered human, would there have been as many abortions in Spain? In the world?

Considering how wide reaching the abortion debate is, many people have chosen to use satirical mediums such as political cartoons to get their point across. In the Examining Issues Through Political Cartoons series, there is a book about abortion. One of the cartoons contained in this book chronicles two scientists speaking in a lab; one scientist speaks of how the abortion issue “will never be resolved because no one knows when life begins!” However, he quickly berates his female partner for touching the fertilized egg of a California condor, resulting in a sarcastic response from the other scientist: “You seem to know when life begins for California condors!” This brings up an interesting point; although the fact that the California condor is an endangered species might have something to do with it, the condor egg is given much more respect than an unborn child. The fertilized egg in the cartoon is the equivalent of a human embryo in the fetus; the condor is born when it hatches, and a baby is born when he is expelled from the womb. Yet if the condor’s fertilized egg is not to be harmed, then why should a human zygote be treated any differently? Are humans worth less than animals? Although there are humans who have driven some animals to extinction – like the passenger pigeon, for example – there are also humans who are prominent environmental activists. As the value of human life seems to continually lessen, are people forgetting how much value one human life can bring to the world?

Denying the humanity to any human being is a recipe for catastrophe, oppression, and death. There is a historical precedent involved here; for example, many white people in the South during the antebellum years described black slaves as lesser beings. This brand of reasoning allowed them to mistreat and dehumanize blacks without a second thought. The Nazis, utilizing the “non-person” label, were able to remove moral obstacles to torturing and killing Jews during the Holocaust. These are just two historical examples; a culture that denies the humanity to anyone is opening the door for future abuse. If you murder someone that is legally classified as “non-human”, how can you be faulted? What kind of psychological damage would this have on those who were dehumanized? This is occurring right now to the unborn; although I cannot determine whether abortionists and mothers regard the unborn as human or not, I can determine the results. Over 44,037,000 people have been aborted in America alone, and that is a number of greater magnitude than the estimated casualty total of World War II, which totals at 20,858,800. If the unborn are human, should they not deserve the same protection offered other humans in American society?

As an odd irony, American culture generally paints a very positive image of babies. Infants and babies are almost always depicted in commercial advertisements as very cute and beautiful. When I see a baby, my usual reaction is a smile, followed by numerous attempts to make the child laugh. I do this because I see children as a source of purity; untainted by the evils of this world, a baby is a picture of innocence in my eyes. However, I have to say that I momentarily recoiled when I once saw a malformed baby. The sight of the misshapen face did make me cringe for a moment, but I let it go after remembering that the baby is still human. Physical defects do not detract from the inherent humanity of a person. As noted earlier, there doesn’t seem to be a morally relevant difference between an embryo and an infant, so why are embryos or fetuses not adored in the same manner as babies? Is it simply because they are not as endearing or as huggable as babies? If that is the case, then has America’s popular culture become too obsessed with “image” and physical beauty? Think of The Ugly Duckling and remember its moral: inner beauty will overshadow physical appearance. Does the same not apply to the unborn child?

I would classify the entire abortion issue as a moral dilemma. When I first learned what abortion is, I cried. How could this happen? How could people do this to human children, the purest form of life I know? My Aunt Kathy, when speaking to my dad once about women who have abortions, said, “You can’t hate them. But you have to pity them for their ignorance.” That underlines the whole argument for me; many people simply do not know. They are either unknowingly ignorant of the nature of the fetus, or they choose not to learn. Can one ever determine the true nature of the unborn? Whatever the answer, to continue to perform abortions without knowing what is being aborted is a logical fallacy. As a hypothetically resurrected Socrates postulates in The Unaborted Socrates, killing fetuses – not knowing if they are persons or not – is akin to the hunter that shoots at a moving bush, unknowing if it was a deer or his fellow hunter inside of it. If American society continues to tolerate abortion, then it must at least learn and clarify what exactly is being aborted. Nevertheless, my hope is that America will one day recognize the unborn as human. The consequences of not doing so are potentially catastrophic; if the unborn child is proven to be human, that would not only entail that we have killed innocent humans for years, but that we willingly allowed it to happen. That might deliver a blow to America’s moral fabric from which she may never recover.

“Abortion Rates in Youth Climb as Spain Declines.” Smith, Peter J. LifeSiteNews. 21 Sep. 2006. 4 Dec. 2006.

“Behind Every Healthy Baby Is A Healthy Placenta.” Kliman, Harvey J. Lectric Law Library. Online posting. Apr. 1998. 6 Nov. 2006.

“Estimated war dead, World War II.” War Chronicle. Online posting. 5 Dec. 2006.

“New Device Detects Fetal Brain Response to Light: May Help Prevent Brain Damage.” National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. 8 Mar. 2005. 1 Dec. 2006.

“Rape and Abortion.” Pravone, Frank A. Priests for Life. Online posting. 5 Dec. 2006.

“Summary of Registered Abortions Worldwide, through October 2005.” Johnston, William Robert. Johnston’s Archive. Online posting. 4 Nov. 2005. 27 Oct. 2006.

“The Ugly Duckling.” Andersen, Hans Christian. 11 Nov. 1843. Trans. Keigwin, R.P. Odense: Flensted, 1965.

“The Unaborted Socrates: A dramatic debate on the issues surrounding abortion.” Kreeft, Peter. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1983. 71-72.

“This Abortion Issue…” Asay, Chuck. Cartoon. Examining Issues Through Political Cartoons: Abortion. Ed. Williams, Mary E. Farmington Hills: Greenhaven Press, 2003.

“Women's Reproductive Self-Determination: Pro Choice Right to Abortion.” Barans, T.F. Word Wizards. Online posting. 4 Dec. 2006.

When I brought up that I could only remember back to when I was 5, I was just showing that there must have been some point, post-delivery, before which people can remember their lives. I'm sure it varies from person to person, and that would be part of the impossibility of having a universal definition of personhood occuring in those early years.

I'd like to hear more of the 'potential' argument. An acorn or fetus may be biologically mapped to become a tree or person, but that is due to a natural biological cycle of reproduction. I have the 'potential' to become a millionaire, does that mean you treat me as if I already was a millionaire?

If one believes in a human Spirit, the ultimate question is when does the spirit take up residence with the human soul. If one does not believe in a spirit for each individual human, then there is little to restrain from harvesting the earliest young for parts to 'repair' the older.

I happen to believe in an individual human spirit. I cannot prove the moment when that spirit is present with the indiviudal soul. That leads me to search for supporting evidence of when the soul is present and thus assume the parallel presence of the spirit at the same time, to be safe.

I can make a very good case for the soul being present at the zygote age. You may draw conclusions from that ... I do not accept the 'potential' when there is already an organism present at zygote age. Potential is what sperm and ova are.

Pick up a real acorn and carefully open the meat of it. At the dividing line of the two halves you will find a small oak tree already in evidence. The same can be done with any peanut in the shell. An acorn has within it a real already visible oak tree. People come up with lots of foolish stuff when trying to dismiss truth in order to support what they want to be true but is not true. I would refer you to the specious term 'pre-embryo' This falsehood has sucked in no less than Orin Hatch.

You may have read the term 'fertilized egg' when referencing a petri dish embryonic aged human. Fact is, when fertilization occurs there is no loger an ova or egg, there is a distinct new organism, even though the zygote and morula ages are spent inside the zona pellucida of the original ovum. Even in this age spent inside the original cell membrane of the ovum, the new individual life is differentiating cells to allow for implantation and formation of the first organ for survival of the living organism. The problem with most falsehoods perpetrated to support killing embryos for their body part, they try to alter the truth to fit their desired paradigm, and that can be deadly.

The first application of embryonic stem cells used to treat a Parkinson's patient killed the patient because the stem cells harvested contained cells to produce the body for life in the air world AND cells for the placental encapsultation. The embryo had already differentiated cells yet those pushing a falsehood claim embryos are undifferentiated cell masses from which stem cells must be harvested for treatments and research.

In short, use a simple test to measure a notion regarding the earliest ages in human life: is the object of the discussion an organism or merely portions of a future organism; is there an actual organism present? If the object is a human organism, he or she (and the sex can be determined at earliest age) is a human being at earliest age in a lifetime already begun. Growth and metabolism evidence life and that is active manifestation of the soul of life, so assume the spirit is there also, unless proven later to be inaccurate. [That is your cue to try and raise the winning argument. To which I will reply, 'would you shoot into a box where at least one child was playing, even if two children may be in the box?]

I agree with much of what you wrote, and you argue your points persuasively. Don’t worry yourself that I’m not being fully convinced, I’m one of those people who think abortion is an indeterminate issue that can’t be neatly and quickly rationalized by either side.

We agree that the embryo is a living organism of the human species from the moment of conception. You brought up an interesting point about our ‘lifetime’ beginning at conception. We might, in the future, then add 9 months to our ages!

I believe there exists a spiritual soul and a human spirit. The ‘human spirit’ I would call ‘personhood’ – the thing that makes us different than animals. The moment when each of these begins is very unclear and open to speculation, and I think this is what nearly every abortion discussion boils down to.

It seems to me (what presumption!) that God is interested in personhood, not just static life. Personhood is when one would have a chance to make moral or immoral decisions and face ethical dilemmas. Your ‘soul’, I believe, is grown by your conscience, which doesn’t appear until ‘personhood’. Before that, if it exists, it is neutral and untouched. Then the question becomes, is its essence defined by its function or does the soul go through a life cycle – being conceived, birthing, growing, then dying? In short, I don’t think God is interested in the science, I think he’s interested in whether or not our soul has had a chance to begin a relationship with Him.

I’ve not heard the ‘twinning argument’, perhaps you can explain it and your reply to it.

To my (internal) surprise, he expressed some measure of gladness about this, saying that recognizing something as a moral dilemma makes for good writing. I can only hope.

Our daughter ran into the same thing. She preached to the teacher in her papers all year...fearing that he would give her horrible grades, yet convicted that what she was writing was what needed to be said. She got straight "A's" and was really surprised as she figured it being a state school and that the prof was very liberal. Her last essay was on abortion and for the prof's final comments he said, "Great writing, and by the way...you've been preaching to the choir all year!"

Ultra, this is an excellent essay.

I was a public speaker on life-and-death issue for years, and became well-acquainted with the volley of points and counter-points. This experience has helped me in various fast-and-FReepin debates here at Free Republic, and perhaps some of what I wrote would be interesting to you: I think it would. Here's my best (recent) analysis on legal and moral personhood:

IVF, cloning, and artificial reproduction technologies' impact on human dignity

Are totipotent cells persons?

Libertarian argument for dependent child's right to support from parent

Is an unwanted embryo a trespasser on your property?

Are embryos just "developing" but not yet human?

Is an early embryo like a person wth a flat EEG?

How do you determine the worth or value of a living being?

I am happy to recommend the sharp writing and relentless logic of Libertarians for Life.

Best wishes to you, defender of truth and life.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.