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.

Pretty good, though at the end you seem to fall into using utilitarian reasons to argue against continued abortion.

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.

No, they know. As long as women have been getting pregnant and giving birth, they know they have a human child inside them. It's just that at times they choose to consider killing it to be less costly to themselves than allowing it to live. In earlier days, the point at which they could get away with it has gone from leaving newborns exposed to the weather and wild animals to killing it before it before it can leave the relative safety of the womb.

Should the Unborn be Considered Human?

Unborn humans are human. Someone who uses an occasion after which a human individual goes from complete dependence on one person to complete dependence on the same or another person as a means of defining humanity of that individual is just looking for an excuse to off him with impunity while simultaneously absolving herself of guilt.

Personhood, in terms of a unique personality and self-awareness, is an aspect of being human that develops somewhere between conception and the first few years of life. It's inherent in our nature but, like sexual maturity, is something that develops in its own due course. It's something that can be altered or destroyed by drugs or disease (both genetic and otherwise); however, it's not something upon which stands or falls one's right to life.

This distinction is misused by those who call for pulling the plug on brain-dead adults and then reason that the lack of adult-like brain activity in a fetus is sufficient reason for pulling its plug. They reason superficially. The reason that pulling the plug on the post-birth brain-dead is seen by many as acceptable is because it's virtually certain that the brain-dead will never again regain consciousness (though there have been notable cases in which they have recovered full consciousness). However, in the case of the fetus, it's virtually certain that it will become conscious, become aware, develop a personality, and be able to enter into relationships with other people. It's a natural consequence of development. But its humanity underlies and precedes its personhood. Its right to life is based on its being human, not just being a person.

This is why people want to shift the focus to 'person', such as when they ask, "Just when does a fetus become a person with Constitutional rights?" They've begged the question. They play off the qualitative aspect of defining a 'person' in order to ignore the absolute fact of life. This qualitative game has always been used by people in power to define others out of existence. Such a distinction should be acknowledged for the purpose of showing up their 'quality of life' game for what it is--a means of having things their way regardless of the consequences for others.

The question is: Did these aborted unborn have the capacity to grow into anything OTHER than a human being?

And not just "a human being," but a specific human being. Remember that DNA is used to uniquely identify a human being, and even while in the womb, a fetus has unique DNA, different from both the mother and the father.

This is why the people who claim that the fetus is nothing more than a growth or a bunch of cells are wrong. If that were the case, the fetus would have the same DNA as the mother.

Mark

You wrote well. You supported your points cogently. And you covered a broad spectrum of arguments used for abortion without getting polemical. On the other hand, if you didn't want a good grade you could have written something like this (ha ha):

SUPERMARKET MORALITY
or
"If I don't like it, I can always take it back."

Abortion is not a matter of "reproductive rights" or "women's issues" or "constitutional safeguards". It is a matter of selves grown so introverted, of wills of either gender become so fixated on their own fulfillment that the biological, social, and moral consequences of their own actions are set upon by them as infringements on their belief that the vine of reality ought to grow exclusively up the trellis of their own will. It is a matter of selves under the delusion that they are most fully "human" when they are most fully freed from nature's and society's demand that they be either male or female, enjoy (or at least acknowledge) the difference, and accept the consequences.

For them reality therapy is to throw everyone else onto the couch.

Too bizarre to be mistaken for anything else but the condition of a diseased spirit is the dichotomy of thought manifested in the appeal, on the one hand, to the poor, illiterate, unloved, socially-disadvantaged, abused and abusing bastard of incestuous rape who will only be an additional drain on an already overpopulated planet unless he/she/it should first agonizingly die from a genetic defect inherited from parents too selfish and insensitive toward it, toward themselves, and toward the welfare of society to prevent its suffering by means of a "therapeutic" abortion; and, on the other hand, to Noble Woman, guardian and embodiment of Constitutional virtue, struggling to protect herself from the advances of a rapacious, patriarchal religion and society, to cast off the biological shackles slapped on her by a cruel and unjust evolution.

It is a rationale designed to justify any choice and to silence any criticism. It is an awfully big gun to pull out for something they allege to be merely a medical decision between a woman and her physician. To remove or not to remove a wart is a decision on that level.

And here is where the slip shows--although they claim (or want to believe) that doing it is nothing, attempting to prevent, to limit, or even to talk first about their doing it is everything.

"Hey! Get the hell off of my will! Just who do you think you are to attempt to even think about imposing your morality on me? Besides, can't you see how much I'm suffering?" they say while imposing something far more severe than morality on those who literally depend on them for life.

To put it even more into perspective, imagine a bumper sticker reading: My fetus was chosen Unviable Tissue Mass of the Month at the Me-First Womyn's Health Center.

Even lab rats get more consideration.

Abortion is a denial. It is a denial of nature, of responsibility, of self-sacrifice, of love, and of life. And what is left? A will whose choices are unobstructed by any of the above.

"Well, that's done," they say, turning to pat and admire the shape of their uncoerced will. "Maybe I'll take this sweater back today, too."

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.