Replies

“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.

There is a major problem here, one which demonstrates the lack of though of pro-choicers starving for utilitarian gain. Consider ONE. ONE enjoins mathematics and philosophy. ONE CELL. ONE PRINCIPLE - a life-substance. That substance contains within itself the blueprint for its entire life development process. This is different, BTW, from a property thing like (to use the example from The Silent Subject) a Ford Aerostar. The latter is designed and built externally. It does not contain within each element of itself information about the whole.

That life-substance does not somehow change ontologically (that is, in its nature of being) based on the number of cells that comprise it. It retains the ONE PRINCPLE of a life-substance, which principle was present the moment the process of conception finished. "Fetus", "Embryo", "Infant", and "Toddler" (like "Acorn", "Sapling", and "Tree") are merely ideas the human psyche superimposes on the actual, objective reality. The ideas themselves do not modify objective ontological reality. Many pro-choicers, esp. the nominal sort who haven't thought deeply about the issue, apparently get tripped up here: they believe that their choice of ideas somehow modify objective reality.

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.”

Blackmun is 180 degrees out of phase in his conclusion. While he is correct to cite the Fourteenth Amendment, allowing two parties to conspire to dismember and thus kill the unborn child violates the child's right to due process.

Very well-written paper. You've put much thought and I dare say a good bit of research into this, and that is what we sorely need - thinkers. My sincere kudos for a job well done.