Posted on 12/06/2006 10:56:00 AM PST by Ultra Sonic 007
Abortion: 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.
Works Cited
“Abortion.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 27 Oct. 2006.
“Abortion Rates in Youth Climb as Spain Declines.” Smith, Peter J. LifeSiteNews. 21 Sep. 2006. 4 Dec. 2006.
“Alexander Fleming.” Ho, David. TIME. 29 Mar. 1999. 6 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.
“Gobineau, Joseph Arthur, Comte de.” Encyclopedia Americana. Intl ed. 1999.
“Life.” Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 27 Oct. 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.
“ROE v. WADE.” Touro Law Center. Online posting. 27 Oct. 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.
An aborted acorn can still sprout and grow to it's full potential. An aborted human baby is robbed of all his/her potential.
They have so much to learn. Those babies will be in heaven but unless the moms get right with the Lord, they will not be seeing them again. I believe abortion for ANY reason is wrong. God creates that child and only He has the right to decide if it lives or dies. No aborted child dies the second death.
And if there could ever be a valid excuse for abortion, this is NOT it. It is the most ignorant thing to even put breathe into. The fact is, there is no valid excuse for any abortion. It's all just a lot of "who shot John".
No A grade yet.
Science is clear and unequivocable: zygotes are human life. They have all the individualized human DNA they will ever have. They are alive (and burgeoning with vitality).
Therefore, they are human beings.
The answer is yes.
At the very least, the human embryo is more like the *germinated* oak tree than the acorn. And, by day 10 to 14, it's hatched, as well.
Watching the changing definitions and necessary and sufficient conditions for any of us to be deemed human enough to be afforded the protection against infringement of the right not to be killed (going all the way to allowing an infinite number of meanings of the universe, per the Supreme Court in Casey), an observant being would just about have to assume we're dealing with a fairly significant group of entities. It might be that all of us who have this conversation, and all members of our species are "human enough."
(good job, by the way)
??? I am not sure what you mean... I spoke of no conditions, I was merely suggesting that whether the fetus is human or not is a matter of dictionary definition not arguable opinion.
Yep, it's amazing just how specious the arguments of the pro-aborts are, but they still cling to them ferociously.
**Should the Unborn be Considered Human?**
Absolutely!
You got it right!
Here's something you may not know: at the moment of fertilization of an egg, the fused sperm and egg conceptus has already decided the front and back of the baby's body: The point at which the sperm entered the egg becomes the front, and the opposite side becomes the back. At 4 weeks of development, the baby already has a heart which is generating impulses for a heartbeat, and cells have moved from the top of the baby down to its gonads to become either eggs or sperm so that baby can have a baby.
Embryology is just utterly fascinating proof that evolution could not possibly have accounted for our development: cells divide in a fetus with a plan to make a human.
I know. But instead of accepting the dictionary definition and the science behind the unborn's humanity, the pro-aborts grasp at these varied "conditions" and try to turn the topic on its head with "arguable opinion", as you put it.
Little do they know that their arguments, when taken to their logical extent, fall to pieces.
FYI - This essay is not about education, but I'm pinging you to it because it was written by a student on our list who is now in college. Thought you all might be interested. (Congratulations again, Ultra Sonic!)
It's just amazing how pro-abortion types have dropped all pretense (a lot of them anyway) that an unborn baby is being killed. They're not that dumb, they already know. They just don't care. What a sad world we live in.
I was just being sarcastic. The unborn have no rights to be heard much less the right to vote and of course if they did there would be no abortions. Democratic Party in their insatiable appetite to increase their voter base would then favor anti abortion instead of abortion on demand.
Read this and tell me how you can be an atheist
Your pro-Christmas pro-baby friend. :D
Would the question, "Should the unborn be considered human?" even be relevant if not for the presence of a viable market segment for human abortion?
Now reading your essay...
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.
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.