On this blog I deal with topics of debate, points of contention as the title suggest, and there is perhaps no point of greater contention than the point at which developing reproductive matter counts as a new person. Determining this moment is fulcrum upon which most of the Abortion debate teeters. It has long ago been decided that women have the right to abort their pregnancies. Anti-Abortion champions, having lost that battle, have launched the same attack from a different angle. Since they can’t protect pregnancies, they attempt to define any stage of pregnancy as a person. A person has rights. A person can be protected. For many of the sanguine defenders of fetal freedoms person, life, and the right to it starts at conception, when first the egg is fertilized.
I will admit that the point at which reproductive material becomes a person is difficult to define, and a fetus mere days away from birth is, developmentally speaking, an infant. Despite the fact that I find birth an insufficient starting point for identity, assigning personhood to a fertilized egg is inconsistent, impractical, and indefensible. I have made the case elsewhere that personhood ought to be assigned at the point that the developing fetus has consciousness, but I will not make that case here. I wish only to demonstrate why the proposition that personhood be granted to a fertilized egg must be rejected.
Why should we grant personhood to a fertilized egg? The answer you will most often here is that at this point there is potential for human life, and that potential ought to be respected and granted dignity in the form of a right to life.
I am afraid this is inconsistent for a number of reasons. If we value potential to create human life then why stop at the fertilized egg? This line is completely arbitrary. A fertilized egg has the potential for human life sure, but only if it is supplied with the materials and environment it needs. On its own a fertilized egg has no potential at all. New cells, organs, and bones require material to build, that material comes from the mother, and without it a fertilized egg has no potential at all. The same could be said for individual eggs and sperm. A sperm has the potential to create a human life if supplied with the material and environment it needs, namely a fertile egg. Eggs have the potential to create life is supplied with the sperm they require. If we value unrealized potential as human life then any ovulation that is not seized upon to reproduce is criminal neglect, and handjobs, as they say, are genocide.
There are still other reasons why a fertilized egg cannot qualify for protection as a person. Identity cannot be assigned to a fertilized egg. I owe this next example greatly to the commentators on the Reasonable Doubts Podcast, who gave an excellent presentation on this in their episode on Bioethics. I would recommend looking them up on iTunes.
Identical twins occur when an embryo, early in its development before any of the cells are specified, splits in half. If we assign personhood at conception then let us call the fertilized egg Mary. Mary develops as a normal zygote for a week or two and then splits. Do we now have two persons? When these zygotes split there is no “original” zygote left, there are two new ones. So if we say we now have two persons, we can’t very well call them both Mary unless we say they share the same personhood. If we say the addition of a new embryo means a new person, then we must conceded that we now have two new persons. In this case what happened to Mary? Did Mary die? This example shows how absurd it is to assign personhood to a clump of cells that do not yet have any specification.
Even if we could reasonably state that a fertilized egg qualifies for personhood, the social implications are dramatic. A large portion of pregnancies spontaneously abort. It is possible that a mother might not know she is pregnant, and her normal daily activities cause the pregnancy to abort when, had she been aware and under medical care, the development may have continued. Should we charge women who spontaneously abort with criminal neglect? What about couples that undergo artificial fertilization? Not all of the resulting fertilized eggs implant or are even necessarily used. Should we charge the doctors with murder and the parents with conspiracy to commit murder?
It is clear that fertilized eggs are almost impossible to assign personhood to, and even if some form of philosophical gymnastics managed to make the case with consistency, the social implications of protecting that personhood are abominable. The exact point at which an embryo becomes a person is still unclear, but what is clear is that conception is a poor point at which to assign that quality.
Wow. You’re incredibly….dumb.
The premise rests on the false assumption that human beings do not begin at conception, which is scientifically inaccurate.
Silly you.
He’s not arguing the science, Terrance. He’s arguing when exactly is the point in development when a fetus should be granted the same rights as a citizen of the US. He’s not saying a zygote isn’t a human being, silly you.
The problem is that any arbitrary point we decide on is exactly that. At one extreme, if we consider any group of cells (or even a single cell) that can become life, then the skin cells that we shed every hour of every day are potentially life, what with cloning technology seemingly getting better by the minute. At the other extreme, if fetal viability is the gauge, then that keeps getting pushed back further and further with advances made in the care of premature babies. It’s a conundrum, complicated even more that so many people want to take a stand based on religion rather than reason.
“if we consider any group of cells (or even a single cell) that can become life, then the skin cells that we shed every hour of every day are potentially life”
Nurse, this confuses parts with the whole. The fertilized egg is a whole, There is nothing more which needs to be done in order for the egg to develop into a birthed child.
The trouble with the shift from “human being” to “person” by those on the pro-abortion side just shows all they want is a dead body. Before embryology confirmed human-at-conception they were all touting “its not human yet”.
Personhood is arbitrary and drastically ambiguous intentionally in order to kiil the child. If we apply all the definitions of “personhood” to someone outside the womb and try to kill some 85 yearold because they no longer fit the definition of person, people would still defend the 80 yearold (or any age for that matter). Why is that? Because they are outside the womb.
What this inconsistancy shows is it doesn’t really matter to the pro-abortionist whether the thing is a person, they want to be not-pregnant.
And “Personhood” is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one, science being the “final authority” for atheists, I’m suprised they would be pro-abortion. Though I never met a human who wasn’t a person.
John, I think there are a few things we disagree on. First, there’s quite a bit more that needs to happen to a fertilized egg to become a “birthed child,” namely that whole nine-month gestation period, but I assume you meant outside processes.
Second, your statement that all pro-choice people want is “a dead body” is deliberately inflammatory and thus, not worthy of consideration in a rational discussion. I think if we could focus more on making logical arguments both for and against abortion, we’d be a lot further along toward finding some middle ground. That said, there are many different viewpoints in this debate, and I wonder if anyone will ever be fully satisfied.
In fact, I just had to edit out a comment that I made because I realized I was making an emotional argument rather than a rational one. This is a subject that stirs deep-seated feelings in most people, believers and non-believers alike.
I could be wrong (and if I am, please correct me), but you strike me as someone who would claim that abortion is wrong because all human life is sacred. I disagree, because I don’t think that just being physically alive is really living. I approach the subject a little backwards. When I see people who are at the end of their lives, brain dead, being kept alive by machines, I wonder what the point is. This isn’t life by any but the broadest measure. I apply the same standard to the beginning of life as well. By my way of thinking, life begins when we are able to discern thoughts and actual consciousness, not before.
And, of course, once we are able to make that determination, a whole slew of other problems arise regarding the rights of the unborn versus the rights of the mother. Again, that’s why I doubt there’ll ever be a solution.
This may be splitting hairs here, but me saying “pro-abortion advocates want a dead body” I suppose is an appeal to emotion, but its true. Abortion takes the life of a human being, the act itself produces a dead body. Why would stating a fact about someone who argues for abortion–as wanting a dead body (by arguing for abortion, you are arguing for having a dead body), be discounted because it stirs emotion?
I say that because if you look at the history of arguing for abortion, this is the only conclusion I can reasonably come to. Abortion advocates used to defend it with: “abortion is morally acceptable because its not really killing anyone or anything, its just removing a mass of tissue, a clump of cells.” Then as biology and embryology advanced, and determined with no equivocation, the clump is actually alive, the argument became:”abortion is morally acceptable because even though the thing is alive, it is not a human being.” Then as biology and embryology advanced further and discovered the thing is fully genetically human, the argument has become: “abortion is morally acceptable because even though the thing is alive, and is human, it is not a person”.
So what it all boils down to is, “I don’t care what abortion is, I want one because I don’t want to have a baby” Abortion advocates demand a dead body. I’m sorry that you think it is playing to emotions by stating the facts, but it doesn’t refute or provide grounds to dismiss what I’ve said.
I appreciate the commentary. I was away most of the day yesterday but enjoyed getting caught up on the discussion. I have some input of my own.
@ Terrence: You had a second comment that popped up for moderation, which is strange because I have all of my posts set to open comments. It must have tripped a filter due to having too many links or inflammatory language, having virtually no experience with the comment moderation menu I inadvertently trashed it. Feel free to repost and I will make sure it goes through if it trips the filters again.
As to your first comment: I never said that Human beings don’t begin at conception, I said that personhood doesn’t begin at conception. If you wish to define a human as “a cluster of embryonic cells with human DNA” then so be, you can have the definition. If that is your definition then I can say without reservation that I do not value all human life. I for one reject that definition. If you extracted a zygote or very early stage embryo and laid it out on a dish I would never point to that and say “That is a human.” I am very sorry if you do. It seems to me that allowing a wad of stem cells to carry the label “human” or “person” doesn’t so much serve to empower the wad of cells, but to cheapen the word “human”.
@ John Barron: I will try to not be insulting here. Your quote: “There is nothing more which needs to be done in order for the egg to develop into a birthed child.” You aren’t serious are you. A fertilized egg doesn’t metabolize its own food does it? For an embryo to develop requires a massive investment from the body of the mother. Tissue, fluids, nutrients. What do you think a fetus is made out of? Where do you think the material the fetus is made out of comes from. No egg can possible make a baby without a mother constantly pumping raw material into it to permit its development. Of course I already mentioned this in the blog, which leads me to believe you didn’t really read it.
“those on the pro-abortion side just…want a dead body” No, those on the pro-abortion side do not want anyone not ready/able/fit/or willing to bear and raise a child to have to do so. A “dead body” is an undesirable consequence that nobody likes to see, but that we are willing to accept under some circumstances.
“Personhood is arbitrary and drastically ambiguous intentionally in order to kill the child.” Yes, defining what a “person” is and even what a “human” is can be difficult. It is a troublesome and contentious question. I never claimed it would be easy, but it is more responsible to accept that this is a complex question than to apply simple, broad, and rigid definitions because they suit your fancy.
“And “Personhood” is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one, science being the “final authority” for atheists” This is a gross misrepresentation of Atheism. Please refer to my article entitled “Clarification of Atheism” for more information. You can find it in the table of contents at the top of the page.
@ Skepnurse: I appreciate the views of someone in the medical field on this. I tend to agree that the only consistent and rational point to grant moral considerations at based on consciousness and not some physical aspect of the meat and bones the form is made of. Unfortunately that standard is difficult, if not impossible, to apply. I tend to think that one day we will have to settle for some measure of arbitrary judgment that falls as close to the almost ungraspable true defining line as we can determine.
Hensatri,
Philosophical views have no place in this discussion, because they are all subjective. Why is your philosophical point of view any more valid than the view of the man who would meander about hospitals unplugging those in a coma, because, of course, they have lost their humanity by being unconscious, unable to breathe on their own. It’s absurd.
If you’re argument is that unborn children are human beings and not persons, then you quite obviously are mistaken, as the legal term persons refers, of course, to natural persons, which means, quite simply, a human being.
It’s true that fetuses are not generally regarded as persons as far as the law is concerned – outside of fetal homicide statues, that is – but clearly they should be, as you can see.
Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, because by legal definition, fetuses are included, as they are human beings. To pretend these definitions do not matter is to be irrational, as we human beings reason and by way of concepts and definitions. Without them, we all might as well be mute.
You guys, in my view, are morally bankrupt, pick-pocketing liberal socialists without even the slightest grasp of what it is you’re talking about.
“You guys, in my view, are morally bankrupt, pick-pocketing liberal socialists without even the slightest grasp of what it is you’re talking about.”
A statment like this is a conversation ender, unfortunatly for all of the wrong reasons. Ad hominems and mud-slinging is the quickest way to get you ignored as far as I am concerend.
Abortion is always an inflamatory topic because the pro-choice and pro-life camps both have concerns they care deeply about, but are reluctant to look at the concerns of the other. It may even be worth thinking roughly in terms of life, health and the pursuit of happiness, with life being the main concern of the pro-life group – and health and pursuit of happiness more the concern of the pro-choice brigade. Superimposed on this are a who range of issues.
For example sometimes the pro-life folk have a theological stance set up by a fundamentalist or authoritarian Church which includes a strong belief in a soul, which they often believe enters the body at the instant of conception. The pro-choice folk usually focus on issues like the child known to be carrying a serious defect which is then consigned to a life of misery – and misery for the parent – or the unwanted child who is not able to be catered for because of poverty issues. (The Chinese with their one child policy are even concerned about the whole population’s ability to
cope with unwanted children ) But this is only the start of the question. My only observation is that until the pro-life group start actually addressing the concerns of the pro-choice camp – and of course vice versa – there is going to be very little communication
http://billpeddie.wordpress.com
I think you are right peddibill. There is a fundamental difference in values here. I think the two sides often end up talking past each other.
Here is a question to which a good answer would be VERY helpful to me personaly: What is it that Pro-Lifers are defending exactly?
I can say that Pro-choicers have a pretty consistent value they are defending. That value is the right of a mother to not have to carry an unwanted pregnancy. It is the support of a person’s right to absolute soverignty over their own body.
But I don’t know what it is that Pro-Lifers are defending. They aren’t defending life itself as they are willing to push their defense all the way back to the point of a fertilized egg which does not posses individual “life” by any possible definition, at least not any more life than any other cell. Are they defending the potential for life? That is inconsistant since they don’t defend Eggs and Sperm (under the circumstances I mention in the post above)
I might make a seperate post that does nothing but ask this question. But any input here wouldbe appreciated. Pro-lifers….what EXACTLY are you defending, and is that defense consistant?
I have heard pro-lifers use the arguement that “it is what the woman deserves for not using protection,” or “She should have to suffer the consquences for…”
Really, all arguements about abortion are truly about which person has a greater supply of rights. Whether the woman or the fetus has the right to control how this relationship develops over the course of the pregnancy.
I believe that the woman retains full rights of her body and how it is to be used. Period. Whether the collection of cells in her body is a developing person, or cancer, a woman ought to have the right to use our collected knowledge as a species to control her future. To elevate the rights of a potential thing, who has no defined future yet, other than to grow, over a fully developed, rational, productive member of society is a bad investment.
I believe we are all in agreement that a woman has the right to seperate herself from the child if she does not want to raise it? No matter how much the child wants to stay with the mother, it gets no say in this. Why should we force a woman to give birth, a traumatic, sometimes deadly procedure, but not force them to raise the child?
Also, science is a branch of philosophy. It is a philosophy dedicated to the expansion of human knowledge. What we call science today has far more rigourous rules than that in the days of the Greek philosophers.
Secondly, Epistomology is the source of the arguement. Namely, how do we know what definition to fit to a certain noun, and what does that definition truly mean? We are certainly talking about philosophy there.
Thirdly, This entire debate revolves around ethics, which is certainly a philosophy.
Fourthly, you are silly. So there.
Another excellent post. I think the actual hidden agenda for the religious right on abortion is control of womwn’s sexual freedom. I have heard them say “If you do the crime (sex) you must do the time (carry a pregnancy to term). Access to abortions weakens this “fear of pregnancy” control nechanism. Similarly, a fundi dad once told me why he thought gardasil (hpv vaccine) was reprehensible. Without the fear of Venereal warts girls like his daughter might be tempted to have premarital sex.
I have heard stories like this before, where fundamentalists abhore any practice whatsoever that makes sex safe or fun, because the last thing we should ever do is promote happy and healthy sexual fullfillment.
This amounts to sacrificing the sex lives, health, and at times early adulthood stability of children on the alter of Yahweh. I don’t buy into the whole sacrifice thing.
I have never heard a firsthand account of this. Chilling