Okay, where were we? Oh yes, examining the key question to the abortion debate and the options avaiable (or, to sound fancy, applying our epistemology to the ontology of the fetus). So, if the fetus is an innocent human being, then based on the syllogism displayed in the first posting on abortion we must conclude that abortion is murder and if our moral values place murder in the "naughty" column then it must be avoided at all costs. So let's take a look at this idea of the fetus as a human being (I am assuming that people do not have a problem with me dropping the "innocent" part for now, so if you do please email me so we can discuss it).
In Roe v Wade the Supreme Court, in thinking it was taking a neutral position, said that they were not going to address whether or not the fetus was a human being. What is amazing to me is that these supposedly sharp folks couldn't see (or perhaps didn't want to see) that they really did. By allowing abortion, they in effect said that human life does not begin at conception, that the fetus is not a human being and thus can be removed/extracted/aborted/killed. I have never understood how people cannot see that just because they claim neutrality it does not mean they are neutral. Let me be as clear and as blunt as possible: Human life begins at conception. Period. Done. Next topic. What, you don't accept my word that it is? You want me to provide an argument for something that I see is as clear as crystal? (Hey, calm down, just being a little facetious). For me, the case of a fetus being a human being can be made on the following facts:
Fact: Let's look at a little basic genetics. Each human being has, to the best of our knowledge, a unique set of 46 chromosomes contining the genetic code for that person (forgive the mix of "human being" with "person", I know some people have problems with this but I promise to address it in a later post). If you stayed awake in class, you recall that 23 of come from the father's sperm and 23 come from the ovum and they combine to create a new and unique zygote. This tiny little creature has all of the genetic information that a fully developed person has. This isn't simply a blob of tissue, it is a completely new creature.
Fact: Because it is a new creature, the fetus in the mother's womb cannot be considered "part" of the mother. In fact, if you follow this line of thinking (that the fetus is simply part of the mother's body) then you get some startling conclusions, such as, the mother has will have four legs, four arms, two heads, and in about half of the cases both a penis and a vagina. When you also take into consideration that often the bloodtype of the fetus is different from the mother as well as the fact that fertilized ova maintain their characteristics regardless of where they incubate (a fertilized ovum from a black couple that is implanted in a white woman will become a black baby), it is pretty clear to see that the fetus isn't simply an extention of the mother.
Fact: The development requirements for a fetus as the same as those of a baby (or for a human at any stage of development): food, water, air, and time. This leads to certain problematic issues for those who want to maintain that the difference between a fetus and "human being" is one of development, for going down that path we have to conclude that we are NEVER really human beings since there is always some level of development occurring.
The conclusion is pretty easy to make: The union of a sperm with an ovum causes the creation of new human being. This human being, which at the time of union we call a zygote, if given time, air, and nourishment will be born (even though I disagree with this usage I will call this) a baby. Given time, air, and nourishment this baby will grow into a toddler, then a teenage (the argument against being a human being is stronger here than at conception IMHO), then an adult, etc. Aha! (you might say "This fetus is only a 'potential' human being"... but let's think seriously about this folks, even a potential human being must be an actual something in order to be a potential human being. What is it? Let's not confuse development and function with ontology. There are no "potential human beings" just as there are no "potential cats". All human beings are actual. We might be potential NBA stars (like my nephew Justin) or potential CEOs (me, me, me), but it's the functioning that is potential, the "being" is actual. If you disagree, write me, for even I your humble blogger have the potential to be mistaken.
No comments:
Post a Comment