If the fetus is a human person, then abortion is generally immoral

Opening Argument: Imagine your five-year-old child runs up to you and says “Mommy (or Daddy) can I kill this?” What is the first question you will ask? Probably, “What is it?” After all, if it’s a cockroach, then it’s time to get out a can of Raid. But if it’s his two year old sister, then it’s time for counseling. That is because the question “Can I kill this?” depends almost entirely on the identity of the thing being killed. Every honest person involved in the abortion debate admits something is killed during an abortion. If it is mere tissue, then abortion is no more immoral than clipping a toe nail. But if a human being with the right-to-life is killed, then abortion is seriously immoral.[i] In this debate I will argue from the following premises and conclusions that abortion unjustly kills an innocent human being and is therefore immoral. Premise 1: Fetuses are human beings, or members of our species This premise is held without significant controversy in scientific, philosophical, and legal arenas. For example, embryology textbooks used in medical schools affirm that fertilization (a.k.a conception) is the first landmark in the development of a human being. The standard text Human Embryology and Teratology states, “Although human life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.”[ii] Sophisticated pro-choice philosophers also agree that human fetuses are human beings. David Boonin, author of A Defense of Abortion, writes, “Perhaps the most straight forward relation between you and me on the one hand and every human fetus on the other is this: All are living members of the same species, homo sapiens. A human fetus after all is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development.”[iii] Likewise, pro-choice philosopher Peter Singer writes, “ . . . there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being; and the same is true of the most profoundly and irreparably intellectually disabled human being, even of an infant who is born anencephalic –literally, without a brain.”[iv] From the legal arena, this fact has been upheld in the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. The case of Planned Parenthood vs. Rounds (2008) concerned the constitutionality of a South Dakota law requiring, in one part, that abortion providers inform women that abortion ends the life of a “living, separate, whole human being.” Planned Parenthood claimed that the state was forcing doctors to promote religious or ideological beliefs, but the court ruled that the law only required doctors to utter simple biological facts. The court ruled, “By common understanding and scientific terminology, a fetus is a living organism while within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb . . . Planned Parenthood submitted no evidence to oppose that conclusion.”[v] Finally, even at the earliest stages, a human embryo is a whole human organism on a path of self-directed development. The only things the unborn need to continue this path of development and become a mature member of our species are adequate nutrition, a proper environment, and an absence of fatal threats to their continued existence. Incidentally, these are the only things you and I need in order to develop into fully mature members of our species. To quote one embryology text, "every time a sperm cell and ovum unite, a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."[vi] Premise 2: All human beings have the same basic rights, especially the right-to-life While human beings differ in race, gender, creed, nationality, sexual orientation and even physical and mental development, most people believe in equal human rights for all human beings. But some critics of the right-to-life for the unborn play an “Animal Farm” game of verbal distortion and say, “all humans are equal . . . except some humans are more equal than others.” They claim that a human organism is not necessarily a human being with basic rights and intrinsic value, or a person. They claim that the ability to feel pain, have rational thought, or live independently outside of the womb, are necessary conditions for “personhood” that fetuses lack. But consider these problems: 1. Pain Perception: Some humans, such as those in comas or the disabled, do not feel pain but we recognize their general right-to-live. In contrast, many animals (for example, pigs) feel pain but are not given the same right-to-life that human beings have. Therefore, the ability to feel pain is irrelevant to possessing the right-to-life. 2. Rational Thought: While many humans can think in a rational way, some humans, like infants and disabled people, cannot think in this way. However, we don’t relegate these less cognitively developed humans to the status of pets or farm animals, but instead treat them like any other human being. Therefore, the ability to have rational thought is irrelevant to possessing the right-to-life. 3. Ability to Survive Outside of the Womb: This criterion, also known as viability, is just as flawed as pain perception or rational thought. For example, mice live independently outside of the womb (or are “viable”) but we do not consider them persons. Furthermore, why can’t dependency be considered a trait associated with human beings who deserve greater legal protection, and not less? After all, child abuse is considered especially heinous because children are helpless and cannot fend for or protect themselves. Therefore, if the human fetus is a very young human being (or a child) shouldn’t their helplessness count for their right to assistance and against our supposed “right to terminate” them? C1: Human fetuses have a right to live (P1+P2) Premise 3: Abortion directly kills an innocent human being C2: Abortion violates the fetus’ right to life and is therefore immoral (C1 +P3) Con, may argue that the unborn child’s right to life is not violated because they have no right to use their mother’s body without her consent. I will let him present and develop this argument in his opening statement before I fully attempt to rebut it. But I will contend that if fetuses are human persons, then their status as children (or very young persons) entails their right to receive ordinary care from their parents. While children may not have a right to extraordinary care (like the donation of a parent’s organs), pregnancy is the universal means to provide unborn humans with the basic necessities of food, water, and shelter. As philosopher Francis Beckwith argues, “The pro-life view is that human beings are persons-in-community and have certain natural obligations as members of their community that arise from their roles as mother, father, citizen, child, and so on.”[vii] (7) The right to live and receive care from their parents is not dependent on the born or unborn child’s level of development or degree of dependency, but on his or her identity as a member of the human species. [i] Story and argument from Gregory Koukl, Precious Human Unborn Persons (Stand to Reason, 1997) [ii] O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd edition (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996) 8. [iii] David Boonin. A Defense of Abortion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003) 20. [iv] Peter Singer, Practical Ethics. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993) 85-86. [v] http://caselaw.findlaw.com... [vi] E.L. Potter, M.D., and J.M. Craig, M.D. Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant (3rd Edition). Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii. [vii] Francis Beckwith, Defending Life (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 175-176.