Thank you Mr Jeffrey.
When I expressed my pro-life views in the debate, I was accused
of imposing my “religious beliefs” on women. Even though I never
mentioned religion, the other debaters assumed that since I was pro-life
I must also be religious. Though I am a Christian, my pro-life stance
is not based on a “the-Bible-tells-me-so” attitude. You don’t have to be
religious to be pro-life. In fact, I’m convinced it’s the only rational
position for someone who believes in science and human rights.
The central issue in the abortion debate is
human rights. If a fetus is not a person, it has no legal rights – it’s
simply a part of a woman’s body, and she should be free to remove it
just like a cyst or tumor. However, if a fetus is a person, then it has legal rights – including a right to life. No one, not even the mother, can take away that right.
But how do we know whether a fetus is a
person or not? What counts as personhood? Is it an innate quality, or is
it developed later? In my opinion, there are only two reliable criteria
for determining personhood, and those criteria rest on scientific and
medical evidence. The first criterion is the presence of life, and the
second is the possession of a human genome. If something is a living
organism and possesses a human genome, then it is not someTHING but
someONE – a person with a right to live.
When we attempt to determine the personhood of a fetus, we need to start with this question:
Is a fetus a living organism?
The answer, quite simply, is yes. No
biologist would dispute the claim that a fetus is alive. In biology,
there are seven criteria for determining whether something is a living
organism, and a fetus meets all of those criteria:
Like all living organisms, a fetus maintains
an internal equilibrium by producing various chemicals and bodily
effects (homeostasis).
Like all living organisms, a fetus is organized, meaning it is composed of at least one cell.
Like all living organisms, a fetus has a
metabolism – it can transform chemicals into cellular components and
break down complex substances for energy.
Like all living organisms, a fetus can adapt to changes in its environment.
Like all living organisms, a fetus develops reproductive features.
Like all living organisms, a fetus responds to stimuli.
Like all living organisms, a fetus grows.
Based on this evidence, there is no reason
not to view a fetus as a living organism. As Dr. Hymie Gordon, the
Chairman of the Mayo Clinic’s Department of Genetics, explains it, “By
all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the
moment of conception.” However, just because a fetus is living is
not enough reason to view it as a person. It must also be human, which
brings us to our second question:
Is a fetus human?
Once again, the answer is yes.
According to the laws of biogenesis, every
species reproduces its own kind. Alligators give birth to alligators,
bacteria give birth to bacteria, chickens give birth to chickens, and
dogs give birth to dogs. No dog will ever give birth to an alligator,
and no chicken will ever give birth to a bacteria. It’s biologically
impossible. Every organism can only reproduce its own kind.
Based on this scientific fact, it should be
evident that when a human male’s sperm fertilizes a human female’s ovum,
the resulting embryo cannot be anything other than human. If you doubt
that, just look at the genetics. Every adult human possesses a unique genetic
code that consists of 23 pairs of chromosomes. A fetus possesses this
code as well. Therefore, since the fetus possesses a human genome, it
cannot be anything other than human. This is not a subjective opinion;
it’s a scientific fact. As Dr. Jerome Lejeune, the “father of modern
genetics” puts it, “To accept the fact that after fertilization has
taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of
taste or opinion … it is just plain experimental evidence.”
Of course, someone might object by claiming
that DNA doesn’t make something human since biological samples like
toenail clippings and pieces of hair also contain human DNA. Though it’s
certainly true that a toenail clipping does contain human DNA, there
are two obvious differences between a toenail and a fetus.
First, the DNA in a toenail matches the
person it came from. If a geneticist removes a cyst from a pregnant
woman, she will find that the DNA contained in the cyst matches woman’s
DNA. However, if she examines the fetus’s DNA, the geneticist will find
that it is not identical to the mother’s. Every fetus possesses its own
unique DNA that shows it is not part of the mother the same way her
bodily organs are.
Second, a toenail is not a living organism. Unlike the fetus, it does not meet the biological criteria for determining life.
A fetus is alive and human? So what?
Scientific evidence makes it clear that a
fetus is both living and human. This is beyond dispute, and has nothing
to do with religious beliefs. “That the most partially formed human
embryo is both human and alive has now been confirmed … We are the first
generation to have to confront this as a certain knowledge,” writes the
atheist and activist Christopher Hitchens.
Nevertheless, most abortion activists refuse
to accept this evidence because it would lead to the conclusion that a
living human organism is a person with rights. Consider this statement
by abortion activist Joyce Arthur:
“Ultimately, the status of the fetus [as
human] is a matter of subjective opinion, and the only opinion that
counts is that of the pregnant woman. For example, a happily pregnant
woman may feel love for her fetus as a special and unique human being …
But an unhappily pregnant woman may view her fetus with utter dismay,
bordering on revulsion.”
Similarly, MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry
created a controversy recently when she claimed the answer to the
question “When does life begin?” is not provided by science, but by a
mother’s “powerful feeling.” According to Harris-Perry, a woman’s
emotional state trumps scientific and medical opinion.
Let’s suppose, for a moment, that these
ladies are right – the personhood of a fetus is not determined by
objective scientific evidence; it’s a subjective concept. If this is the
case, though, then why isn’t the personhood of children (or even
adults) a subjective concept as well? Why can’t a mother kill her
newborn child if she suddenly develops a “powerful feeling” that the
child is actually a nonliving, nonhuman burden for her?
According to some pro-choice activists, a
fetus is not a person because it is dependent on its mother while a
child is not. For them, independence counts as a mark of personhood. But
let’s consider that logic. From a biological perspective, there is
little difference between the dependency of a fetus and the dependency
of a newborn. Though the newborn is no longer living inside the mother’s
body, it is still completely dependent on her (or a surrogate) to meet
all its biological needs. In fact, the complete and utter dependency of
newborns is so obvious that Peter Singer, a Princeton bioethicist,
argues mothers should be allowed to kill their newborn
children. “Many people find this [idea] shocking,” Singer says, “yet
they support a woman’s right to have an abortion … From the point of
view of ethics rather than law, there is no sharp distinction between
the fetus and the newborn baby.”
Hopefully, most people will be appalled by
Singer’s claim. Yet, his logic is consistent with the premise that
dependency robs a living human being of his or her right to live.
If we accept Arthur and Harris-Perry’s claim
that the personhood of a fetus is a subjective concept, then there is
little to prevent us from eventually accepting Singer’s claim that the
personhood of children is also a subjective concept. Once we reach that
point, though, where will we stop? What traits do adults possess that
make them worth respecting as people? Ultimately, there does not seem to
be much difference between the logic of abortion activists and the
logic of the Supreme Court when it ruled in the infamous Dred Scott case
(1857) that African Americans, though human, belonged to an “inferior
order” and therefore had no legal rights.
If we reject the notion that personhood is
determined by a very simple formula (life + humanity = personhood), then
we must find an alternative definition of what makes someone a person.
The question is, however, whether we can find any definition that
provides a reliable, objective basis for human rights. I don’t believe
such a definition exists.
