scaeministries.org/2009/08/what-is-the-unborn-a-brief-examination -> scaeministries.org/2009/08/what-is-the-unborn-a-brief-examination/
Philosophy What is the Unborn: A Brief Examination By Timothy H, on August 28th, 2009 The fundamental issue regarding the abortion debate is not women's rights or other factors which concern personal autonomy, but over the status of the unborn child. Both variants of the personal choice argument presuppose that the unborn child is not a human person, for if the unborn child is indeed a human person, then no amount of freedom justifies its elective termination. Henceforth, variants of the personal autonomy argument beg the question by presupposing their conclusions: they are valid if and only if the unborn are not human persons. If the pro-life advocate fails to take into account the circularity of his argument when responding to it, then he has lost the argument by implicitly granting that the unborn are not human persons. With the issues now clarified, let us critically examine several pro-choice arguments while simultaneously erecting a case for the personhood of an unborn child. Arguments for the Pro-Choice Position * 1 Fundamentally, the unborn child is merely a clump of cells that are no different from a skin cell or blood cell. The crucial distinction between parts and wholes are ignored by this argument. If isolated by themselves, a somatic cell will never develop into a fully fleged human being. It is a part which works in conjunction with other parts for the continued survival of a whole. By contrast, the embryo is a whole self-contained human being, it is not merely a cluster of cells. Accordingly, it does not qualify as a human and hence may be freely aborted. First and foremost, why should one consider self-awareness and/or consciousness to be the defining criteria for human personhood? This seems to be arbitrarily asserted, for there seems to be no good reason for taking self-awareness and consciousness to be definitive of human persons, as will be demonstrated shortly. Suffice to say that on this assumption, one cannot be regarded as a human person if they take a nap or get knocked out, for consciousness and self-awareness are lost during these events. It is downright absurd to posit that one drifts in and out of personhood according to their cognitive status. Personhood is not something that is gained, it is intrinsic to everyone.
Simply because a bird never actualizes its potential to fly or a cat never actualizes its potential to purr does not mean that is it not a member of their respective nature. Similarly, one is still a human being by virtue of having a human nature even if the potential for conscious awareness is never developed or if it is lost. Like the personal autonomy argument, this also begs the question by presupposing the nonhuman status of the unborn.
If the pro-choice advocate responds by saying that the latter are human and the former are not, then he has begged the question by presupposing his conclusions. Summary Human personhood is an essential property, rather than an accidental property which is gained. Issues of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are irrelevant to the human status of a fetus. Size does not confer human status on a person, otherwise basketball players would be more human than midgets -- an absurd proposition. A five year old is less developed than a twenty-five year old, but it is absurd to say that one is less human than the other simply by virtue of their level of development. Moreover, it is hard to see how one's location is relevant to their status as a human person.
Finally, dependency does not make or break one's status as a human. Are athletes more human than the elderly and infirm by virtue of being more independent? Do individuals who are paralized or are stricken with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (A disease which degenerates neuromuscular function) lose their status as a human because they no longer have the ability to fend for themselves? In responding to these pro-choice arguments, a simultaneous case has also been erected for the personhood of the unborn. In summary, this argument is as follows: * The unborn are human offspring with a human nature Biologically and philosophically speaking, this is undeniable. At the very least, the embryo is human in the sense that is is the product of a human parent. To go a further step, however, the embryo also shares a human nature. Unlike any other somatic cell, the embryo is distinct from the parent and will, given time, develop into a mature human. In contrast to kidney, heart, and skin cells, the embryo is a self-contained entity. Moreover, personhood is an essential property of the unborn child. Simply because it has many unactualized potentials does not mean that it is not a human. The very fact that it has these potentials in the first place stems from the fact that is has a human nature. The fetus's never actualizing its potential to think does not disqualify it as a human any more than a bird's inability to actualize its potential to fly disqualifies it as being a bird. There is hence no good reason to think that personhood is something that is gained through the actualization of a potential. Recommended Reading: Books: Francis J Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion (New York: Cambridge University Press.
As far as I can tell, this is your reason for positing the unborn as intrinsically valuable persons. I have two questions for you regarding your criteria for humanity: 1) Why does humanity lead to value? Why is an organism with human DNA superior to an organism without? You will probably claim it to be self evident, but there is nothing self evident about it. The embryo of a human in its early stages of development is indistinguishable from the embryo of any other mammal, unless you look at the composition of a long twisted molecule in the nucleus. To me, the sequence of the molecules in a strand of DNA is one of the most arbitrary criteria for personhood one can posit. How does having A instead of G make an organism intrinsically valuable? Surely the simple state of being a complete human organism does not qualify one to receive human rights. What makes a human nature different from an animal nature? I fail to see what exactly constitute human nature in your eyes. Now I will refute your objections to argument 2 "First and foremost, why should one consider self-awareness and/or consciousness to be the defining criteria for human personhood? This seems to be arbitrarily asserted, for there seems to be no good reason for taking self-awareness and consciousness to be definitive of human persons" Consciousness is what defines the human experience. Our whole entire world exists in the fizzing of chemicals in the brain. All of our thoughts, sensory perceptions, and intuitions would not take place if we lacked consciousness, by definition. Furthermore, higher level mental faculties are the only real difference between humans and lower organisms. Every single property held by humans is also held by some organism lower on the evolutionary tree, with the exception of higher level mental properties. So you see, my decision to posit the human experience as the defining facet of human nature is not arbitrary at all. one cannot be regarded as a human person if they take a nap or get knocked out, for consciousness and self-awareness are lost during these events." First of all, consciousness and self awareness are not fully lost during sleep. But if consciousness was ever truly lost (perhaps in a very deep and prolonged coma), then yes, the organism would no longer be considered a person. What separates a merely unconscious person from a fetus, however, is that the fully developed human will regain personhood in relatively short order with little difficulty imposed on others. Whereas a fetus requires nine months of a woman's life and a painful and dangerous operation to be brought to term. Essentially, the reason the unconscious have rights is because there is no benefit to be had from their deaths, while a fetus can be a massive inconvenience. they are acceptable to kill if they are attacking your sheep, but you may not wander around in the deep forest shooting all that you ...
|
http://csua.com/feed/