Answering Pro-Abortion Objection on the Nature of a Fetus

Restating My Thesis:

Premise 1:  All acts that intentionally take the life of an innocent, human person are immoral acts and should be illegal.  

Premise 2:  Abortion is an act that intentionally takes the life of an innocent, human person.  

Conclusion:  Therefore, abortion is an immoral act and should be illegal.

This is a valid argument.  

Which means, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is necessarily true.  For more on validity and arguments go here.  For a further treatment of my thesis go here.  

Objections to my thesis tend to fall into one of the following:

• The objection on the being of the fetus.
• Objections from choice, privacy, and rights.
• Objections from the lesser evil.
• Objections concerning endangering the mother's life or women's health.
• The objection base on the Violinist Argument.
• The objection that I should not shove my morality down someone else's throat.  a.k.a. "You cannot legislate morality."

In this post I address the first objection.  I'll address the other objections in other posts.

Objections on the Nature of a Fetus:

            This first set of objections deals with my second premise directly.  Some say that a fetus is not alive because it is not breathing and feeding on its own.  It is not out and about on its own.  If the fetus actively depends on another for life, then it cannot be alive on its own, and if it is not alive on its own, then it is truly not alive.  If it is truly not alive, then how can you kill it?  Or, so what if you do kill it?

This objection says the fetus is more parasitic in nature than it is human.  We do not see humans going around feeding off of other humans and if we did we would certainly put a stop to it immediately.  At least in early stages of development the fetus is not viable; it cannot live on its own.  The pro-abortionist asks what is wrong with stopping the development of a being (or life of a fetus) if it cannot naturally live on its own.

            In early stages of development the fetus may not look too different than the embryos of other animals.  The central nervous system does not begin to develop until after the first month of gestation.  How can it be human without a central nervous system?  Certainly abortions prior to this should be widely acceptable.  Until a central nervous system is functioning the fetus is merely a group of cells – “a bunch of goo” as some have said.  How can removing a mere blob of cells be murder?  It is certainly not a person.

Answering the Objection:

I have demonstrated in my defense that the fetus can be nothing but human.  Humans give birth to humans and only humans.  If a human baby comes out of a woman’s womb then it must be human inside the mother’s womb.  A fetus does not somehow change species or nature during birth.  If someone says this fetus is not human, then the burden of proof is on them to prove exactly what it is and how it is not human.  If they cannot, then it is a grave error to assume their position and end an innocent life as a result.

This is a sort of plea from ignorance on their part.  They reason that if we are not sure what it is we are aborting, then what harm is there?  But, it is strange they do not seem to be too interested in being certain what it is they are aborting.  To them ignorance is bliss.  If a son came up behind his mother and asked, “Mommy, may I throw this away?”   The mother must turn around and determine exactly of what he is speaking.  It would certainly be foolish to grant blind approval.

This also goes for the objection that the fetus is not alive.  Here too I have demonstrated that the fetus is growing, contains unique genetic material, and is developing into a more specifically complex organism.  If these are not indications of a living being, then the burden of proof is on those in favor of abortion to show exactly how such organism is not alive.  Again, conjecture, opinion, or anything short of proof will not suffice in a matter of life & death.

I have given reasoned, scientific arguments that the fetus inside a woman’s body is a living, human being.  If the fetus is not a person or does not possess "personhood," then the burden of proof is on the pro-abortionists to show exactly when “personhood” is obtained, if it is at some time other than when a forty-six chromosomal, human zygote begins developing.  Yet, they continually fall short of this in their dogmatic claims.[1]
  
Is “personhood” based on consciousness alone?  Certainly not.  If it is, then why is it not legal to kill someone so high on heroin that they are oblivious to the world?  It is illegal to kill such a person because they are a living, human being – a person – and consciousness has nothing to do with the matter.

Nature is From the Beginning:

Some argue that an acorn is not an oak tree, but only potentially an oak tree: likewise a fetus is not human (or not fully human) but is only potentially human.  This argument does not hold.  An acorn does not have the potential to become an oak tree – it is an oak tree at the beginning stages of development.  An acorn does not have the potential to become anything other than an oak tree because “oak-ness” is a part of the acorn’s essence.  An acorn will emerge from the ground as a sprout, then grow some more to be a sapling, then grow more to be a larger tree, and will continue to grow until its growth is altered by outside forces; but it is always an oak.

Likewise, a fetus is not a potential human – it is human.  A fetus has no potential to become anything other than a human because “human-ness” is a part of the fetus’ essence.  A fetus will emerge from the womb as a baby, and then grow more to be a toddler, then more to be an adolescent, then to a young adult and so on.  This growth will continue in a natural manner unless it is altered by some outside force; but this fetus is always a human.  Abortion would definitely be such an outside force that terminates its growth in an unnatural way.

"But, It Cannot Live On Its Own."

True, the fetus cannot survive on its own apart from the mother, but that does not make it parasitic, nor is the fetus some form of cannibal.  A parasite attaches itself with its teeth or hook-like structures because the host will naturally try to repel it.  In a pregnancy the human zygote develops into a blastocyst which does attach to the uterine wall, but then the woman’s body welcomes the embryo by developing ways to accommodate the fetus and its development in a natural way.  These changes in the mother’s body are not only in the uterus and for the fetal stage of development, but also for the days following birth.  
During pregnancy estrogen and progesterone levels increase.  These hormones do not come from the fetus, but from the mother.  The result is a growth of the mammary glands.  Following birth the mother’s milk is rich in nutrients beneficial to the baby.[2]  These processes are natural and regular.  The woman’s body goes through changes to sustain the pregnancy and the child for months afterwards.  The woman’s body goes through changes naturally in order to continue the pregnancy.  The woman’s body naturally changes to welcome the fetus and to help it survive.  Pregnancy and birth are the natural life sustaining processes of the body.  Abortion is the unnatural, life ending actions against the baby’s body and a life altering action against the mother’s body.

Even though a fetus cannot survive on its own, that is no justification for abortion.  It is accurate to say that no babies or toddlers can survive on their own either, but that does not justify killing them either.  Many adolescents, adults, and elderly people cannot survive solely on their own, but we do not use that as a reason to kill them if they become a burden to us.  We certainly would not condone the killing of welfare recipients just because they need assistance from others and cannot “make it on their own.”  Astronauts cannot survive on their own outside the International Space Station, but that's no reason to kill them in space.  

So, if not being able to make it on their own is not a justification for killing those outside of the womb, why do some try to make it a justification for killing those inside the womb?  

The pro-abortionist reasoning is severely flawed.

---

[1]  Granted, both sides of the abortion debate are often dogmatic.  Hopefully my arguments will help both sides be less dogmatic and become more analytical & logical.

[2] Starr, Cecie and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life, 5^th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1989) p 524.