Fetus and the Human Life - Essay Example

Ever since 1973, the human fetus has attained a place of prominence in some very anomalous discussion forums as varying as Evangelical Christian Associations to liberal youth organizations. It is an irony that so much of attention and intellectual effort has been devoted to the determination of the status of the human embryo (Living or Non Living); not by doctors or biologists but by thinkers, activists and theologians. The issue now dominates the centre of the US abortion debate – a position that some argue is undeserved. Some abortionists feel that assigning a living or nonliving status to a fetus does not give closure to the abortion debate (Thomson). In the United States of America much of the legislation relating to Abortion has been set by judicial activism i.e. in the form of court rulings. While the effort of the congress to resolve the conflict on a legal foundation is welcome, it would be prudent to question if they alone can settle so cavernous and sensitive an issue. To see how wide ranging the conflict is, simply consider the fact that the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice activists prefer different terminology in their arguments. Thus, ‘Pro-Choice’ is interpreted to mean ‘Anti- Life’ and Pro-lifers consider the terms ‘fetus’ and ‘embryo’ dehumanizing; while in the opposing camp, referring to the fetus as an ‘unborn child’ is thought to be too emotional (Wikipedia). The laws relating to abortion in this nation is derived from the Supreme Court ruling on the famous Roe Vs Wade trial. That this ruling is not accepted by all is established by the fact that there are many US states that have passed various ‘Trigger Laws’ which would come into action if and when the Roe Vs Wade ruling is overturned (Reuters). Feminists today regard anti abortionist campaign as a direct infringement on their reproductive freedom (Willis). Fetus and the Human Life The Pro – Choice Argument If the human fetus is declared as a human being from the moment of conception, then it implies that all abortions irrespective of the context would amount to murder and hence would be illegal in the eyes of the law. This is a very strong moral argument and is the starting point for all debates on abortion and has attained the centre stage in most forums (Willis). Various methods of logical deduction have been used to reach from here to the final step. Thomson has conjectured a number of situations and in each has considered the ethical question of whether the life of a fetus is more important than the life of its mother. In each case that he has hypothesized, he has shown that the pro-life argument is never infallible (Thomson). In fact, in the entire course of research, there has been no such thing as an infallible argument. Even if we grant the premise that the embryo is indeed a living human being from the moment of conception (as both the writers in the text, Willis and Thomson are willing to concede) it still raises some vital questions to the fore. If the Human Life amendment is granted, then abortions shall immediately become a crime. The question is now asked as to the status of those embryos that are the result of involuntary conceptions resulting from rape or the like, or even those voluntary conceptions that is medically determined to adversely affect the health of the baby or the mother. Both situations are unfortunate and letting them happen simply on the premise that the embryo has a right to life would be to ignore the right to life and well being of the mother or the child. Is the right to life of a fetus more significant than the right to life of the mother? To paraphrase the question, is it any logic to let the mother die so as to let the fetus live? (Thomson). What justice would it be to continue the pregnancy knowing that we are endangering the life of both the mother and the child? If the mother is a helpless teenager who is made pregnant as a result of rape, then it would a gross injustice to let her to have the baby as she is not expected by any standards to be able to sustain herself or the child. She shall also be least positioned to provide the physical and psychological requirements of the infant. The key factor that emerges from this discussion is that even if the fetus is declared a human life from the moment of conception, it would and should not easily translate to the conclusion that all abortions are illegal. Many writers (Willis) have argued that the living status of the fetus is made to be so important only so that the real focus of the abortion debate can be taken out of feminist issues such as her reproductive freedom. The issue according to her has now become “sexlessly Scholastic”. A woman who does not have the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is forever biologically vulnerable and this puts an enormous pressure on her social conduct and well being. The Human Life Amendment therefore strikes at the very core of a woman’s sexuality. It deprives her of any right to sexual freedom and is nothing but a moral policing effort in disguise. Moreover, why do we always assume that any woman is always prepared to be a mother? After all motherhood is a very huge responsibility and for any woman can be a very demanding and challenging transition. If we demand the right to life of a fetus, shouldn’t we also allow for its right to be raised with all the love and care that it deserves? The Pro – Life Argument and it’s counter debate There are numerous counter arguments to the above mentioned view. That the fetus is nothing but a human life has been argued by many anti abortionists. They point to the fact that human life is a continuous process starting from the fertilization of the egg to conception until all the way to birth and eventual death. On what basis are we then to choose a point in this evolution and say that beyond this the fetus is human and before that it is living-yet-non human? (Thomson) This argument, it must be agreed does have some merit and should be considered closely. Abortionists have drawn analogies to this argument and the case of an acorn and an Oak tree to argue that the acorn must also then be a tree. I do not find this argument so comforting as it is apparent that the process of evolution of a tree is discontinuous unlike that of a human being. However it is still illogical to give a full human status to an embryo before we have a consensus as to what it means to be human. Various psychological and physical requirements have been proposed but none of the checklist methodologies have managed to convince all the critics. In addition, maternal miscarriages are more probable in the first trimester as compared to the rest of the pregnancy which indicates that the fetus is yet to develop vitality. This might be a reason why some consider viability (The point beyond which the fetus can survive by itself outside the womb) as the true starting point of humanity. Kreeft (Kreeft) has argued that all the arguments that have been placed rely on the assumption that everything is assigned a status based on its ‘functionality’. A fetus cannot perform most of the functions expected by a human person and hence it is less functional than a human being. Therefore, its life is less precious than a “fully born human.” This argument is indeed true as the rational, thinking beings that we are, we tend to classify everything on basis of the functions that they serve us. The question is if this is so wrong as to alter the entire basis of our arguments? We would have to say no. “Functionalism’ has served us well in the past and there is no reason so as to disregard it now. It is interesting to note in this context that during the Roe Vs Wade trial, the court had refused to consider the question of the vitality of the fetus. The court’s exact wording carries significant weightage in the present debate: “We need not settle the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer” (Roe Vs Wade). The point of relevance to our present discussion is the fact that “man’s knowledge” has not witnessed any significant breakthroughs so as to take us any closer to deciding the question. Historically, there has been a wide divergence of thinking on this sensitive question. There has been a strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth as was the belief of the stoics. This may also be taken to represent the views of the Jewish faith as well as that of the Protestants (Roe Vs Wade). All this points to the fact that there is no legal, historical or even religious precedent for the idea that the human fetus is alive from the moment of conception. It also seems as if ancient and tradition wisdom is opposed to such a consideration as is evident from the foregoing discussion. A major argument against this point of view is that there is no medical support for this position as most doctors see the fetus as nothing more than a lump of flesh and blood. Though the question of life is more strictly theological than scientific, until the scientific community reaches a definite verdict, the rest of the society is unlikely to settle its arbitrations. Many other arguments that invoke God and other theological concepts have not been discussed here and it has been tried to maintain the discussion on a strictly scientific basis. It is often pointed out some women use abortion as a means for mere convenience, family planning, economics or even the dislike of children. In such cases, very few would argue that abortion must not be granted to all but this does not however mean that all women are to suffer due to the misdemeanor of some. Conclusion The conclusion from all the above discussions can be arranged as follows: 1. There is no legal, scientific or even religious precedent to suggest that the human fetus is live human being. 2. Being biologically human is fundamentally different from being a human person. 3. Granting the fetus a right to life would permanently jeopardize the cases when an abortion is not considered unjust like in the case of a rape or to protect the health of the mother. 4. The society is largely inclined to view the human life as an evolutionary process and does support a dichotomous view of the issue of the personhood of the fetus. In the light of all these arguments, it seems prudent to conclude that the human fetus does not merit the status of a live human being from the moment of conception. Doing so would not only be against existing scientific, social and religious tradition but also a violation of a woman’s basic right to life and her body. Thus, the Human life Amendment to the constitution is an aberration of natural and social laws and is not in conformity with scientific tradition. Also, abortion is a very complicated issue that merits careful attention and should not be silenced with the passing of an impulsive legislation such as this. It can only be resolved through careful diagnosis and support from all the factions involved. References Reuters. "Blanco signs law that would ban abortions." 17 june 2006. Roe Vs Wade. No. 410 U.S. 113. Supreme court of United States. 22 January 1973. Thomson, Judith Jarvis. "A defense of Abortion." Philosophy & Public Affairs 1971. Wikipedia. Abortion Debate. 15 5 2008. 26 5 2008 . Willis, Ellen. "Putting Women back into the Abortion Debate." Current issues and Enduring questions 2005. Read More