Abortion is Mostly Justified (Part 2)

While discussing whether abortion is morally sound with my friends, I’ve noticed that while most of them are OK with stem cell research (which destroys a ball-shaped blastula), they are against abortion when the fetus starts to resemble a human. They say that it’s cruel. I have also noticed arguments stating that fetuses are genetically human, and consequently have the same rights as fully developed humans.

Both arguments do not stand up to scrutiny. In this post, I shall show that, whether an entity looks human or is genetically human has very little, if any bearing on its moral rights.

Contrary to popular opinion, the 6-week old fetus (Credit: lunar caustic) above is not entitled to greater moral rights than the morula(1) and the blastula(2) below simply by the virtue of being more humanlike (Credit: Pidalka44).

Let ponder for a moment: What makes a human, and how does that give one moral rights?

The way I see it, there are two aspects to a human being. There is of course, the biological/physical aspect. A human must have the Homo sapiens genome, the anatomy of a relatively hairless, upright primate, and most importantly, be alive. A person who meets all of the criteria above is physically human.

But do we posses moral rights simply by the virtue of being biologically Homo sapiens? No. Imagine that history was altered, and Mother Nature decided that having a tail, two horns, plus red skin is advantageous for survival, and all humans look like the Devil (and have a completely different genome). Does that means that our moral rights are diminished in any way?

Alright, so that sounded quite stupid. But my point stands. There’s no reason why our series of nucleotides are morally superior to that of a cauliflower’s. Nor are we more deserving of greater moral rights because we walk instead of fly (frankly, it should be the other way around). Our biological and physical traits don’t translate into moral rights.

The other aspect is the non-physical aspect (for the lack of a better term). This encompasses personality, consciousness, thoughts etc. This is the aspect that we consider when contemplating moral issues.

For example, when we to try to judge whether someone is guilty for the death of another, we don’t think in terms of his/her physical aspects – oh, he’s black, so he is guilty; oh, she’s disabled, so she is wrong etc. To do so is extremely discriminatory and simply wrong. Instead, we think in terms of: was it his/her intent to take the life of the person?

This applies to non-humans too. When we deciding whether an entity has intrinsic moral rights, we look at whether it is conscious and is capable of feeling pain. Thus the concept of animal rights, which encompasses creatures from birds to dogs to apes, which are quite different physically.

It is therefore not our physical traits, but the non-physical traits that gives us moral rights, and it follows that when discussing whether does any entity (including a fetus) have moral rights, only the non-physical traits should be taken into consideration.

To conclude, while aborting a fetus may feel cruel to some, it simply doesn’t mean that abortion is morally wrong, and the fact that fetuses are genetically human doesn’t mean anything. When deciding what rights an entity has, only the non-physical aspects matter.

What do you think? Post your thoughts below in the comments section!

Abortion is Mostly Justified (Part 1)

Disclaimer: If this post offends you in any way, please do stop reading. Really, you can do so. Otherwise, proceed at your own risk

Vacuum aspiration, an abortion procedure used using the first trimester. Credit goes to Andrew c,

Ah, abortion. One of the greatest controversies ever. Whenever I think about it, endless arguments and conflicts between the pro-life and pro-choice camps comes into mind. Being the “philosopher” that I am, I simply couldn’t resist commenting on the issue. This will be the first in a series of posts on abortion.

First and foremost, let me be very clear about my stance on this issue: I am pro-choice. That is, I believe that abortion is justified in most cases (hence the title). To make it really short, my view is that pre-viability (more on the term later), a mother has absolute rights over the fetus/embryo, while post-viability, abortion can be justified if deemed necessary, although stronger reasons would be needed.

I can imagine that pro-life people will demand reasons for my view, or may even become enraged/offended – “how dare you support the killing of babies!”; abortionists may wonder why is there a “most”. And I shall elaborate.

Firstly, I shall argue for this view:

Pre-viability fetuses/embryos do not have human rights.

Yes. I just said it. Both 5-day embryos and a 18-week fetuses are not entitled to the same rights as fully developed humans do. I base my argument on two points:

1. A pre-viability embryo/fetus cannot be considered a living organism yet.
2. Even we ignore the earlier statement, pre-viability embryos/fetuses lack the traits that makes a fully developed human worthy of human rights.

But before I go on, what is viability? Simply put, it is “the ability of the fetus to survive outside of the womb”. This occurs at around 22-24 weeks into pregnancy. The definition is a little vague of course, as by this definition, strictly speaking, a fetus that can survive for 5 minutes after being born is considered viable as well. But I don’t suppose that’s we have in mind, so let me my own take on viability – “the ability of a fetus to survive outside of the womb for the same length as would be expected of a full term baby, with or without intensive medical care”. So, assuming that we agree with this definition, let us move on.

Pre-viability fetuses are not truly living things.

As wrong as it sounds, I must say that this 12-week fetus is not a true living organism. Not yet, anyway. Source: National Museum of Health and Medicine

To be honest, there is not a clear distinction between what is life, and what isn’t. Of course, everyone agrees that humans, dogs, and Pokémons are living organisms, while rocks and stones are not. However, some entities (e.g. viruses, viroids) fall into that gray area where said entity meets some, but not all the traits that is expected of a living organism. It seems that fetuses and embryos fall into the area as well.

There have been attempts to define what criteria a living organism should fit. Commonly suggested examples include: ability to reproduce, growth, ability to convert energy into different forms, homeostasis, adaptability, organization etc. Those suggestions do have their flaws, of course – a mule is sterile yet it is certainly living, while a plane converts chemical energy into kinetic energy but it does not live. But generally, an entity that meets most of those criteria is considered to be living.

But whatever criteria one chooses, there is one feature that all life possesses (or once did) – self-sustaining physiological processes to maintain normal function of above criteria, be it adaptability, homeostasis, adaptability, reproductive abilities, metabolism etc. The keyword here is self-sustaining.

All living organisms have this trait, from amoebas to tapeworms to horses and elephants. Give them the necessary nutrients, and they can survive on their own. Viruses, however, need a host to function. The instant moment they are out of the host, they revert to its crystalline form. Thus, we generally don’t regard viruses to be living organisms.

In the same light, pre-viability fetuses are not fully living yet. They are unable to survive outside of the womb. Most of their physiological functions are far from working – they are unable to maintain homeostasis, their metabolic processes aren’t fully working yet etc. Though they certainly aren’t inanimate, they aren’t truly living yet. In this sense, a fish actually fits the criteria of living organism better than a fetus. Therefore, it is hard to justify giving a fetus the same rights as a human.

So that concludes my first point. For my next post, I shall argue that, even if we assume that a fetus is biologically alive, it still lacks certain crucial traits that makes it worthy of full human rights. Stay tuned.

What are your opinions on this issue? Do talk about it in the comments section.