The Case for Pro-Life
Part 2 - see Part 1
by Sean McDowell
Last
month we considered the scientific case for pro-life. It is unmistakable
that at the moment of conception a living human being emerges who is distinct
from the mother. But this alone does not seal the case for pro-life. We also
have to show that this unborn human being is valuable. So, let’s consider
the philosophical case for pro-life.
When Does the Fetus become Human?
Most people agree that the fetus either, from the point of conception, already is a human being or becomes a human being sometime during the process of gestation. Nearly all would agree that by the time the fetus is born, it is a human being with full human rights. Thus, the central question under debate is: when does the fetus become a human being? Various “decisive moments” have been suggested for when the fetus becomes fully human.
But before we consider the different “decisive moments,” a preliminary issue must be discussed. Many suggest that no one can know for sure when life begins. It is often argued that the issue cannot be solved conclusively, so it should be left up to personal choice. In other words, since scientists and philosophers have not come to common agreement about the moment when life starts, it should be left up to the discretion of the individual.
While this may initially seem appealing, this approach is highly problematic, and here is why. Consider this example: if I were going to blow up a building but was unsure if there was anyone alive inside, should I proceed? Of course not. Ronald Reagan made this same point: “Anyone who doesn’t feel sure whether we are talking about a second human life should clearly give life the benefit of the doubt. If you don’t know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it.” Therefore, even if there is uncertainty about when life begins we should err on the side of pro-life. The benefit of the doubt goes to the life-saver. The burden of proof rests on the life-taker to show that there is no presence of life.
So, when do we become fully human? Abortion advocates have offered some “decisive moments” when this occurs.
Viability
Probably the decisive moment most commonly proposed is viability. Viability is the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb with the commonly available technology. In other words, as soon as a fetus can survive apart from the nourishment and protection of the mother’s womb, it becomes human.
One problem with viability is the difficulty of measuring it with any degree of accuracy. Fetuses vary in their ability to live outside the uterine environment, and, because of technological innovations, viability is getting pushed back, closer and closer to conception. Currently, viability begins around 23 weeks or earlier. But as technology improves, isn’t it at least feasible that it could lower to 20 weeks, 18 weeks, or even 15? In fact, with the development of the artificial uterus, why must there be a limit at all? As Dr. Scott Rae has observed, “Viability has more to do with the ability of medical technology to sustain life outside the womb than it has to do with the essence of the fetus.” Viability is not a sufficient measurement for the beginning of human life.
Brain Development
Another commonly proposed decisive moment is brain function, which occurs early in pregnancy. Since death is defined as the loss of brain activity, shouldn’t the beginning of life be measured when the brain begins to function? This proposition has much appeal, but it is also problematic. For one thing, when a person dies, the brain condition is irreversible. But with the developing fetus the condition is only temporary. From the moment of conception the brain has complete capacity to develop, but, at death, that capacity is forever lost. Even if we granted that brain function determines the beginning of life, most abortions take place after the onset of brain functioning, so this criterion wouldn’t justify the majority of abortions.
Sentience
Sentience is the moment at which a fetus can feel sensations, specifically pain. The allure of this proposal is that if the unborn cannot sense pain, then abortion is less cruel and therefore less problematic. Here’s one reason to believe that sentience isn’t what makes us human: this confuses the feeling of harm with the reality of harm. It is simply mistaken to necessarily associate the feeling of pain with the actuality of harm. For example, even if I could not feel pain in my legs from paralysis, I am still harmed if someone cuts off my leg. There are also many people who can’t feel pain, but are nonetheless valuable. For example, those under general anesthetic, those in a reversible coma, and people suffering from leprosy often cannot feel pain, yet they are nonetheless valuable human beings. Our ability to feel pain is not what gives us value.
Quickening
The first time the mother feels the presence of the fetus inside the womb is known as quickening. For many years, especially before the dawn of advanced technology, it was believed that quickening indicated the beginning of human life. Quickening typically occurs at about four months into pregnancy. At this stage, the baby already has a heartbeat, basic brain functioning, every major organ, and has been moving for about 7-8 weeks.
The problem with this method for determining value can be answered with a few simple questions: How can the nature of the fetus be dependent on the mother’s awareness of it? What if the mother was consistently drunk throughout the pregnancy and therefore never felt the movement of the fetus? Or what if the mother was numb? These questions reveal how ridiculous it is to determine the nature of the fetus by the feeling of the mother.
In light of the previous discussion, it is best to conclude that human life begins at conception. The argument could be stated in this way:
- Conception marks the beginning growth stage for an organism which ends in an adult human being.
- There is no break in the process from conception to adulthood relevant to the essential nature of the fetus.
- Therefore, from conception onward, the fetus is a human being.
Some have tried to challenge this argument by making a difference between “being human” and “being a person.” The problem with this distinction is that it is completely arbitrary. Even the Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines a person as an “Individual human.” Humanity and personhood necessarily go together—they cannot be separated. As John Ankerberg and John Weldon have observed, “Personhood and humanity do not grow; they are inherent. They are not something acquired; they are innate. No human being is ‘more’ human than another.”
Sadly, many people throughout history have used the arbitrary distinction between being a person and being human to disqualify certain people from their God-given rights. African-Americans and Native-Americans were once deemed “1/2 persons” or “3/4 persons” then treated inhumanely. In Nazi Germany the disabled were considered unworthy of life and killed to rid society of the “burden” of caring for them. Jews were also depersonalized in a similar way, and then killed. In this same fashion, many people today depersonalize the unborn.
Scripture offers the only foundation for true human rights—that people are valuable not because of their skin color, intelligence or physical appearance, but simply because they are humans made in the image of God. It is simply being human that makes one valuable. And the unborn, as we have seen, is fully human.
