Bob Schwartz has an intriguing suggestion that he thinks will solve the abortion debate:
Personally, I think we as a country could end the abortion debate with one determination....Why can't the same science that can cure diseases that only a generation ago used to kill us, be used to scientifically determine when life begins using similar milestones that are used for removing life support?
Once science does that we can finally put the abortion debate to bed.
I will leave aside the notion that we should leave it to the scientists to determine what it means to be human (so much for the humanities) and consider this conundrum on Mr. Schwartz's own grounds.
Doctors use cessation of brain activity (i.e., brain death) to determine the end of life. But that is not applicable in the case of the unborn. Brain activity starts at about day 40, but even before that we can make a distinction between a dead human whose brain has stopped for good and an embryo that, left to its natural growth, will at some point gain brain activity. Scientists already have a good answer as to when human life begins: conception, or soon after. There is no doubt that what happens at conception creates a unique life. It has its own unique genetic code and left to itself will grow into a person just like you and me. In various online debates with defenders of abortion rights, I have asked what genus and species an embryo is. If it is life, and it is, it can be categorized scientifically. I have yet to see the argument that it is not homo sapiens. If it is otherwise, please let me know. As Robert George and Patrick Lee put it:
Human embryos are not mere clumps of cells, but are living, distinct human organisms, the same as you and I were at earlier stages of our lives. With the fusion of sperm and ovum, or with the coming to be of a distinct and complete (though immature) human organism either by (identical) twinning or by cloning, there is present a distinct organism which will (unless prevented) actively develop himself or herself to a more mature stage as a member of the human species. This new organism directs its own growth, coordinating from within all of its elements and forces toward his or her own survival and maturation.
Here is a counter-argument, but one that hardly helps those who wish to define away the humanity of the embryo.
The fact that the unborn are so obviously biologically human helps explain why so many philosophical defenders of abortion, such as Peter Singer, turn not to humanity but to "personhood," usually defined as having consciousness, as the characteristic that confers rights. This line of argument was bought by John Kerry in the 2004 election. Indeed, feminist author Naomi Wolf once conceded the humanity of the unborn, urging the fellow pro-choice feminists to come up with arguments as to why killing unborn humans is acceptable. Wolf writes, "Sometimes the mother must be able to decide that the fetus, in its full humanity, must die" (my emphasis).
The best way to come to a resolution to the abortion debate, to the extent such a resolution is possible, is to overturn Roe v. Wade. This would represent the rejection of the notion that unelected judges should set the abortion code for the nation without any direction from the Constitution or the traditions of the common law. Each state can come to its own resolution of the issue and therein respecting the diversity of opinion on the subject.
Recent Comments