A little over a week ago I wrote a defense of the proposition that human life begins at conception or shortly thereafter. My argument is essentially that the embryo, even in its early stages, has the genetic make-up of homo sapiens, i.e. a human being, and is therefore justly accorded all rights that come with being a human being (what we often call "human rights").
A reader who wishes to remain anonymous has given an intelligent rebuttal. I present part of it here, edited for length with his permission.
You said: "I have yet to see the argument that it is not homo sapiens."
Agreed, presuming that there is an "it" in the first place. But that's precisely the debate: is it an it? Meaning, is the fetus sufficiently separate and distinct from its mother to render it a unique individual? Your conclusion that the fetus is a homo sapien is based upon this premise, but I don't see that it's properly accepted as a premise at all.
Science cannot tell us when the fetus attains individuality from its mother. Separate DNA or heartbeat does not necessarily conclude with individuality. One can just as easily create rationalizations supporting the other side of the debate. Nor will any future scientific discovery answer the question. It's more of a social or cultural issue than a scientific one.
Your conclusion that the fetus is a separate and distinct human being also relies upon another questionable premise: if a fetus is a human being, then a fertilized egg is a chicken; or an acorn is an oak tree. Right? (snip)
I think it's a cop out to base one's abortion opinions on science. I wish we could all just cut to the quick, and admit that something much more abstract is at the heart of it -- ethics, morality, individual philosophy, etc. Science means nothing in the absence of a concensus on definitions. We need to address the abstract issues first, before the scientific issues mean anything at all. (snip)
You said: "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."
Any court or judge that has ever upheld a right to abortion has done so because of that court's understanding and interpretation of the 14th Amendment. So it's just wrong to say that such courts have acted "without any direction from the Constitution." It's just the opposite. They have been directed specifically by the Constitution. (snip)
Incidentally, I too support the overruling of Roe, not because I believe the Roe court was "wrong" about the 14th Amend, but because I believe it's a state's rights issue. Like I was saying earlier, the question of "when does life begin?" is a social or cultural question. The political process is the way we answer those sorts of questions in America. So, ultimately, I agree with you when you say "Each state can come to its own resolution of the issue and therein respecting the diversity of opinion on the subject." That's what federalism is all about.
I replied to the commenter on the Roe aspect thusly (edited for grammar):
Of course the Supreme Court is a bit confused as to where there is a right to privacy. In Griswold, the founding "privacy" case, they couldn't agree whether it was in the Ninth amendment, the 14th amendment or "emanating from the penumbras" of the whole Bill of Rights. If the Court can't even figure out where a right comes from, that suggests that it isn't really a constitutional right. In Roe, the court essentially punts on the question of where the right to privacy comes from, arguing that both the 14th Amendment and 9th Amendment arguments have validity.
One can base anything on the Constitution, one supposes. But we have the ability to then judge whether that is a credible or incredible basis of argument. The argument in Roe leans heavily towards the incredible.
Let me add that in interpreting the 14th Amendment (or most everything in the Constitution) one should consider the intention of the authors, the plain meaning of the text, and the history of the common law. This grounds the Court's in sound judgment rather than capricious will.
On the other matters, it is precisely my point that separate DNA and the individual potential of the embryo is enough to substantiate its individuality. The fact that it is dependent means little as babies and those gravely sick are also dependent on others but recognizably humans with rights. Also, a fertilized egg is a chicken in an early stage, as is the acorn for an oak tree. We give things different names for things in different stages. We call one thing a caterpillar and another a butterfly, but they are the same being. We call a young human a baby or a toddler. We call an older human an adult or even elderly. But they are all human. Finally, it wasn't my argument that we should use science to define humanity, it was Bob Schwartz's, albeit somewhat in jest. This is why I framed the original post by writing, "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."
Dame Fortuna has smiled on us and given us this Peter Lawler essay today on precisely this subject. Give it a read.
I commend this emailer for a smart reply.
Recent Comments