Abortion, Are We Protecting Life?

I recently wrote a paper for an Argumentative Research class I am taking, my topic was on Abortion. I decided to post it here. --- without any edits made to it. I got a B on the paper, unfortunately comma's hate me, and I would have received an A if I had paid more close attention, However, I decided to post it here for your viewing!

         The word “human” is a commonly used word, but what is a human? If you were to ask random strangers on the street to describe the term “human” the answers would vary greatly from person to person. No one seems to be able to define concretely a word that we throw around mindlessly. The common dictionary describes life as; “of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or having the nature of people: human frailty” (“human.")
            The argument against most pro-lifers is the argument that the fetus is not human, thus not “…pertaining to…or having the nature of people” (“human.”). This premise would beg the conclusion that a mother has a right to protect her own body from what havoc pregnancy wreaks. Pregnancy is very dangerous and has many complications. There are the risks of a special-needs child, and there are lots of restrictions when it comes to being pregnant. The mother cannot do drugs, smoke, or drink wine. The mother is now restricted to taking care of two people, rather than just herself. There are stretch marks, aches and pains in the joints, and of course, the pain of actual birthing. The question then is: does the mother have the right to take control of her own body? Is the growing human in her body, somehow un-human---less worthy, of basic human rights? These questions begin a long debate. There is much emotional language and frustration emitted when the argument comes up. There is judging and hostility in both parties. However, when it comes down to the core of the issue, there seems to be a problem defining the terms that are argued. A pro-choice activist, and a pro-life activist will argue back and forth, often saying things that they assume the other defines the same way, but no one is truly saying the same thing. So what is human, what is life, and who or what should have the right to decide?
            A woman is granted by the Declaration of Independence to have her life, her liberty, and her own individual pursuit of happiness. But currently in America, a fetus is not granted these basic rights. A fetus should be granted the right to life. Abortion is a legal form of murder and should be banned from the American society. Abortion is morally wrong. The fetus should be given the right to purse its life, liberty, and its happiness.
            Because life is considered a basic human right, it is not farfetched to concede that America values life, and sees it as something worth preserving. However, life is a little hard to define. In the article “It’s Time We Had a Definition of Life” Steve Davis, the author of State of Nature Online Journal of Radical Ideas attempts to define it:

            If we take the three specifics highlighted by Adams and Dyson, homeostasis,  reproduction and metabolism (homeostasis is the ability to maintain a constant chemical balance in a changing environment, metabolism is the chemical processes that occur in    cells in particular the consumption of energy, reproduction can be as simple as cell      division, but can involve a cell dividing in accordance with a strict code of instructions),   we see that all of the characteristics of life are founded on cooperation, either within a     single cell between its parts, or between combinations of cells. (n.p.)

Basically what this article is saying is that the three essential ingredients for life are: homeostasis, reproduction, and metabolism. An organism must have these three things in order to be considered “alive”--thus, we consider plants alive, and not rocks. Rocks do not have the ability to reproduce, an essential ingredient to maintain life. If the gender of a small fetus is determined directly at conception, (no one would argue that gender is key for reproduction) than one can reach the conclusion that a fetus is very much alive. If the conclusion seems a tad weak take into consideration also that not only does a fetus have its gender determined, but also it is able to maintain a metabolism as defined above, “the consumption of energy” (Davis). The fetus is alive. Though this may seem a mundane conclusion, it is vital for making a crucial point, and begs a question to be asked; Is life worth preserving, or are there certain objects we deem “alive” that are worth maintaining vitality than others? Since we have already concluded that America deems life worth preserving, what then deserves the “right to life”?

            Thus, we get into the argument of a fetus’ humanity. For the sake of this argument, human will be based on the dictionary definition quoted before “of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or having the nature of people: human frailty” (“human.”). According to an article written on pregnancy.org gender is determined immediately after conception, and at one to four weeks the heart and the circulatory system are formed. This is the same heart and circulatory system that will support the child throughout its entire life (np). Now although these things are evident in animals, these specific details of the fetus “pertain to” and “have the nature of” people. To this end, it’s also important to realize that in the first few weeks of pregnancy, one can terminate the heartbeat through an abortion. Thus, the fetus now has “human frailty”.  In an article by Joyce Arthur, the humanity of the fetus is argued against. She says:
            If you point out that a fetus consists of human tissue and DNA, anti-choicers         triumphantly claim you just conceded it's a human being. Now, a flake of dandruff from     my head is human, but it is not a human being, and in this sense, neither is a zygote. Anti-    choicers will respond that a fertilized egg is not like dandruff, because the fertilized egg         consists of a unique set of chromosomes that makes it a separate human being. But with             cloning, a cell from my dandruff is enough to create a new human being. Although it        would have my identical genetic make-up, it would still be a unique individual, because                  human beings are much more than our genes (I'll expand on this point later). Also, both a          fertilized egg and a cloned cell represent a potential, not an actual human being. It’s a worn cliché, but it bears repeating—an acorn isn’t an oak tree and the egg you had for             breakfast isn’t a chicken.” (n.p.)

This article has multiple fallacies, one of which is a red herring by describing “the egg you had for breakfast” --one knows that an egg is not a chicken because most of the eggs are not fertilized. If it was, (like a woman’s egg at conception) it would become a chicken, but chickens are eaten anyway, so what relevance does this argument have? This article also fights for the idea that we should not protect a “potential” life. So discard for a moment the arguments previously made. Introduce the idea of Animal Rights. During a construction project in East Palo Alto, construction was halted because of an endangered animal; a Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse appeared on the site (Hicks). The general idea of saving an endangered species is in hopes of it no longer becoming endangered—in other words, protecting the “potential life” that is hoped to one day exist.  Thus, the argument that America does not attempt to protect a ‘potential life’ is not true. Not only this, but in order for a flake of dandruff to become a human, it must be altered. A fetus has already been ‘altered’ by the sperm, thus it is much different than dandruff on a human’s head. If you wait for nine months, a flake of dandruff will still be a flake of dandruff. Wait on a fetus for nine months, and it becomes a “baby”.
            So now a fetus has been defined as at the very least, a potential human. It is in the species of homo-sapiens (thus making it human), it has a heartbeat and a gender. So the argument then turns to the object of “personhood”. The second strongest argument against the humanity of a fetus comes in the form of abortions being legal only during certain trimesters of the pregnancy. This is a little scary. The government gets to decide then, who or what is a human, and whether or not that “human” is worthy of living. If we decide it is legal to kill while inside the womb, who decides when it’s wrong to kill outside of the womb? Though this next point may seem as a fallacy; indeed a very “slippery slope” to tread, it is not at all unthought of. In the UK an article was recently written arguing for “after birth abortions”. In the article both Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva argue that:

            Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. This means that many non-human animals   and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in   the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are  not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal. (N.P.)

Note that in this article, a fetus and a newborn are refered to as human beings, but not as a person. A “person” should be described to mean exactly what the dictionary defines it to be;  “1. A human being, whether a man, woman, or child: the table seats four persons. 2. A human being as distinguished from an animal or thing” (“person.”). Just because a person is not conscious of his or her existence does not make him or her less of a person, nor is a different person outside of the individual capable of deciding whether or not he or she is conscious of his or her existence. Although this sounds confusing, it’s really quite simple. For example, one may acknowledge that the sky is blue. However, this person has a colleague whom they converse with on a regular basis. This colleague, a young woman, decides that the other, a young man, does not believe the sky is blue. How can she make this assertion about her friend? She is not in his mind. She does not know the persons thoughts. It may come up in conversation, and he may not be able to describe to her that he believes the sky to be blue, but it does not make his belief any less valid, just inarticulate. The same is true with personhood. One cannot judge a being that is incapable of conversing in the ‘common’ language we refer to as ‘human’. For all that is known, a fetus may be perfectly capable of understanding its existence, but incapable of articulating its belief to its mother and society. This belief that abortion and afterbirth abortion is morally acceptable is dangerous ground to tread. If one gets to decide on a whim what a human or person is, and who or what should get rights, then one can change their mind on a whim. If reason would come into play, who would get to decide when killing an adult would be legal? If one were to claim to a judge that the adult he just shot was incapable of understanding  ‘basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her’  (Arthur), the judge would still sentence the man for murder. Why is this not the same for fetuses?
            In conclusion, a fetus is a human. It belongs to the species of homo-sapiens. It has the same heart and circulatory system that it will have for the rest of its adult life. A fetus is alive, and America claims that humans should be given the basic rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A fetus is also a person. It is distinguishable from an animal or a thing, thus the killing of it would --under current American laws, be considered murder. Therefore, based on these premises, abortion should be outlawed. Women should not be able to decide for another young women, whether she gets to live or not.