Let’s assume that a major pro-choice argument is correct, namely, that life does not begin at conception and that a fetus isn’t human life and therefore it is OK to remove it from the womb. I know that most pro-choice people wouldn’t dare admit that abortion is murder, as I hardly ever hear of such an argument except on that one episode of House.
My task then, is to define when a fetus ceases to be simply a clump of tissue and becomes a human. After all, from a legal standpoint, it becomes murder at some point down the line and usually accompanied by the death penalty. Naturally, the initial argument is that as soon as the child is born, any harm done to the child is criminal.
This argument relies, though, on a certain timeline. In other words, at point in time from the moment a sperm cell fertilizes an egg cell, does that become a human being. Unfortunately, if we are to remove the question of morality from this, we have to analyze it from a pure observational scientific basis, even if we aren’t good scientists. Since that is the arena that many pro-choice advocates stand on, I guess we have to look at it seriously.
So at what time does a fetus become a human being. Certainly, any DNA considerations are right out because genetically, a fetus is a human distinct from the mother. Essentially, the fetus is foreign DNA that is being nurtured by a stronger version of the same life form. In other words, it’s a parasite in the process of of a nine month life cycle. And while that may seem a bit extreme, I think that any parasite that willingly leaves it’s host in order to live a more independent life is probably not a true parasite to begin with. So, taxonomically, a fetus isn’t necessarily a parasite.
The other side is how developed a fetus has to be in order to be considered human. If a human being is considered human when he or she is capable of abstract thought or some form of sentience, then you get into situations where people advocate the death of two year olds and the elderly with dementia. Certainly, a culture of death isn’t what most pro-choice people want (although, I’m fairly certain that Planned Parenthood does).
A fetus develops a heart at about the eight week mark. You can hear fetal heartbeats then (well, most people can) and so the growth of complex organs happens early enough that most women would be unable to get an abortion in time. So to define a fetus as a lump of tissue is disingenuous since a mass of tissue is nothing more than a piece of an organ, if my few classes in government skool biology taught me anything.
Finally, if a fetus is completely dependent on a mother, does that mean that when it becomes independent that it is human? The truth is, nobody is every fully independent in life. I’m probably at a point in my life where I about as independent as I can be and still I find myself having to rely on others for many things. The other problem is that human beings are the only animals whose development into creatures capable of self-preservation is a much longer process than all other animals.
The problem with the pro-choice movement is that they haven’t clearly defined when human life begins. This is especially true for the pro-choice libertarians who haven’t considered the implications of saying that a fetus’ right to life is trumped by the mother’s right to property (her body). in most cases, these deeply rooted issues could probably have a profound impact on libertarian thought and the non-aggression axiom.
The burden of proof is on you to define the issue since all of you pro-choice folks have insisted that a woman has the right to abort a pregnancy. You cannot leave it solely to politicians who will simply use the issue to score political points with their constituents, you need to be very specific on when human life begins.
Otherwise you might have to face facts that it is better to be safe than sorry.