This is why the pro- abortion lobby do not deny the fact either, doing so would expose an abysmally low level of scientific literacy and thus undermine the already dubious "credibility" their movement currently has in the United States today.
So, when we are referring to a human being, that is, to a BIOLOGICAL human entity there is no serious objection by the pro-abortion lobby that a human being comes into existence at the moment of conception; - that at the moment a male human sperm cell fertilizes a female ovum in the womb, a new biological organism that we call a human being comes into EXISTENCE.
What IS a matter of intensely heated dispute between the "Pro-life" and so-called "Pro-Choice" factions in the US today centres on the question of PERSONHOOD. Personhood is a basic moral concept in philosophical ethics; and a HUMAN person is a moral category. In North America, a PERSON is recognised by law as such, not because they are human, but because RIGHTS and DUTIES are ascribed to them. The person is the legal subject or SUBSTANCE of which the rights and duties are attributes. An individual human being considered to be having such attributes is what lawyers call a "natural person."
Most "Pro-lifers" hold that at the moment of conception a human person exists (in addition to a biological human being,i.e. an individual organism who is a bone fide member of the species, Homo sapiens. Those who advocate for womens' rights to abortion, naturally deny this.
What the advocates and medical practitioners of abortion in the United States claim is that the unborn is NOT a human PERSON from the moment of conception. Their argument is that the unborn does not become a person UNTIL some decisive time AFTER conception. As to what this decisive time happens to be there are a broad range of differing opinions among pro-abortion academics; I will set some example out below...( NB:Tragically, in the US there is abortion legislation that has been passed in some states that permits the murder of a healthy, 9 -month infant DURING the actual process of birth. And if that is not horrific and distressing enough in itself, other legislation has been drafted that permits INFANTICIDE - i.e; the murder of a newborn infant by an abortionist if that is what the mother so wishes).
Here are some of the differing opinions regarding WHEN the unborn becomes a HUMAN PERSON...
(1) Some claim that Personhood does not arrive until between 40 and 43 days after conception when brain waves can be detected.
(2) Mary Anne Warren, a controversial scholar and outspoken former pro-abortion activist, defines a human person as a being who can engage in: cognitive acts; such as sophisticated communication; active consciousness; solving complex problems; self-motivated activity and the possession of a self-concept.
(3) Others like, academic, Luke Summer, hold a more moderate position and argue that human personhood hoes not arrive until the foetus is sentient ( has the ability to feel and sense as a conscious/aware being) According to Summer, this occurs possibly as early as the middle weeks of the 2nd trimester and definitly by the end of that trimester.
Although, - as you can see -, the Personhood criteria above, (and these are just three examples of many similar lists) differ from each other in important ways, all of these views of Personhood nevertheless have the same thing in common. Namely, they all assert that IF AND ONLY IF an entity FUNCTIONS in a certain way are we warranted in calling that entity a PERSON ( the technical term for this perspective in the relevant philosophical literature is "empirical functionalism"). Typically, empirical functionalists make a distinction between "being a human" and "being a (human) person". Their standard argument is that although foetuses are members of the species Homo sapiens, and in that sense are human, they are not truly persons until such time as the have satisfied a particular set of functional personhood criteria.
My personal view is that abortion - ( whether it is the administration of abortifacient drugs like the chemical, RU-486, or the performing of a medical/surgical operation) is morally wrong at any time after conception. Abortion, frankly, is murder. It is precisely the the calculated, premeditated, intentional killing of unborn human persons. There are, I think, some very rare exceptions to the rule where a medical abortion can be morally justifiable, but, as I say, such cases are extremely uncommon.
The purpose of this post is to present a philosophical argument in support of my view that abortion, except in a number of very rare, extraordinary and exceptional circumstances, should be outlawed. I will not be appealing to any Christian religious dogma or theological principles in presenting my case, as I know that doing this would generate an intense outpouring of scorn along with volleys of poisonous, critical barbs shot at my good self, from many members this forum.
ABORTION AND THE ONTOLOGY OF PERSONHOOD
A human person does not come into existence when human function arises, but rather, a human person is an fundamental entity (what Aristotle called a "SUBSTANCE") who has the NATURAL, INHERENT CAPACITY to GIVE RISE TO HUMAN FUNCTIONS , whether or not those functions are ever attained. (And) since the unborn human person has the NATURAL, INHERENT CAPACITY from the moment of conception s/he is also a person as long as s/he exists.
It is because an entity , for example, each kind of living organism, a dog, a horse, a human being, has an essence (essence can be thought of as denoting the very BEING of any thing, whereby, it is, what it is) and falls within a natural KIND that it can possess a UNITY of dispositions, capacities, parts and properties at a given time and can maintain identity through change. It is the natural KIND that determines what kinds of activities are appropriate and natural for that entity. To put it another way; first, each kind of living organism or SUBSTANCE, has a nature , or ESSENCE, that makes certain activities and functions possible. A SUBSTANCE'S INNER NATURE IS ITS ORDERED STRUCTURAL UNITY OF ULTIMATE CAPACITIES. A substance cannot change its ultimate capacities, that is, it cannot lose its ultimate nature and continue to exist.
For example, I currently have, as a pet, an adult, miniature, smooth, red , Dachshund dog called Mr Peanut ( He is a former Australian Champion
) Now a Dachshund dog, because it has a particular nature, has the ultimate capacity to develop the ability to bark and to hunt and kill badgers. A Dachshund dog might die when s/he was still a puppy and never develop those abilities. Regardless of this s/he would still be a Dachshund dog as long as s/he existed, because s/he possesses a particular nature, even if s/he never acquires certain functions that by nature s/he had the capacity to develop.In contrast, a frog is not said to LACK something if it cannot bark, for it is by nature not the sort of being that has an ability to bark. A dog that lacks the ability to bark is still a dog because of its nature. A human person who lacks the ability to think rationally (e.g; Veggie, Lacewing
) either because she is too immature/young or she suffers from a mental disability is still a human person because of her nature. Consequently, it makes no sense to speak of a human beings LACK, if and only if she is an actual person..Second, an individual Dachshund dog, remains the same particular Dachshund dog over time from the moment it comes into existence. Suppose I buy this particular Dachshund dod (as a companion for "Mr Peanut") and name him "Pickle". When I first bring "Pickle" home as a puppy, I notice he is tiny compared to his parents, and lacks their intellectual and physical abilities. But over time "Pickle" develops these abilities, learns a number of things his parents never learned, sheds his hair, has his toenails clipped, becomes five times larger than he was as a puppy, undergoes significant development of his cellular structures, brain and cerebral cortex. Yet this grown up "Pickle" is IDENTICAL to the puppy "Pickle", even though he has gone through many and substantial physical changes. WHY ? It is because living organisms or SUBSTANCES maintain ABSOLUTE IDENTITY through change. If not, then YOU never were literally the person you were last week ( or 5 minutes ago), a teenager, a 10-year-old, 3-year-old, infant or newborn. But YOU know that you were, right (?) even though the physical differences between you as an infant and you as an adult are considerable. In fact, the SAME YOU was also once a foetus, an embryo, a zygote, a fertilized ovum. Make no mistake, you HAVE changed. But it is YOU who has changed. THat is the critical thing to understand. YOU remain YOU through all the changes. Thus, if you are a valuable human person now, then you were a valuable human person AT EVERY MOMENT IN YOUR PAST INCLUDING WHEN YOU WERE IN YOUR MOTHER'S WOMB.
Finally - i know this post is already too long (!), but I felt compelled to try and set down my argument in some detail, given that in the United States this year countless hundreds of thousands of healthy, unborn human persons will be murdered. This represents profound, moral evil on a titanic scale and it is high time more people started to realise this. Everyone bewails the horrors of the holocaust during the second world, while in America an industrial scale, killing apparatus has already murdered far, far more innocents than were ever killed in the Nazi's gas chambers. To continue with my final points. Isn't it true that we (you and I) have first person awareness of ourselves as being unified and enduring selves over time ? Isn't it true that our knowledge that we are substantial, unified, enduring selves that have bodies and minds (mental states/events) but are not identical to them is surely grounded in our awareness of ourselves ? This is why, for example, we may fear punishment in the future for deeds we committed years ago in the past, have regrets for decisions we made in the past we ought not to have made, look back fondly on our childhood and reflect upon what we have accomplished and whether we have fulfilled our potential.
Because the functions of Personhood are grounded in the essential nature of humanness, and because human beings are persons that maintain identity through time from the moment they come into existence at conception, it follows that the unborn are human persons of great worth because they possess that nature as long as they live.
The unborn are fully-fledged members of the human community. Therefore abortion is murder - it is a profoundly immoral act, and the current abortion laws in the US must be reformed to acknowledge this.
Regards
Dachshund (Der Uberweiner)
