Get the feed!
A fetus is not a person
Read the article / show / issue that provoked me to write a letter and my response below that or go straight to my response
Date Posted on this Site
May 3, 2010
Publication
Ottawa Citizen
Publication Date
May 3, 2010
Published Content
By Mark Mercer, Citizen Special
Those of us concerned that abortion should be legal, safe, and easy to obtain, both in Canada and around the world, need to set aside talk of a woman's right to choose, at least for a moment. Women's reproductive freedom is today under threat, and that's partially because talk of choice seems irrelevant in face of the fact abortion involves killing human fetuses.
Opponents of abortion insist that an individual's right to do with her body what she wants doesn't include or imply a right to do to other people's bodies what she wants. And they are right, it doesn't.
For that reason, if we are going to show that abortion should remain a private matter, of no interest to the law, we have to address directly the question of killing human fetuses. The point we must make is that killing a human fetus is not killing a person. The reasons a woman might have for seeking an abortion cannot be outweighed by the fetus's right to life, for, not being a person, the fetus has no such right.
Debates about abortion are often misconceived as debates about when human life begins or whether the fetus is human. Let's remove these misconceptions right away.
The question when human life begins gains no purchase because nowhere in the process of reproduction does anything non-living come to life. The egg is alive, the sperm is alive, and, should the sperm fertilize the egg, the zygote is alive. At conception comes a new human being.
Abortion, then, involves the killing of a human being. But that abortion involves the deliberate killing of a human being is no reason for abortion to be illegal. Nor should one be morally troubled by it.
To kill a reader of this newspaper would be to kill a creature richly aware of its environment and full of beliefs and desires, including the desire to continue living. To kill him or her would be to kill a self-conscious creature. Thus, to kill a reader of this paper would be to destroy a self-aware locus of experience, one, moreover, that prefers not to die.
That is why only extremely strong, ethically sound reasons could justify killing a reader of this paper. Absent such reasons, we're enjoined to let her live.
A human fetus, on the other hand, though human, has only a rudimentary awareness of its environment and lacks self consciousness entirely. It has no interest in living, for it can have no interests at all.
Because a fetus is not a person, killing a fetus is not killing a person. That established, now comes the time to speak of a woman's right to choose. A pregnant woman is a person, and because easy access to abortion helps her to live her life as she wishes, we as a society should make sure abortion is easily available to women generally.
Now it is true that each human fetus is potentially a person, in that, most likely, in the fullness of time, any particular fetus will become a person. But this is an argument against abortion only if it is better to have that particular future person walking around than it is to respect a here-and-now person's autonomy.
The overall point is that abortion is not in any degree a morally fraught option. A woman considering whether to have an abortion or, instead, to raise a child is making a practical decision, not a moral one. This is what we who are pro-choice have to make more widely known.
Certainly, people who don't want to raise a child should practice contraception, but that's because abortion is a surgical procedure and surgical procedures are risky and consume time, money, and emotion. But from an ethical perspective, there is nothing at all to say against ending an unwanted pregnancy.
Mark Mercer is a professor in the Department of Philosophy at Saint Mary's University.
My Response Letter
For a philosophy professor, Dr. Mercer's logic is woefully malformed.
He defends the killing of a fetus, not on the assumption that the fetus is not human or not yet human (the usual canards), but in accordance with its supposed lack of interest in living: "A human fetus...has only a rudimentary awareness of its environment and lacks self consciousness entirely."
Following this logic, one could argue successfully for the slaughter of the newly born and infants - especially those under six months of age. One could argue for the murder of anyone in a coma. One could argue for the automatic deaths of all of those suffering from Alzheimer's Disease. In fact, one could argue that people who are sleeping - and therefore lacking in awareness and self consciousness - are fair game for annihilation!
Originating from a professor at the country's oldest English Catholic university, it is an egregious abuse of teaching responsibility.
This would be laughable were it not so sad.
Jason Gennaro
Was my response published?
No