CuriousLord
Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
|
Abortion debates often come down to, "Is a fetus human?" This leads to indecision, and the spectacle leaves me exasperated. So let's talk about it.
Words aren't set in stone, and being "human" isn't some kind of universal truth. Our DNA is highly similar.. but it varies. Fortunately for our simplistic notions of life, it doesn't vary continuously.
Point being.. back when white people enslaved black people from Africa here in America. Their argument is, "They're not human!" And, in their narrow definition of humanity.. they were correct. (Their definition, of course, being what we might call "white humans" today.)
But what if we lived in a world where creatures continuously varied in DNA and features? Right now, when we say "human", it's easy enough to make a cut off. Any human you pick will have DNA that is in such and such a manner similar to any other's.. and then, at some point, it's not any different. To make an example, let's say DNA is hypothetically represented by this short series of characters:
asfas3325235asdfasdfafds5234ok Is a pure-blooded Irish man.
asfas3325235asdfasdfafds5234ol Is a pure-blooded Irish woman.
asfas3325235asdfasdfafdt5234ok Is a pure-blooded African man.
asfas3325235asdfasdfafdt5234ol Is a pure-blooded African woman.
asfas3325235asdfasdfafdt12 Is a pig.
asfas3325235asdfasdfa2 Is a worm.
asfas33252 Is a complex single-celled organism.
asfa1 Is a simple single-celled organism.
a1 Is a virus.
It's pretty easy, if you examine a asfas3325235asdfasdfafdt51235ok, to call it human. It's a rather slight deviation.. maybe has a third arm or something, but you can see it as being human, right? Since DNA actually has far more components than the strings of characters I provided, we can also consider something with even smaller variations are human. Now what about a asfas3325235asdfasdfafasddt5234ok? Or a asfas3325235asdfasdf234234afaaaasddt5234ok? Or a asfas3325235asdfasdfafasddt5234okasdf12as? At what point does it vary enough that you no longer consider it human? At what point is a creature different enough to not be human? When it has four arms, but is otherwise normal? How differently must it think, act, reason? As, surely, we all have variation, but to what extent is it no longer human?
It strikes me that arbitrarily classifying as "human" vs. "not human" is not a valid, congruent system of morality. Rather, it's prone to interpretation and seems to be flawed in its very concept.
So, if we can't just call something human or not, then how do we approach it? Well, why does being human even matter in the first place? This answer may vary among people, and others are free to address it, but I feel it's largely because each of us is human and it's necessary for our mutual survival and our empathy to accept others in this category.. we see ourselves in others similar to us. (Then, I must acknowledge that many people just learn humans have value without understanding the reasoning why. However, to consider the follower's "I was told so" reasoning does little for earnest contemplation.)
This also suggests a more continuous, congruent view of things more similar to one's self being more "human". This also goes hand-in-hand with our natural view, as we see those more like as.. those we can empathize with.. as more human.
My philosophical bit taking a break to be applied.. we can see this as valid in the abortion debate.
Is a fetus human? Well, it's not immediately human.. because, well, it's not extremely like me. I can still empathize with it, though, to some degree, knowing I was once one and that it may someday be like me, able to feel love, pain, etc. It's simple minded now, but so are newborns who know nothing.. and I still see them as human.
But it's also different. It's not fully developed (particularly true if it's an early fetus as opposed to a late one), it's not able to think like I do, it's world still consists of living inside of its mother.
So does it deserve values I associate with those who are colloquially considered to be human?
There's no generally accepted pre-existing answer, so we have to derive one. The semi-human aspect of it suggests that it has human rights to some lesser degree. Now, does this mean it has almost all of an adult human's rights, or does it have very basic, pretty ignorable rights, or somewhere in between?
Personally, I haven't answered this question yet to my own satisfaction. My working guess is along the lines of, "It has the right to life, but not to the same extent as an adult human."
What do others think?
Please, think first.
PS- I've been using the example of DNA and differences caused by different types of DNA as one sort of difference things can have. It is not, however, the only difference or consideration by any means. My point was to show that picking something of some arbitrary difference strikes me as rather silly.
< Message edited by CuriousLord -- 1/23/2008 10:58:59 PM >
|
On Abortion: Is a fetus human? - 
Profile
.
beautiful answer
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread