In an attempt to refute my article "Cutting Through Prochoice Rhetoric ," a young woman nicknamed "Aizenald," has written an article called "Abortion and Right-to-Life." I would like to comment on some of her arguments here.

Aizenald said: “Something like 50% of all pregnancies result in spontaneous, natural abortion. These human beings have a DNA code all their own and are of a separate identity from their mother — yet they are not persons and will never become persons — they were 'potential persons.' ”

What about a full-term, stillborn baby? The infant has all her own DNA code and separate identity, yet she will never be a toddler. She will never be a teenager. She will never be an adult. Was she a just a “potential person”? I maintain that a natural miscarriage *is* the death of a human being, just like all other natural causes of death at any age and stage of developement.

Aizenald said: “Consider a very real possibility: a human being that has all the physical trappings of a human body (heart, lungs, circulatory system, etc) and a brain stem to control all these basic functions — but genetically engineered to have no brain — incapable of higher function. . . . It’s an empty shell.”

First of all, this is a strawman: There is no such thing as a genetically engineered human prototype devoid of a brain. Secondly, a fetus does not develop all his/her body parts prior to developing the brain. The brain is developing rapidly at the same time as all the other body parts are forming.

Aizenald said: “There is something that makes us people, and working organs aren’t that something.”

Yet you wouldn’t exist without working organs. You can’t separate your personhood from your physical body without death. And what is your brain if not an organ? Tell me – just what makes us persons? A soul? You can’t simply say "intelligence" or "consciousness," for our cognitive abilities come from our brain - a working organ.

Aizenald said: "...the product of conception becomes a person when it gains the capacity for higher brain function (not complete brain maturity, but the capacity for some semblance of higher function). This happens some time after birth."

Aizenald does not provide any scientific proof to back up this claim. This is just an opinion. If her opinion is correct, then anyone who is born with a mental disability or anyone whose brain is damaged in an accident is not a "person" and has less value than an "actual" person. Dangerous territory here. This is the same sort of mentality that fueled the Nazi gas chambers. The Jews were believed to be "subhuman." Aizenald maintains that, "This happens some time after birth" and goes on to say, "No, that does not make killing newborns okay." Well, why not? And this "some time," when is it exactly? What is the exact moment after birth that a human being becomes a person?

Aizenald said: “I don’t suggest that consciousness is a requisite for personhood — merely the capacity for consciousness and higher brain function, not only in the future, but also in the past and present.”

And what do you base this opinion on? Do you have scientific proof for it? If this were true, then I must conclude (based on your belief) that a fetus becomes a person in the early 2nd trimester. I would also have to conclude that anyone born with a mental retardation that hinders their "capacity" for higher brain function is subhuman and not a person. But Aizenald does not have proof for this clain, it's just her opinion. I would rather stick to science – that is, that a preborn child, from the moment of conception, is a brand new, unique human being who is worthy of equal human rights.

Aizenald said: “I do not contend that intelligence is a requisite for personhood because intelligence is subjective. Children are not subhuman because we’re not worried about levels of consciousness — merely the capacity for consciousness itself.”

First of all, the “capacity for consciousness itself” as a requisite for personhood is your own religious belief. You have no way of proving this claim. And what if you're wrong; have you considered the implications?

Secondly, what about anachephalic infants? They don’t have much more than a brainstem and yet they can see, smile, hear and enjoy music, voices and laughter; they can even love. They clearly have no "capacity for consciousness itself" yet there is no question that they are living, breathing human beings. Often they don’t live long after birth but some anachephalic children live for several years, some ten years even. I know of a sixteen-year-old who is anachephalic and she is not a vegetable. We do not say that a baby born without arms (a body part) is a non-person, so why would we say that a baby missing the majority of her brain (a body part) is a non-person?

Aizenald said: “…to say that one is responsible for the consequences of his or her actions is to leave questions up to debate. What is a responsible reaction to the consequences? Depending on one’s situation, mentally, physically, financially, what-have-you, a termination of a pregnancy is often the most responsible choice a woman can make.”

The same argument could be used for a child of any age. It could be used to justify the murder of a newborn or a toddler. If a woman is unable mentally, physically, and/or financially to care for a child, then she can place her child with a loving adoptive family, or with child services.

Aizenald said: "A zygote/embryo/fetus is not the same as a toddler;  it is not physically living within the mother and she can send it to an adoption center or a safehouse at any time."

Here your argument is based on environment. i.e. a fetus is within the uterus, the amniotic fluid, and cannot survive outside the womb until "viable."

Let's make a comparison. An astronaut in space cannot survive without a protective suit and oxygen tank. Yet no one would argue whether or not the astronaut is a person while in space. The same can be said of the scuba diver. Human beings cannot breathe under water as fish can. We need an oxygen tank. Yet no one would contend that a scuba diver ceases to be a human being/person while under water. You might say, yes, well, unlike the astronaut who can breathe on his own on earth, the fetus does not yet have fully developed lungs. But what if we reversed the scenario? People with lung diseases sometimes require an oxygen tank at their side at all times: have they ceased to be persons once they've lost the ability to breathe on their own?

I agree. However, that being said, hormonal forms of birth control can cause miscarriage if breakthrough ovulation and accidental fertilization occur. If the zygote/embryo truly is a unique human being and person, then an early chemical abortion is just as immoral as a late-term abortion.

RELATED:

Pro-life: Not a Religious Position 

Cutting Through Prochoice Rhetoric

Why I'm Prolife

Back-Alley and Illegal Abortions 

Pro-Woman or Pro-Child? 

Why I Stopped Taking the Pill

The Moral Implications of Invitro-Fertilization (IVF)

(c) 2008  - Bekah Ferguson

Permissions: By all means, you are welcome to reproduce and distribute my articles in excerpts or complete format as long as you don't change any of the wording. If you do reproduce any part of my articles, please include the following information: by Bekah Ferguson, Ontario, Canada. www.bekahferguson.com

Licensed under Creative Commons.

To stay current on new blog posts, please follow me on Facebook or Twitter .  

Readers have left 2 comments.

 1. Hi again!
Aizenald, Unregistered

Hiya! Just letting you know that I've responded to your responses! Haha, I forsee this going back and forth into eternity. Anyway, your comment section won't let me post links, so I'll direct you back to my blog.

As for why it should be rare, I actually already answered that question: "But of course, the termination of a pregnancy can have negative ramifications — emotional, physical, and financial distress (not that unwanted pregnancy doesn’t also cause these things) — while it may be the better choice, it’s not problem-free."

I think your statement is typical of the pro-life movement, in that it focuses on the effect abortions have on the fetus, while completely disregarding the woman in which it lives.

 Posted 2009-06-15 22:06:21

 2. Re: Hi again!
Bekah Ferguson, Administrator

As for why it should be rare, I actually already answered that question: "But of course, the termination of a pregnancy can have negative ramifications — emotional, physical, and financial distress (not that unwanted pregnancy doesn’t also cause these things) — while it may be the better choice, it’s not problem-free."

— Aizenald

Hi Aizenald. :)

Like you, I also support non-lethal methods of removal such as early induction and c-section. However, with the exception that it (morally, ethically) should only be in the cases where they mother's life is at risk. I do not support early induction in cases of fetal deformity. That's eugenics and I believe a violation of human rights. We don't go around killing disabled children and adults, so why is it okay to kill disabled infants?

I think your statement is typical of the pro-life movement, in that it focuses on the effect abortions have on the fetus, while completely disregarding the woman in which it lives.

— Aizenald

Here you are suggesting that the prolife movement cares nothing for women, but this couldn't be further from the truth. The prolife movement has created thousands and thousands of pregnancy care centres where women in crisis pregnancies are provided for. I've been volunteering at one for 2.5 years now. We help women acquire financial assistance, homes, food, clothing, schooling, and anything else they might need to help them through a crisis pregnancy. The prolife movement is also full of post-abortion support groups helping women find healing who suffered trauma because of their abortion. The prolife movement is not just about defending the rights of preborn infants, it's also about protecting the women who are exploited by abortion.

 Posted 2009-06-16 08:16:32

Please keep your comments brief and on topic. READ THIS: Copy your entry to your clipboard before submitting, just in case there is an error and you need to re-submit.
Name :
Title :
E-mail :
Website :
Comment(s) :	[quote=Bekah Ferguson][quote=Aizenald]As for why it should be rare, I actually already answered that question: "But of course, the termination of a pregnancy can have negative ramifications — emotional, physical, and financial distress (not that unwanted pregnancy doesn’t also cause these things) — while it may be the better choice, it’s not problem-free."[/quote] Hi Aizenald. :) Like you, I also support non-lethal methods of removal such as early induction and c-section. However, with the exception that it (morally, ethically) should only be in the cases where they mother's life is at risk. I do not support early induction in cases of fetal deformity. That's eugenics and I believe a violation of human rights. We don't go around killing disabled children and adults, so why is it okay to kill disabled infants? [quote=Aizenald]I think your statement is typical of the pro-life movement, in that it focuses on the effect abortions have on the fetus, while completely disregarding the woman in which it lives.[/quote] Here you are suggesting that the prolife movement cares nothing for women, but this couldn't be further from the truth. The prolife movement has created thousands and thousands of pregnancy care centres where women in crisis pregnancies are provided for. I've been volunteering at one for 2.5 years now. We help women acquire financial assistance, homes, food, clothing, schooling, and anything else they might need to help them through a crisis pregnancy. The prolife movement is also full of post-abortion support groups helping women find healing who suffered trauma because of their abortion. The prolife movement is not just about defending the rights of preborn infants, it's also about protecting the women who are exploited by abortion.[/quote]

J! Reactions 1.09.03 • General Site License
Copyright © 2006 S. A. DeCaro