On the issue of abortion, many who are opposed to its legalization back up their position by stating, “life begins at conception.” This is incorrect because human gametes—sperm and ova—are also alive. Every time one of them dies, a potential human being has “died” as well. This, obviously, happens quite often. The only way to prevent this loss of life would be to ensure that every sperm fertilizes an ovum and every ovum is fertilized by a sperm.
The problem is that life in itself does not have much worth. If a sperm cell dies, it’s not a big deal. The same is true of any individual cell. However, unlike individual cells, a person is of far greater value. The problem, then, is deciding when something is to be considered a person. AbortionFacts.com states:
Even if a person did doubt the presence of actual human life in the uterus at a particular time, what would be the fully human way to go? Perhaps a guide would be how we have always treated other human life when there has been a doubt that it exists. Would we not resolve a doubt in favor of life? We do not bury those who are doubtfully dead. We work frantically to help rescue entombed miners, a child lost in the mountains, or a person under a collapsed building. Does a hunter shoot until he knows that it is a deer and not another man? We suggest that the truly human way of thinking would be to give life the benefit of the doubt.
AbortionFacts.com fails to realize that these are entirely different questions. The personhood of the individuals in the above situations is not in question; whether or not they are still alive is.
This raises the question of why simply being a person means you are more valuable than any other life. This is because of humans’ intellectual capabilities, individuality, etc. An article on LeadershipU points out that mental criterion for personhood can be used to justify not only abortion, but infanticide and the “elimination of those who do not possess a certain IQ”. However, the article fails to provide a justification as to why these are negative things. Infanticide and the killing of those with low IQs are negative because they create a slippery slope. The article goes on to say, “In other writings, Joseph Fletcher suggested that an ‘individual’ was not truly a ‘person’ unless he has an IQ of at least 40.” Why anyone with an IQ below 40? Why not anyone with an IQ below 70 or 100? In the end, when someone is a “person” is arbitrary. This cannot be helped, so the definition should be given practical considerations, while avoiding the possibility of a slippery slope. Therefore, personhood would best be defined in a way that allows those who are pregnant plenty of time to choose not to bare a child. Of course, the best solution is simply not to have sex unless there is an intent to have a child, but, as that will not always be the case, the right to an abortion is necessary.
I like your argument but the problem with the pro-life/pro-choice debate is that each side is talking about two different people. The pro life group values the potential of the child while ignoring the potential of the mother. I’m not sure it matters when life begins in this debate. Obviously a five day old fetus is not capable of living outside it’s mother’s womb. Alternatively the argument that abortion should be justified in the event of rape or incest is flawed too as the child created is still just as much of a child as any other. I don’t see this one ever being resolved and I don’t see that there is a middle road either. The best thing to do is to have sex with the expectation that procreation will take place and act accordingly.
“The pro life group values the potential of the child while ignoring the potential of the mother.”
The idea of valuing the potential of the fetus is silly because, as I stated, every sperm and ova also have potential. Anytime an ovum is not fertilized a potential child has been lost as well.
“I’m not sure it matters when life begins in this debate.”
Life never “begins”, except in the case of abiogenesis.
“Alternatively the argument that abortion should be justified in the event of rape or incest is flawed too as the child created is still just as much of a child as any other.”
Not if the child has yet to be born.
It’s important to understand that when something becomes someone is somewhat arbitrary, and, therefore, practical considerations—such as whether or not the mother wants to give birth to a child—should be taken into account when defining personhood.
Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
Sorry but I couldn’t help myself
hmm….
It could be argued that a sperm or an egg do have some sign of ‘Life’ but to draw anything from that would be to take the argument too far. A sperm cannot create a human, nor can an egg. Combined they can and whilst an egg’s shelf life is longer you do not have a debate about ‘the loss of life’ because there is no viable human to live out the years…
The morning after pill is in the grey area between abortion and contraceptive – the sperm can go on living and possibly fertilise an egg four days after sex…
In one room you could have doctors fighting for the life of a premature babe and in another in the same hospital an abortion could be taking place and the pregnancy of both could be at the same stage – is one not human by choice?
I would not ban abortion but I believe clear thinking would serve us well here. If a baby was completely dependent on its mother and then she was fed up with the little mite – why shouldn’t she be able to kill it so she can get on with her life? We would not accept that so the question is when does society decide that it does have a right to protect the unborn? currently it is 24 or 28 weeks in the UK – under 24 weeks foetuses can be saved if something in the pregnancy and [in the UK, again] up to the moment labour begins a baby with ANY disability [including only a cleft lip] can be aborted – curious differences of rights…
just putting it out there, but since your argument that each gamete has potential on its own, wouldnt it be safe to assume its FAR more valuable one fused? i think thats the main argument on “life begins at conception”. Technically, the zygote is no longer a POTENTIALLY life-creating form, it IS a life form. sperm and ovum do not grow on their own, but once fused they grow. Free to think , Free to Believe has a sound argument here.
And YOU, my friend, have a sound argument on Jen, that “when something becomes someone is somewhat arbitrary”
Which is why this debate is, has been, and always will be infinitely unsolvable.
“just putting it out there, but since your argument that each gamete has potential on its own, wouldnt it be safe to assume its FAR more valuable one fused?”
Why?
Any given individual sperm and ova have just as much potential to create a thinking human being as they do together. Just the two gametes have come together and are thus closer to becoming a thinking, breathing human being doesn’t mean they’re “FAR more valuable.” It merely means that they’re closer to having value.
“Technically, the zygote is no longer a POTENTIALLY life-creating form, it IS a life form.”
Why does it matter if it is a “life form”? I doubt you have no problem with killing mosquitoes, and they’re life forms. A zygote has the potential to create intelligent, thinking life. It isn’t an individual, though.
“Which is why this debate is, has been, and always will be infinitely unsolvable.”
Oh no, it’s very solvable. Choosing not to have sex at any given moment prevents the creation of many possible human beings. Choosing to have an abortion also prevents the creation of a possible human being. When you’re a human is arbitrary, but everyone agrees that after the baby comes out of you, it’s definitely human. So we need to give the woman enough time to make a calm decision about whether she really wants to give birth and set a “point of no return.” That requires abortion be legal.