In the abortion debate, we argue over the beginning of an individual human’s life. I say conception (or fertilization) is the beginning. Without that singular event, nothing else would happen. It’s obvious that it’s the beginning. I used to be a baby. Before that, I was a fetus. Before that, an egg was fertilized. But for that event, I would not exist at all.
Also, it’s obvious that a fertilized egg is a human being. It is human. It is a being. The fact that it is not fully developed, or even that it is not developed enough to sustain its own further existence does not take away from the fact that it is a living human being.
Lately, the push from the pro-abortion crowd has been to insist that the only human being that is worthy of protection is one that has achieved “personhood”.
I’ve tried to argue with the pro-aborts that a fertilized egg is as close to being a person as anything else on planet earth, but they will have none of it. They say that it’s not enough to be alive and have individual human DNA. That does not a “person” make, they say.
It needs to look like a person. It needs to be self-aware. I’ve even heard one argue that if it doesn’t have a Social Security number, it’s not a “person” (which is a topic for another time: Government recognition of personhood determines the value of a human’s life). Basically, they’re saying that one must be able to demonstrate that they have matured enough to have earned the right to live.
It was when I read this next argument that I realized that personhood didn’t matter at all to the question of when a human being’s life becomes worthy of protection.
In their new government-recognition based personhood movement, it is apparent to them that personhood must come some time after fertilization because of a phenomenon known as Chimerism.
Chimerism is the condition in which two distinct sets of DNA are found in one organism. At some early point, two fertilized eggs join together and grow to become one organism.
Obviously, a full grown chimera is one person. I would never say otherwise. How do I know? It’s hard to say. And that’s the problem with the personhood movement. It’s too subjective to make any assertion, one way or the other.
The personhood movement asks, “were they two people that became one? Or are there two persons living in one body?” My answer: Probably the first. Maybe the second. I honestly don’t know. And I really don’t care.
The truth is that whichever of those is the case, neither matter to the question unless you think that personhood determines a human being’s right to continue to live.
Whether or not two fertilized eggs fuse together, each of them are living human beings. If they do fuse, the two sets of cells do not become either less alive or less human. Either joined or separate, they deserve to be protected. Solely by their humanness, they deserve to be allowed to grow. Life is a natural human right.
For the record: I’m against aborting chimeras, too.
0 comments:
Post a Comment