Daily Archive

The argument from self ownership thread brought to my attention some of the ways the issue of abortion is dealt with.  Semantic difficulties seems to be an area where a more thorough investigation is warranted.  The language problem is described quite accurately by Joyce Arthur on her post from the Pro Choice Action Network.

[a]… major fallacy perpetrated by the anti-choice is their interchangeable use of the word “person” with the terms “human”, “humanity” or “human being”. These terms are not synonymous. For example, anti-choicers often confuse the adjective “human” and the noun “human being,” giving them the same meaning. I’m struck by the question they often pose to pro-choicers: “But isn’t it human?” – as if we think a fetus is really a creature from outer space.

If you point out that a fetus consists of human tissue and DNA, anti-choicers triumphantly claim you just conceded it’s a human being. Now, a flake of dandruff from my head is human, but it is not a human being, and in this sense, neither is a fertilized egg. Anti-choicers will respond that a fertilized egg is not like dandruff, because the egg consists of a unique set of chromosomes that makes it a distinct human being. But with cloning, a cell from my dandruff is enough to create a new human being. Although it would have my identical genetic make-up, it would still be a unique individual, because human beings are much more than our genes. Also, both a fertilized egg and a cloned cell represent a potential, not an actual human being.

It’s a worn cliché, but it bears repeating – an acorn isn’t an oak tree and the egg you had for breakfast isn’t a chicken.  So the only objective scientific fact we have is that fertilized eggs are human (the adjective) – not that they are human beings (the noun).