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).
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
10 comments
June 24, 2009 at 5:10 pm
theobromophile
Wrong, actually.
An embryo is a human being and your dandruff is not human. It is human dandruff, as opposed to animal dandruff, but it is not human. An embryo is a complete human being and is thus both human and a human being.
Science isn’t on your side. Nice try with the pro-choice talking point, but it’s anti-life, anti-factual, and anti-science.
LikeLike
June 24, 2009 at 10:33 pm
The Arbourist
Science is not on any one side.
If you finish reading the article, a flake of dandruff with technology now, has the capacity to be cloned into a human being. It has the ‘potential’ to be a human being just a fertilized egg has the potential to become a human being. So both are complete but neither should be assigned the moral worth as an adult human being.
LikeLike
June 28, 2009 at 5:42 pm
student
No doubt a fertilized egg has become a human being.
Has technology succeeded in cloning (dandruff into) human beings?
LikeLike
June 29, 2009 at 10:48 am
The Arbourist
Dandruff is just the example the author uses. It is within our capacity now to clone an individual from any one instance of an individual’s DNA.
A fertilized egg, represents the potential to be a human being, but certainly not a human being in the sense Theo is referring to and that is a individual deserving full societal and moral protection under the law. As the author says in the article:
[…] 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).
LikeLike
July 3, 2009 at 6:25 pm
student
Is the “individual deserving full societal and moral protection under the law” concept merit (i.e. we find value) based?
LikeLike
July 4, 2009 at 9:55 am
The Arbourist
To a certain extent the concept of when we define a is based on the characteristics of the object in question.
Egg/Sperm/conceptus/blastocyst/zygote etc are all human, but should not be conflated with idea of being a human being as it does not possess characteristics that we would attribute to fully developed adult human being.
LikeLike
July 7, 2009 at 1:05 am
dan
“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.”
You mention a “fetus” in the first sentence, and then refer to a fertilized egg in the second. Treating the two as equivalent is intellectually dishonest. I hope you didn’t do so intentionally.
A fetus is distinct from a fertilized egg in that it has all the structures of a complete human being.
A human being seconds before birth is still a fetus. I would venture to say he or she is also a human being at that point in time. You may disagree.
A fertilized egg is just a cell. I won’t even discuss the dandruff. But both of those are so vastly different than a fetus at 9 months’ gestation. Your argument that since it’s okay to wash my dandruff down the shower drain, therefore I ought to be able to do the same thing with any fetus at any stage of gestation just doesn’t fly.
LikeLike
July 7, 2009 at 1:10 am
dan
“Egg/Sperm/conceptus/blastocyst/zygote etc are all human, but should not be conflated with idea of being a human being as it does not possess characteristics that we would attribute to fully developed adult human being.”
Newborns typically don’t have teeth, a characteristic that we attribute to a fully developed adult human being. Does that mean a newborn is not a human being?
Or perhaps teeth aren’t the characteristics to which you refer? Could you be more specific what “characteristics” you attribute to adults which define someone as a human being?
LikeLike
July 7, 2009 at 11:43 pm
The Arbourist
Hello Dan, welcome to my blog.
In response to your questions about characteristics, I found this snippet useful in defining the issue at hand.
“Early embryonic forms do not share basic commonalities that define us as human beings. For example, zygotes and blastocysts are barely visible to the naked eye and have no bodies, brains, skeleton, or internal organs. Fetuses cannot breathe or make sounds, and they cannot see or be seen (except by shadowy ultrasound).
They absorb nourishment and expel waste via an umbilical cord and placenta, not via a mouth and anus as do all other human beings. Further, fetuses are not just miniature babies. At various stages, fetuses have eyes on stalks, notochords (instead of spines), fish-like gills, tails, downy fur, distorted torsos, spindly legs, giant heads, and alien-looking faces.
In fact, an early human fetus is practically indistinguishable in appearance from a dog or pig fetus. Finally, the fetal brain is not yet capable of conscious thought and memory (which aren’t fully actualized until two or three years after birth). But our complex brains are what set us apart from animals and define us as human beings. The brain is the seat of personhood”
LikeLike
July 7, 2009 at 11:54 pm
The Arbourist
What the author is getting at in using the dandruff analogy is that with the technology we have available now, we can potentially clone another person. Arguing from potentiality means when we scratch our nose now, we are committing genocide because all of those cells, arguing from potentiality, could become full fledged human beings.
So we really should not use the argument of potential human beings, if we wish to remain consistent in applying the idea.
LikeLike