For my first post I thought I'd try and crack one of the major pro-life arguments I come up against. The argument is two fold and thus:
That a) the fetus is a separate, individual human being, and b) the fetus is not part of the woman's body because it has different DNA.
None of this is actually true. Here are three definitions pertinent to my counter-argument.
human being
–noun
1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens.
The key word is, of course, "individual". Now, let's look at the definition of "individual".
in⋅di⋅vid⋅u⋅al
–noun
5. Biology.
a single organism capable of independent existence .
"Independent existence" is another key phrase. Here is the final definition:
or⋅gan⋅ism
–noun
1. a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes .
As you can see a fetus, embryo, and zygote fit none of these descriptions. So if a fetus is neither an individual nor an organism, what can it be? Because it resides inside and uses the organ systems of the woman carrying it, it is assumed that it is part of the larger organism of the woman.
The issue of it having separate DNA is explained if the fetus is described not as an individual organism but as a graft inside of the mother. There are four main types of grafts, and because the fetus has a very similar genetic makeup to the mother, it can be described as a "semiautogenic graft" or a "semiallogenic graft".
An autogenic graft refers to when the donor and recipient are genetically identical, while an allogenic graft refers to when the donor and recipient are not genetically identical but within the same species. Because a fetus' DNA is half of the woman's it is perhaps more accurately described as "semiallogenic."
This graft is not automatically rejected for several reasons, mainly because of hormones released during pregnancy that weaken the rejection method of the immune system and causes the body to recognize this graft as part of itself. When the graft is finally rejected, birth or miscarriage follows.
It is a serious flaw to state that the fetus and woman are two separate entities, and that the fetus itself is a human being. Because it is unable to sustain independent life, and it uses the organ systems of the host woman, it is, physically and hormonally, part of the woman's body. Therefore any legislation passed to prevent her from having an abortion is essentially legislation passed to control a part of her body.
I owe a major part, if not all, of this post to this website.
Thank you,
Astrophilia
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: A fetus is not a human being..
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10569
My university biology professor referred to fetuses as parasites. Then she smiled and added, "I do have three parasites of my own..."
I even think that calling a fetus a parasite is giving fetuses too much credit. A parasite is a distinct organism that has its own bodily systems, it just uses a host to take nutrients or create conditions to reproduce. A fetus has no organs of its own and is inextricable (barring a huge amount of machines, and even so that's pretty late in the pregnancy) from the mother's systems until birth.
I appreciate your post, and only wish that anti-choicers had as much logic in their thoughts.
This post wants to go in the right direction, but I think most scientists will disagree with you, and there are a few problems.
If a human dies, are they still a human? I would say they are a dead human. What would the fetus be if you removed it from the mother? It would be a human fetus. The fact that it is an organism composed of human DNA makes it a human.
The whole grafting language was designed to describe medical procedures that transplant tissue from one organism to another. That is not what happens in a pregnancy. A fetus does have its own DNA. Grafting terminology is not attempting to describe whether the tissue is foreign to the recipient or not, that presumption already exists in the word "graft". Trying to use terminology for one process to squeeze this argument in might work with people who aren't really familiar with the subject matter, but not much past that.
You hand picked that definition because it helps your idea, but lets look at some other definitions.
1. being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole
2. existing as a distinct entity
3. a single human being, as distinguished from a group.
These make a fetus's status less clear.
I think the better way to go about this type of proof is by distinguishing a human being from a person. A person is a self-aware, autonomous mind. Person's have value. Human beings don't necessarily have value. If I were to surgically remove someone's brain, I could keep their body alive using machines. They would still be a human being. But that doesn't mean they would have rights or any moral status at all. They would be a lump of flesh that happened to contain human DNA. A fish is a living thing, but we value people more than fish because people are self-aware, they have a desire to continue living. Fetus's are closer to the person with no brain, or at best, closer to a fish. In early stages, they are obviously just hunks of cells. Invisible to the naked eye and barely distinguishable from a tiny skin sample. Even when they may have some sort of developed brain, it isn't a thinking conscious brain. At best, it has some impulses and can feel pain. Maybe it's closer to a fish. We wouldn't deny a women the right to remove a fish that was growing inside of her.
I wrote too much.
2. existing as a distinct entity
But it is inside and connected to a person, that's hardly distinct.
Define distinct. It can mean "1: distinguishable to the eye or mind as discrete". I can certainly think of my fetus as discrete.
So if I think of my pancreas as a distinct human being it is?
Sure, all of my organs are distinct because they are named and perform different functions and are affected by different diseases. But they are not individual human beings.
I'm not saying it isn't human, I'm saying it is a human being. Clearly it is human. It is NOT however, a complete organism.
A dead human is still a human organism (albeit a dead organism) because it is complete. It has all of the systems necessary to sustain life. However, it is dead.
A fetus does have its own DNA and so does a heart. A transplanted heart has distinct DNA from the host but it still thrives by using the host's bodily systems. And I'd say the sperm fertilizing the egg can be described as transplanting cells from one organism to another. If a fetus were a whole and distinct individual residing inside the mother, the mother's body would reject it. In fact, it only does this at birth or miscarriage, because that is when the fetus IS a distinct individual organism.
I used the biological definition of individual. And I'm also trying to make the case that there is no reason to think of a fetus as distinguishable from its mother.
Saying that a fetus is like a fish or that a fetus is like a human without a brain is giving the fetus far too much credit. A fetus does not have any organs. A fetus uses the woman's body to maintain homeostasis, excrete, ingest, digest, and turn food into energy. A human body can do that even if it isn't self-aware.
Blah. Sorry, edit in the first line. I'm saying it ISN'T a human being.
I'm not sure why you are distinguishing between the phrases "human being" and "human". I have always seen the phrases used interchangeably, and I have never seen any source that distinguishes between the two except for your article. Do you have some source that does? Or do you have some reason for thinking that scientists of any kind do make this distinction?
Yes, a heart from another person has it's own DNA, because it is from another person. A sperm fertilizing an egg creates an entirely new pattern of DNA and begins a process that will culminate in a new organism. This is quite different than merely placing an existing bit of tissue in a host and expecting it to merely continue functioning.
The mother does not "reject" a baby that she gives birth to, she just gives birth. Under no normal circumstances would a medical professional describe birth as the mother "rejecting" the fetus.
I was using the examples of fish and mindless humans to illustrate various levels of moral accountability, not to actually compare them to fetus's in real terms.
I obviously agree with the same conclusion you want to reach, but I think that you are making ad hoc arguments that no one would even consider outside of this context. That makes them easily susceptible to criticism, and so not as useful for convincing intelligent, informed people who might disagree with you.
I think there is a distinction between the word "human" the adjective (i.e. "it's a human fetus") and the term "human being" the noun. (I am not arguing there is a distinction between a human (noun) and a human being (noun). Those are interchangeable.) My skin is human, my brain is human, my heart is human, but they are not human beings. Calling a fetus a human is a misnomer because it implies it is a complete organism and separate from the mother, which it is not.
Certainly it's a different pattern of DNA, but hormonally and physically, the fetus is a part of the woman's body. Certainly the fetus has a capacity to become a complete organism (which organs lack), but it functions like an organ inside the woman's body until birth.
Her body rejects it, yes. The reason a woman does not reject a fetus instantly (which would make sense, considering the amount of drugs we need to take to accept a donor organ) is because the woman's immune system is suppressed during the pregnancy and her body produces a hormone to recognize the fetus as part of her body. Otherwise her body would reject it, which is why some women experience miscarriages for every pregnancy.
I don't see myself making ad hoc arguments. I believe have already refuted the points you have made. I believe it is just a matter of biological understanding. The idea that a pregnant woman is a dual organism is damaging to women, but the idea that the mother and the fetus is a single integrated organism is more accurate.
So if we remove a fetus's brain and say "This is a human brain." Would the owner of that brain then be the mother? If the fetus is not distinguishable from the mother, does the mother have two brains and two hearts? I would think we'd want to say "this is the fetus's brain" and so forth for all the fetus's systems, because it is easily identifiable as a separate organism.
A fetus that is about to go through a Cesarean section is still a fetus. It also contains all the systems necessary to sustain its own life. If that fetus were actually outside of its mother instead of inside, it would actually be doing that at the time.Women can reject fetus's yes. But that isn't what birth is. The birthing process is unique, and doesn't follow the process of organ rejection.
The "identical twin" example is the opposite of what you need. That is the rare case of the same DNA being different organisms. Are there any cases where different DNA is actually the same organism? The only possibility would be the one we're discussing.
Regardless of all the arguments, I am curious; do you think that most people would consider a fetus and a mother separate individuals, or the same individual? Would it matter if they were pro-life or pro-choice? What about most doctors? Most biologists?
Well once you remove the fetus/fetus' brain it becomes another issue. I wouldn't call it a human brian, I'd say "this is an incomplete human brain." I believe that would be more accurate. You misunderstand; until very late in the pregnancy (when a fetus CAN be described as a complete organism), a fetus/zygote/embryo does not have its own fully functioning, vital processes sustaining bodily systems. This would not be an issue if the fetus actually could sustain independent life.
"A fetus that is about to go through a Cesarean section is still a fetus. It also contains all the systems necessary to sustain its own life."
No it doesn't, it survives with the aid of machines. If those machines were taken away (just as much as the mother), it would die. It does not have the systems necessary to sustain its own life.
"Are there any cases where different DNA is actually the same organism? The only possibility would be the one we're discussing. "
All grafts save autogenic grafts and pregnancies. Also fetus-in-fetu.
It honestly doesn't matter what most people think, what matters is the biological definition of an individual and a human being. Most biologists would agree with me. Doctors may treat a fetus individually because sometimes there can be rejection conflicts that can be corrected (such as blood protein related miscarriages.) But the doctor wouldn't tell a fetus to eat right during its gestation, it would tell the mother, because the mother's bodily systems support that fetus entirely.
One more point;
"Grafting terminology is not attempting to describe whether the tissue is foreign to the recipient or not, that presumption already exists in the word "graft"."
No, it isn't. If I suffer severe burns on a part of my body, doctors can graft skin from one part of my body to another. That is an autogenic graft. Not all grafts are between two separate humans, either. Some are between different species (such as using pig organs). I believe that's called a xenogenic graft. Grafts come in all shapes and forms. I consider the genetically-similar graft of a fertilized egg onto the uterine lining of a woman as a graft.
Also, more than 90% of pregnancy terminations are performed at the embryo stage, which comes before the fetal stage.
If a fetus isn't a human being, neither is an embryo or zygote or fertilized egg.
In addition to all the examples given for things which live in the body and have *different* DNA, identical twins have the same DNA, but nobody argues that they are the same person. So the two examples together kind of blow the DNA argument to bits.
Exactly. Consider mitochondria, which one existed as self-contained organisms. They merged with single-celled organisms and became one entity. Also consider all of the beneficial bacteria contained within our stomach and entire digestive system. A koala can't naturally digest eucalyptus, it only does so when it ingests the proper bacteria from its mother by eating her feces. Similarly, baby rabbits can't digest cellulose without bacteria obtained the same way.
You could really say the same about a newborn baby or any child up to a certain age. Should we kill (abort) them too? Once they come into existence, they ARE.
or?gan?ism
–noun
1. a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes .
An unborn child is a form of life whose parts are interdependent and maintain various vital processes for their own bodies. They rely on MOM for FOOD and of course oxygen. That is no different than ME or YOU. We rely on someone, even if that someone is our self, to provide for us in some way to get food.
You can not justify aborting (killing/murdering) children. Children have been aborted up to and including partial birth. Children born at 22 weeks have survived. That is conflicting evidence.
Uh, no you can't. A newborn baby has complete bodily systems.
You know nothing about embryology. A fetus does not have interdependent parts, and relies on its mother for far more than just "food" and "oxygen".
Yes, I may rely on others to bring me food. But I do not rely on others to chew that food, or digest that food, or extract nutrients from that food, or utilize those nutrients to nourish my body, or even excrete the resulting waste. You miss the point entirely.
What are you even doing here? You don't know what you're talking about. Only two children have survived being born at 22 weeks ever. "Partial birth" is only performed on at-risk pregnancies. Seriously, grow up.
i am arguing the point with some people to the effect that fetus is part of mothers body. but they keep asking for reference to a scientific or medical website that claims this. can you post a link to a couple of such sites. i mean website from medical, schools or any such type that makes the claim that fetus is part of human body.
feel free to send these to me via email if you prefer
thanks