Throw Out The Bathwater. Keep The Baby.

DRAFTED IN 2020.  THE LAW HAS OBVIOUSLY CHANGED.  FROM THE STANDPOINT OF MEDICAL ETHICS, THE FACTS AND ANALYSIS HAS NOT. 

In the attached image, one may observe the developing brain, spinal column, liver, digestive system, and lungs of the developing embryo.  Probably more.  Can you see it?  Even with my untrained eye, I can make out these things.  

When I was a child, growing up in the 1960's, the library purchased for me by my parents and grandparents had books with artist images of embryonic development.  There is even a little tail on a human embryo which disappears as development continues.  Can you see the tail, too?  

There are lots of people who would say that a human embryo at this stage of development is entitled to all of the protections we give to fully developed humans.  They say that this is, in every way that matters, a human. In keeping with this view, the embryo is referred to as an "unborn child," and abortion rights activists all over the country are enacting legislation to force a woman seeking an abortion to view an untrasound image of the embryo's beating heart before she can have an abortion.  (For instance, HERE is an article about such legislation, in the New York Times.)   Do you agree, that an embryo at this stage of development should be afforded all the same protections as a full term baby?  

I'm just curious.  Because, when pressed, most people don't.  Even "pro-life" people act in ways that demonstrate they don't, really, think this way.  When a woman in a pro-life church miscarries an embryo, for instance, I'd almost guarantee that she's not given the same level of grief support that is given to a woman who loses a full-term infant.  And I'm not saying that's wrong. Most people can see that the embryo depicted here is not a fully formed human.  

While a woman who has a miscarriage may be devastated by the loss, imagine how much more devastating that loss would be for a woman who had actually felt the baby quickening inside her, held an infant, and whose breasts overflowed with milk for her baby who died.  To say that the loss of the embryo is equivalent to the loss of a full term infant is to trivialize the loss of the woman who lost the full term infant.  I am not saying that miscarriage is not devastating.  But what I am saying is that it does not compare, in emotional terms, to loss of a child one has held physically as opposed to emotionally.

The distinction is not just that a human in embryonic stage is incapable of independent life.  The argument boils even further down, to disagreement about what it means to be "human."   What is it that makes us "human?"  By what measure do we determine when someone is fully "here" and entitled to "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?"   A human embryo has potential to become human, certainly.  But when interests cannot be reconciled, the rights of the embryo must be balanced against someone who is already here.  

Most people think of things like breathing, consciousness, feeling, awareness,  having preferences, making decisions -- are important kinds of things that distinguish us as humans.  Most people would admit that if the interests must be balanced and one give way to the other, it is the mother who is already here -- the mother who has hopes and dreams, fears and pain --  whose rights should trump, unless there is good reason to override her rights.  But most of us also recognize there is a point when the rights of the fetus must be protected and respected, and increasingly so as the human potentiality of the fetus becomes more actualized.  Most of us -- those of us in the middle -- actually think there should be some balancing of interests, not just the two extremist views of either the embryo as a full fledged human or the view of a viable fetus as being worthless. 

The U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Roe v. Wade recognizes this balancing test explicitly.  Roe v. Wade does not carte blanche allow all abortions, or restrict all abortions,  Rather, what Roe v. Wade does is impose a balancing test to weigh the rights of the mother against the rights of the unborn.  Early in pregnancy, in the embryonic stages, the mother's rights always trump.  Late in pregnancy, when the fetus would be capable of life outside the womb, a woman must show some compelling interest such as a life threatening medical condition to justify killing the baby.  In the middle trimesters, near to the point of viability, there is a balancing test.  The anti-abortion forces seek to undo this balancing.  Extremists, who do not represent the majority viewpoint, seek to create a legal scenario where the rights of the fertilized egg always trump the rights of the mother, no matter what the circumstances.  

To do so, they appeal to emotion.  A common theme is that abortion stops a beating heart.  

I agree.  Abortion does stop a beating heart.  But, I counter, so does a person who decides to eat beef or pork or chicken, or a shrimp for that matter.  All of these creatures, that many people slaughter and eat for supper, have beating hearts.  Having a beating heart is not the essence of what it means to be human.  

In fact, a pig and a cow and a chicken, animals we routinely slaughter in massive slaughterhouses, also have fear and pain and a good bit of understanding of things that happen in the world.  (If you don't know this, then you haven't spent any time around these animals.)  I urge that, even if we do not want to acknowledge animal consciousness as having the same value we ascribe to human consciousness, we would be remiss not to acknowledge that almost any fully developed animal's level of consciousness is greater than the embryo in the picture above.  I suggest that, if we are to respect LIFE, we must respect ALL LIFE, not just that which we choose to acknowledge or that which resembles that which we ourselves choose to recognize.  How anthropomorphic and what a double standard, to say that only humans have value and also to fail to treat all life with respect.

But anyway, on the subject of respecting life.  What do you think of this embryo?  What is your view?   I'm just curious, because if you think this pig is qualitatively the same think as a hog, then I seriously hope you never invite me to your house for barbecue.  And if you weren't aware that this was a pig embryo, that's part of my point.*  My point is, simply, this:  We can respect life, and we can respect the value of a fetus, without accepting the argument that an embryo is entitled to all of the same protections as a full term infant.  It is possible to value life, and at the same time recognize that the "stops a beating heart" is a preposterous oversimplification of the issues.  It is possible to value the sanctity of life and at the same time adopt a balanced, intellectually supportable view that a woman should be able to choose early term abortion without undue guilt or concern about "stopping a beating heart."  

*The image of this pig is taken from Darkfield Image Gallery:  http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/optics/olympusmicd/galleries/darkfield/pig1.html