Historically, a fetus has never (or very rarely) been considered a human being, at least not before "quickening", an old-fashioned term indicating noticeable movement of the fetus. The Catholic Church even allowed abortion until quickening, up until 1869. Further, the wide variety of laws throughout the world were written specifically to protect born human beings and their property. There is virtually no legal precedent for applying such laws to fetuses. Even when abortion was illegal, it had a lesser punishment than for murder, and was often just a misdemeanor. The anti-choice view of fetuses as human beings is therefore a novel and peculiar one, with little historical or legal precedent to back it up.

Fetuses are uniquely different from born human beings in major ways, which casts doubt on the claim that they can be classified as human beings. The most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive. Anti-choicers might argue that born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others. Anybody can take care of a newborn infant (or disabled person), but only that pregnant woman can nurture her fetus. She can’t hire someone else to do it.

Another key difference is that a fetus doesn't just depend on a woman's body for survival, it actually resides inside her body. Human beings must, by definition, be separate individuals. They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being—the very thought is inherently ridiculous, even offensive.

The normal meaning of human being implies a physical body of a certain size and shape with common attributes (excepting disabilities). 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. Are they materially substantial enough to count as human beings? Fetuses cannot breath 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.

Considering that the early fetus does not even look recognizably human, cannot engage in normal human perception or thought, and does not have the most basic human body functions, can we call it a human being?

Of course, there are striking physical similarities between a fetus and a newborn, such as well-developed hands and feet at a relatively early stage, and the overall structural form. As birth approaches, a fetus looks more and more like a newborn, until there is no significant difference by about 30 weeks gestation. But anti-choicers focus exclusively on these similarities, while ignoring the differences. For example, a hugely popular anti-choice photograph shows the perfectly formed, tiny feet of a 10-week old fetus held gently between someone's thumb and forefinger. There is no sign of the rest of the early fetus, which barely looks human at all. Anti-choicers try not to use pictures of embryos and early fetuses precisely because they look far less human than later ones (when they do, they usually enlarge them to make the embryo or fetus look the same size as a baby). Even the more commonly-used photos of later-term fetuses tend to deliberately shield from view anything that detracts from human-like qualities, such as the placenta or the oddly-shaped torso. (Also, women and their uteruses are completely erased from all such pictures.)

THIS IS ALL SO WRONG! OH MY GOSH!

Personhood: Is a Fetus a Human Being?

by Joyce Arthur

Copyright © August 2001

The main argument of the anti-choice movement boils down to this: a human zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus is a human being with a right to life, and abortion is therefore murder and should be illegal. This assumption is deeply flawed.

At the outset, let me say that from a pro-choice point of view, the status of the fetus is a peripheral issue. Regardless of whether a fetus is a human being or has rights, women will have abortions anyway, even if it means breaking the law or risking their lives. Even women who believe that abortion is murder have chosen to get abortions, and will continue to do so1. That's why we should leave the decision up to women’s moral conscience, and make sure that they are provided with safe, legal, accessible abortions. Because ultimately, the status of a fetus is a matter of subjective opinion, and the only opinion that counts is that of the pregnant woman. For example, a happily pregnant woman may feel love for her fetus as a special and unique human being, a welcome and highly anticipated member of her family. She names her fetus, refers to it as a baby, talks to it, and so on. But an unhappily pregnant woman may view her fetus with utter dismay, bordering on revulsion. She cannot bring herself to refer to it as anything other than "it," much less a human being. She is desperate to get rid of this unwelcome invader, and when she does, she feels tremendous relief. Both of these reactions to a fetus, and all reactions in between, are perfectly valid and natural. Both may even occur in the same woman, years apart.

However, anti-choicers insist not only that a fetus is a human being, but that this status is an objective scientific fact. Unfortunately, they are assuming the very thing that requires proving, thereby committing the logical fallacy of "begging the question." Biology, medicine, law, philosophy, and theology have no consensus on the issue, and neither does society as a whole. There will never be a consensus because of the subjective and unscientific nature of the claim, so we must give the benefit of the doubt to women, who are indisputable human beings with rights.

Anti-choicers must claim that fetuses are human beings, of course, or they really have no case against abortion. Since this claim is the cornerstone of their position, it should be critiqued in detail, from philosophical, legal, social, and biological perspectives2. Even though it has little relevance for the actual practice of abortion, the assertion that fetuses are human beings has a potentially great impact on the rights of women.

Deconstructing Anti-Choice Language

Before going further, we need to clarify and interpret some anti-choice language. First, anti-choicers often confuse the adjective "human" and the noun "human being," giving them the same meaning. I am struck by the question they often put to pro-choicers: "But isn't it human?" —as if we secretly 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 zygote3. Anti-choicers will respond that a fertilized egg is not like dandruff, because the fertilized egg consists of a unique set of chromosomes that makes it a separate 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 (I'll expand on this point later). 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.

Anti-choicers also use the phrase "humanity of the fetus," by which they may mean its physical human qualities, but it’s ambiguous, maybe purposely so. In this context, the word "humanity" implies compassionate human feelings and virtues, such as pathos or love. The term seems cleverly designed to elicit sympathy for a fetus, and assign it human-like qualities it simply does not have. The ability to feel joy, sadness, anger, and hatred are an integral part of our "human beingness," and we do not learn to develop such sophisticated emotions until we start socially interacting with others.

An alternate phrase heard by anti-choicers is: "It's a life"—another ambiguous and vague term. A fetus is certainly alive, and it might fairly be argued that a fetus is a distinct living entity (a debatable point though, because of fetal dependence on a woman's body), but this reasoning can apply to any living thing, including worms and germs. Simply calling a fetus "a life" says nothing, unless the term is meant as another way of saying "a human being," which means anti-choicers are just begging the question again.

The same problem afflicts the anti-choice phrase: "Life begins at conception." Biologically speaking, this is a nonsensical statement since life began only once on this planet, over three and a half billion years ago, and hasn't stopped since. A fertilized egg is simply life continuing in a modified form—only one small step removed from the separate sperm and ovum, both alive before joining together, and both representing the unique genetic potential of a human being. In an anti-choice context, the term "Life begins at conception" can only be translated as: "A human being starts at conception." Once again, this is begging the question. Perhaps a potential human being gets its start at conception, but the fact that life is a continuum makes even this equivocal.

Is a Fetus a Human Being?

Historically, a fetus has never (or very rarely) been considered a human being, at least not before "quickening", an old-fashioned term indicating noticeable movement of the fetus. The Catholic Church even allowed abortion until quickening, up until 18694. Further, the wide variety of laws throughout the world were written specifically to protect born human beings and their property. There is virtually no legal precedent for applying such laws to fetuses5. Even when abortion was illegal, it had a lesser punishment than for murder, and was often just a misdemeanor6. The anti-choice view of fetuses as human beings is therefore a novel and peculiar one, with little historical or legal precedent to back it up.

Fetuses are uniquely different from born human beings in major ways, which casts doubt on the claim that they can be classified as human beings. The most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive. Anti-choicers might argue that born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others. Anybody can take care of a newborn infant (or disabled person), but only that pregnant woman can nurture her fetus. She can’t hire someone else to do it.

Another key difference is that a fetus doesn't just depend on a woman's body for survival, it actually resides inside her body. Human beings must, by definition, be separate individuals. They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being—the very thought is inherently ridiculous, even offensive.

Does a Fetus Have a "Right to Life"?

Anti-choicers say that a fetus has an inherent "right to life." But many of them support exceptions to a ban on abortion in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the woman's life, or even health. This clearly indicates that they believe the right to life of a fetus is negotiable, certainly not absolute or paramount. By compromising their "right to life" definition in order to accommodate a woman's rights, they inadvertently acknowledge that women's rights are more important than the "right to life" of fetuses.

Even if a fetus can be said to have a right to life, this does not include the right to use the body of another human being. For example, the state cannot force people to donate organs or blood, even to save someone's life. We are not obligated by law to risk our lives jumping into a river to save a drowning victim, noble as that might be. Therefore, even if a fetus has a right to life, a pregnant woman is not required to save it by loaning out her body for nine months against her will7. (In response, anti-choicers say that being pregnant is not the same as being a Good Samaritan, because the woman chose to have sex, voluntarily accepting the risk of pregnancy8. But sex is not a contract for pregnancy—people have a right to non-procreative sex9. Their argument is also sexist and puritanical because it punishes women, not men, for their sexual behaviour.)

Even if a fetus were a human being with a right to life, this right doesn't automatically overrule a woman's right to choose, which can be argued to have a higher moral value under the circumstances. The free exercise of one's moral conscience is a fundamental right in our society. And since pregnancy entails profound physical, psychological, and long-lasting consequences for a woman (it is not a mere "inconvenience"), her freedoms are significantly restricted if she is forced to carry to term.

If fetuses did have a right to live, one could make an equal case for the right of unwanted fetuses not to live. This is alien to the anti-choice assumption that all life is precious and should be encouraged and preserved at any cost. In the real world, however, some people commit suicide because they no longer want to live, and others wish they’d never been born. Life is not a picnic for all, especially unwanted children who are at high risk for leading dysfunctional lives10. Many people believe that being forced to live is a violation of human dignity and conscience. To be truly meaningful, the right to live must include the flip side, the right to die.

Ultimately though, to have a "right to life" requires that one be an individual capable of living an independent existence. One must "get a life" before one has a "right to life." A fetus is not a separate individual—it lives inside a pregnant woman and depends on her for its growth. In fact, the biological definition of "parasite" fits the fetal mode of growth precisely, especially since pregnancy causes a major upset to a woman's body, just like a parasite does to its host. I'm not trying to disparage fetuses with the negative connotations of the word parasite; in fact, parasites and their hosts often enjoy mutually supportive relationships, and this obviously includes most pregnancies. However, the parasitic relationship of a fetus to a woman means that its continued existence requires her consent11—if she continues the pregnancy unwillingly, her rights and bodily integrity are violated.

Can a Fetus Be a Legal Person with Rights?

Anti-choicers like to demand legal rights for fetuses. Significantly, there is no support for fetuses as legal persons in international human rights codes. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." Virtually all national constitutions do not treat fetuses as persons or citizens. American citizenship is limited to those "born or naturalized in the United States" (as per the 14th Amendment) and the word "Everyone" in the Canadian constitution has been deemed by the courts not to include fetuses12.

Declaring fetuses to be legal persons with rights would generate countless legal and social dilemmas. Fetuses would have to become dependents for tax and estate purposes, be counted in official census-taking, and be subject to many other laws affecting persons. Wouldn't every zygote have to have a Social Security Number, as well as a Certificate of Conception? The sheer absurdity of this proposal reveals that society does not think of fetuses as persons in the normal sense at all, and would have great difficulty trying to treat them as such.

Anti-choicers might argue that special laws or legal exceptions could be written for fetuses to accommodate their unique characteristics, but the very fact that exceptional laws for fetuses would have to be created proves that they are incapable of having the same legal status as real persons.

If anti-choicers want fetuses to share the same human rights as the rest of us, this means they should enjoy the constitutional freedoms of religion, speech, assembly, and other basic freedoms. Since fetuses are physically incapable of believing, speaking, or assembling, they cannot have or exercise any constitutional rights. This puts them in a totally different category than regular human beings. To give another example, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that "Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada." Fetuses obviously cannot qualify for such a right on their own. Ironically, the Charter also says "Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned"— if fetuses did have rights, this would outlaw forced pregnancy!

The biggest challenge in giving legal rights to embryos arises when trying to decide whose rights would take precedence when they conflict—the woman's or her zygote's. The idea that a grown woman's value and status can be equated with, or overridden by, a cluster of undifferentiated cells the size of the period at the end of this sentence is not only bizarre, it's insulting. We are treading on dangerous moral and legal grounds when we exchange a woman’s actual rights in favour of an embryo's theoretical rights.

The 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, Roe v. Wade, tried to balance the rights of women and fetuses by allowing states to restrict abortion in the third trimester, except to protect the life or health of the woman. But this balancing act was a sham—women's right to choose would not be infringed in practice, because Roe v. Wade only prohibited the mythical "casual" late-term abortion invented by anti-choicers. In the real world, healthy pregnant women with healthy 8½ month fetuses do not casually demand abortions, and doctors do not casually agree to do them. To suggest otherwise is an insult to both women and doctors. Unfortunately, because of its faulty assumption that fetuses need to be protected from women's irresponsible decision-making, Roe v. Wade opened the door to the passage of many laws making it harder to access abortions, as well as a weakening of the decision itself by later Supreme Court rulings. Women’s liberty and bodily integrity have been violated accordingly.

I agree with the U.S. Supreme Court that the state has an interest in protecting fetal life, but this should be done through guaranteed access to pre-natal care, health care, and education for pregnant women, not by restricting abortion. Pitting the rights of women against their fetuses harms them both—for example, women will avoid pre-natal care entirely if they fear being arrested for endangering their fetus by drug abuse. Canadian courts have wisely backed away from trying to give any protections to fetuses in such circumstances, because they realize it might infringe on women's established human rights. As a result, pregnant women in Canada enjoy exclusive rights over their bodies. To turn the tables and demand legal rights for fetuses is a direct call for the legalized oppression of women, by stripping them of their constitutional rights and personhood. This loss of rights and identity would occur not just during a nine-month pregnancy, but would, by logical necessity, reach to some extent into women's lifelong role as mothers and mothers-to-be.

Ironically, anti-choicers are trapped in a fatal contradiction here—women are undeniably human beings; yet anti-choicers are quite willing to sacrifice the human rights of women in favour of fetuses, whose status as human beings is highly questionable. If they can’t even respect the lives and rights of born human beings, why should we trust their alleged concern for fetuses as human beings?

Who the frick cares if it is a human being or not? It's a mother's own choice if she wants to kill it or not. Besides, people die everyday, I don't see anybody whining over that. "Oh your killing an innocent little baby! you brute!", oh please, did you know that child could grow up to be a rapist or a mass murderer? The way I see it, it's just one less person who may have never met or even interacted with. People get raped, people get murdered, as long as it doesn't affect me, I don't care.

No, because with that kind of "logic" you could go eve further, that every unused egg or sperm is a hypothetical human being. So, lets ban fucking and masturbation.

What about going even further? Every little food you throw away could be utilized by your body to build an egg/sperm...?

Until you are born you are not recognized as a human being, this is common in all countries around the world and it will stay that way no matter how much you will cry for some irrational change.

Wait? Why did you use Dingle-Barry as you debate avatar? Are you saying even Obama is a human being?

For the unbanned non troll debate of this topic visit http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ A_human_being_in_the_fetal_stage_of_their_life_is_a_HUMAN_being_no_troll_version

So if I'm banned from a debate, can I still post? This should be an interesting outcome.

False, they have yet to gain any stream of measurable consciousness and thus do not qualify as a 'human' being–maybe a being but not anything resembling a human (homo erectus). Therefor any human rights that infringe on the mother's own rights are non-existant on the part of a fetus.

No one is pro abortionist. I mean accept for Prodigee. No one just thinks they want to kill all the babies!

They are pro choice

"A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate..."

"Biologically, a child (plural: children) is a human between the stages of birth and puberty."

I think part o f the problem is viewing the whole event from conception to birth as one phase is the problem. I wouldn't consider a tumor to be human and it is really similar to the start of human creation of creation with the fact that it's a lump of cells. But at a later stage in pregnancy, when a brain is formed and such, I would never say it's the same. It's all in stages, sort of like from egg and sperm to human, except more complex.

A dictionary isn´t the holder of all truth. All your arguments suggest that you just don´t get that - although others have tried to explain it to you. You seem to treat it like Christians treat to bible.

Of course a human being in the fetal stage of life is a human being. The dictionary says so but yet that statement is nothing more than a commentary on the use of language. It doesn´t mean that feotuses are the same as those that are born or that they should be given the same rights. It may well be the case that they should be given the same rights. However, to make a case for this you would need to do much more than look in the dictionary and tell us what a child or a human being is according to it!

SCREW THE FACTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In my opinion, not until "it" has taken the breath of life. Funny thing, after that, most abortion deniers consider them "on their own"...no health care? not enough food? No job....too bad, you ain't gittn' none of mine!

The last info I had was (before the ACA), America was 173rd out of 193 countries in "Infant death after live birth". (Disgusting!) This mostly due to the inability to pay for health care before AND after birth. So, save the embryo....if the baby dies later...that's a shame....oh, well.