Once upon a time there was a toenail that grew on a woman and magically developed eyes, ears, arms and legs until nine months later it fell off and became a little girl. And that’s comparable to the way babies are made. Apparently.
Ok, so that wasn’t quite what my friendly twitter comrade said to me this morning, but it may as well have been. A toenail, as I understand her claim, is analogous to a fetus growing inside a woman. Just as the woman is justified in cutting off an unwanted toenail, so she is perfectly justified in cutting off a fetus who is just as much a part of her. “My body my toenail.”
To some degree, I agree with my twitter friend. That’s why I believe the question of the nature of the fetus has utmost relevance when discussing matters like abortion. After all, there’s no discussion needed if the fetus is not a human being. Women should always retain full autonomy of their own bodies and not be burdened by any unwanted body part. Cut off your hair, cut off your toenail, cut off your arm if you wish. Your body.
But on the other hand, if the fetus is a human being, then we enter the realm of ethics and competing rights. If a fetus is its own separate and whole human entity, developing in a place of dependence and vulnerability through no fault of his own, then a number of new arguments can be made: that a parent has a basic obligation to feed and shelter her biological offspring, that a fetus has as much a right to his natural environment as the rest of us have to our own biosphere, and that a fetus’ dependence and vulnerability obligates us to them more, rather than less.
So what does science tell us? Is the fetus its own separate body developing within another body? Or is the fetus a part of his or her mother’s body like her appendix or her toenail?
First, let me be clear about the limits of science. Science does not and can not confer personhood; neither can it tell us which human traits matter to the equal recognition of a human being as a person. Those are ethical and philosophical concerns. But what science can and does tell us is that biologically, a human being acquires his or her genetic blueprint and internal directives for ongoing development at fertilization. Then and only then do parts converge to make a new and separate whole.
Parts vs Wholes
There is no such species as “sperm” or “ovum”. Sperm and ovum are not distinct unique organisms. They are in fact complex specialized cells belonging to the larger organism, namely the male and female from which they came. In other words, they are, like skin cells and blood cells, alive and bearing human DNA but nonetheless parts of another human being, even when mobile like the sperm.
Sperm and ovum lose their individual identity and their function as sperm and ovum once they have merged. Instead of being parts carrying 23 chromosomes from two different human beings, the unification and merging of their chromosome pairs has now created a new whole with a new set of chromosomes and a cellular structure that now contains the inherent capacity to grow and develop itself through all stages of human development. This of course is something that neither sperm nor ovum parts had the inherent capacity to do on their own. It’s something that only whole human beings can do.
Furthermore, among the factors that differentiate an infant from his or her biological parents one may note his or her unique DNA (unless he was cloned from aforementioned toenail or other cell through somatic cell nuclear transfer, which I plan to address in future entries), perhaps a unique blood-type, and a gender that is different from one of his or her biological parents. The same can also be said of his younger, smaller, and more dependent self in utero.
The embryo and fetus are entirely dependent on and living in the mother’s body, but they are not a part of the mother’s body. Healthy women’s bodies don’t grow organs and body parts of a differing DNA than their own. Their bodies don’t have four arms, four legs and an extra set of genitalia that may even be male.
So once upon a time there was a toenail that grew on a woman and was a part of her body with her body’s DNA, and had absolutely nothing biologically in common with her dependent offspring who was living within her.
—-
“As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some people really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body...”
~ Christopher Hitchens; God is Not Great
Recent Comments