Fetus=Human=Person

This article originally appeared in the Kansas City Star on April 29, 2006 during my time as a panelist for Midwest Voices:

The legislature of South Dakota recently passed legislation that would effectively end abortion in that state. The response was just as would be expected. Every year, thousands of people fill the streets of various cities across the nation in rallies, protests and demonstrations regarding this perennial hot-button issue. On the one side it is believed that human life begins at conception and that abortion is the murder of this innocent, unborn person. On the other side of the issue it is claimed that we cannot know when life begins and that, at any rate, the unborn fetus is not a “person” and therefore is not privy to any of the rights of the Constitution. Therein lies the issue. Is the fetus human? If it is human is it a “person”? Is there a difference? According to the National Institutes of Health, approximately 1.3 million induced abortions occur every year. That totals up to about 43 million abortions performed since the procedure was legalized in 1973. If it can be shown that human life and personhood begin at conception and that abortion is the murder of an unborn life, that would amount to a genocide that all other genocides in the history of mankind pale in comparison to. It’s a serious question, so we should give it some thought. By the way, Kansas is one of the national leaders in third-trimester abortions with the clinic of Dr. George Tiller in Wichita being one of the few in the nation that provides such a service.
The first question in regards to the abortion is, “Can we kill it?” Nearly anyone would agree that to kill an innocent human person is wrong. In the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 the court legalized induced abortion based on the finding that a human embryo is not a “person.” Notice that the court did not say the embryo is not a human. Biological science and basic logic prove that, from conception, the entity in the woman’s womb is human. Not only that, it is a unique human. Just as dogs produce baby dogs and cats produce baby cats, humans produce baby humans. The fertilized ovum contains all of the genetic information that it will contain as a full-grown adult. So the embryo is not a “blob of tissue.” It is a human being. A unique human being with DNA that is distinct from both parents.
Next comes the idea of “personhood.” We’ve established that the embryo is human. But is it a person? How can we tell? What traits mark a “person” as distinct from a “human?” There really aren’t any! An individual is a “person” because they are “human.” Any distinctions that are made are arbitrary and artificial. Moreover, distinctions of this kind were also used to deny the “personhood” of blacks and Jews in order to justify slavery and the holocaust. These oppressed people were considered “sub-human” based on arbitrary distinctions. Human-ness is indistinguishable from personhood. If one is a human being, they are a person. At this point, although I staunchly oppose the activities of Planned Parenthood, I have to applaud them on this point. In an article in Friday’s Star titled “St. Louis appeals court hears abortion arguments”, a Planned Parenthood attorney states that an informed-consent law is flawed because it refers to an embryo as a “human being” while the Roe v. Wade decision states that an embryo is not a “person.” In this statement, even Planned Parenthood is recognizing the equality between the terms “human” and “person.”
With these ideas in mind, we can conclude with what is called a logical syllogism. Certain premises are laid out and a logical conclusion is drawn from the premises. The syllogism I would propose here is: 1) All unborn babies are human beings, 2) all human beings are persons, 3) It is wrong to kill a human person; therefore (4) it is wrong to kill unborn babies. Yet we continue to do so at the rate of over 1 million per year just because we’ve labeled them “non-persons.” We must recognize that man is not the measure of all things. Mankind is responsible to an authority higher than himself. The State is neither the giver or definer of life, nor is it the provider of meaning in life. The Founding Fathers recognized this when they penned the words that all men are “endowed by their Creator” with certain, unalienable rights. These rights were given by a Creator, not the State; the State merely recognized and affirmed those rights. Today we may kill the unborn but how long will it be before the arbitrary line is moved and we are considered the non-persons?. Who will speak for us then if we don’t speak out now? And what judgment will we face for our cheap view of life?