Killing the Young and Calling it Choice: A Rebuttal to Joyce Arthur’s Article “Personhood: Is a Fetus a Human Being?”
By Stephanie Gray
December 2001, Revised March 2002 & May 2003

Joyce Arthur of the Pro-Choice Action Network has made a name for herself debating abortion. 

If the abortion debate is over and pro-lifers have truly lost, why is Ms. Arthur still spilling ink on the subject? 

In her latest article, “Personhood: Is a Fetus a Human Being?” Arthur emphatically says no, but then concludes with the bizarre claim that the status of the fetus “is a matter of subjective opinion.”[2]  Since Ms. Arthur claims the unborn are not human beings and believes strongly in the right to abortion, this resort to relativism is most curious.  After all, what realm of influence can she hope to gain by claiming her diatribe is subjective opinion rather than objective fact?  Nonetheless, I will refute her claims as they are greatly flawed.  In an attempt to make her point that the unborn are not human beings, Ms. Arthur refers to functionalism, appearance/biology, dependency, legal declarations, and social standards.  Ms. Arthur’s essay—which insufficiently refutes the pro-life case that the unborn are human beings—is flawed because it is built on feelings instead of fact, illogical and unsubstantiated claims, and an elitist definition of personhood. 

The Flaws of Functionalism

In her essay, Ms. Arthur appeals to functionalism: “the belief that what defines human persons is what they can and cannot do.”[3]  She believes the unborn are not “regular human beings” because they “are physically incapable of believing, speaking, or assembling” and because “they absorb nourishment and expel waste via an umbilical cord and placenta, not via a mouth and anus” and also because they cannot “make sounds, and …cannot see.”[4]  Human beings function in a variety of ways depending on their level of development and physical attributes.  Appointing value according to present functioning capabilities means some human beings will be denied personhood status, and that personhood status will fluctuate throughout life.  Infants do not believe, speak, or assemble; people fed via tubes do not take nourishment via their mouths; colostomy patients do not expel waste through their anus; Helen Keller was blind and deaf.  All of these individuals are considered persons even though certain functional abilities are impaired.  These human beings, like the unborn human being, are defined by their essence, their unchanging nature which is human.  It is that nature which remains constant even as their capacity to function varies.[5] 

Ms. Arthur doubts the unborn are human beings because the fetal brain is incapable “of conscious thought and memory.”[6]  She then readily acknowledges conscious thought and memory “aren’t fully actualized until two or three years after birth.”[7]  To carry Ms. Arthur’s statement to its logical extension, personhood would be granted at age two or three and not before.  This idea is flawed.  The brain, like the rest of the body, needs to develop.  But you do not become more of who you are as your parts become more elaborate.  The unborn and toddlers are persons even though they do not have fully established brains because they have the inherent capacity for brain function.[8]  If current brain function were the indicator for personhood, then victims of car accidents who experience brain damage would lose their worth. 

Do You Make Your Appearance or Does Your Appearance Make You?

Ms. Arthur claims the unborn are not persons because of their seemingly simple appearance.  She equates a zygote with dandruff[9] and categorizes these as human but not human being.  She also says, “the difference between a fertilized egg, and a sperm and an unfertilized egg, is relatively minor.”[10]  The sperm and egg each have 23 chromosomes whereas when they unite the resulting zygote has 46 (unless there are genetic abnormalities).  Admittedly, not every single cell with human DNA is a person[11]; a zygote, however, is very different from dandruff, sperm, and egg.  Frank Beckwith explains:

There is no similarity between an unstimulated living human cell, which has no natural inherent capacity for personal acts and is a part of another human being, and a typical unborn human being, which is a genetically human individual possessing a natural inherent capacity for personal acts.[12]

Arthur tries to prove her point further by claiming, “an acorn isn’t an oak tree.”[13]  This analogy, however, does not work in her favour.  Norman Geisler explains:

It is a misunderstanding of botany to say an acorn is a potential oak tree.  An acorn is a tiny living oak tree inside a shell.  Its dormant life does not grow until properly nourished by planting and watering, but it is a tiny living oak tree nonetheless… all the genetic information which comprises an oak tree is in the acorn.  And all the genetic information which comprises an adult human being is in the fertilized ovum.[14] 

Ms. Arthur goes on to deny personhood status, this time based on embryos’ lack of “basic commonalities that define us as human beings.”[15]  She highlights their low level of development and odd appearance (“fish-like gills, tails, downy fur, …and alien-looking faces”[16]).  Appearance changes continually, as is obvious from comparing pictures of a two-year-old and ninety-year-old person.  Even born people can lack “commonalities” such as victims of thalidomide born with deformities.  They are not denied personhood status because their parts are different.  Human beings, whether by natural or environmental factors, can have uncommon appearances, but their nature is common.

History has a spine-prickling reminder of the danger that lies in emphasizing looks over nature.  In 1906, an African pygmy was put on display in a cage for white people to gawk at.  An orangutan was put into the cage and The New York Times reported, “…the pygmy was not much taller than the orangutan, and one had a good opportunity to study their points of resemblance.  Their heads are much alike, and both grin in the same way when pleased.”[17]  Ms. Arthur’s claim that “an early human fetus is practically indistinguishable in appearance from a dog or pig fetus”[18] is equally dehumanizing.  Although there may be visual similarities between human and animal fetuses, such a link, in the context of Ms. Arthur’s essay, works to convince the reader that the fetus is less human than born people.  This is much like comparisons of Africans to animals used to convince people that Africans were less human than whites.

Ms. Arthur then references the percentage of conceived human beings who are spontaneously aborted and says, “This shows that eggs and embryos do not yet qualify as human beings according to Nature herself—at best, they represent tryouts for the human race.[19]”  First of all, she incorrectly parallels eggs and embryos (a distinction between the two was described previously).  Secondly, since when does high death rate mean the deceased are not persons?  Does the high death rate amongst poor children in Third World countries make the children “tryouts for the human race”?  Does the death rate amongst AIDS victims make them non-persons?  High death rate does not change who a being is.  Ms. Arthur offers no evidence to prove otherwise.

Independence: A Factor Determining Value?

Ms. Arthur relies on a dependency argument, saying it “casts doubt on the claim that they [fetuses] can be classified as human beings.”[20]  Some newborn infants are solely dependent on their mothers for breast milk because they are allergic to all other milk.[21]  But as the baby grows up and dependency decreases and shifts from relying on one person to many, the child is still the same person.  Who you are is not changed by how many people you are dependent on.  The unborn child, even though in and dependent on his or her mom, is the same being before and after birth.  To grant protection because of degree of dependency and number of people one is dependent on is to place value according to the preference and feelings of others while ignoring the kind of being one is.

A Flawed Appeal to the Law

Ms. Arthur also cites legal documents to try and convince the reader the unborn are not persons.  She says, “the word ‘Everyone’ in the Canadian constitution has been deemed by the courts not to include fetuses.”[22]  This statement offers no proof, however, to say the unborn are not persons because the ruling could be flawed.  For example, the American Declaration of Independence says “all men are created equal” yet there was a time when African-Americans were not included in “all men.”  Legal precedent alone does not determine the status of the unborn.  The reasons for establishing the law, not the law itself, are a better indicator for determining right from wrong. 

Ms. Arthur imagines the implications of legally declaring the unborn as persons and concludes that “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.”[23]  Details such as social security numbers and “Certificates of Conception” may not be granted to fetuses but that is not because they are not persons; rather, it is for practical purposes.  The sex is not necessarily known, the name not assigned, and the date of conception an estimate.  Social security numbers are not what make us persons (rather they are created and assigned by some groups of people, and not even used in all cultures).  Neither the presence nor absence of, for example, social security numbers, defines the value of human beings.

Appeal to Social Standards

Ms. Arthur resorts to social standards to dehumanize the unborn; the arguments are not persuasive. She says the unborn are not considered persons because they are “generally not given ritualized burials,” their early miscarriages do not cause as much grief as the death of a newborn, and they do not have names or birth certificates.[24]  Ritualized burials are not a factor for being a human being.  After all, some children bury their dead hamsters and such a ceremony does not humanize the pet.  Ms. Arthur believes that the sadness parents feel towards deceased born offspring shows they “place a higher social value on infants than fetuses.”[25]  Whether they do or do not, that is not an indicator for personhood.  After all, some parents may not experience grief towards the death of born children but their lack of emotion does not mean the children have a lack of value.  Names and birth certificates are not given to make a non-person come into existence.  Rather, they are given to a person already in existence.  And if neither is assigned, the person still exists.

Acknowledging Killing[26]

At one point Ms. Arthur says that just as people cannot be forced to donate organs to save others, “a pregnant woman is not required to save it [the fetus] by loaning out her body for nine months against her will.”[27]  There is a difference between a stranger being unnaturally plugged into another and an unborn child being attached to her parent.[28]  Family morality holds the idea that family members have a responsibility to one another.  Parents make many sacrifices for their offspring.  If the bond between parent and child is destroyed before birth, what expectations can we possibly implement after birth?  Furthermore, not all obligations are voluntary.  For example, a drunk driver may not intend to kill a pedestrian but his action of driving drunk obligates him to face the consequences of his decision.  A man should have to pay child support even if he did not want his child.  A woman, even if trying to prevent pregnancy, has a responsibility not to harm the child conceived even if she does not want him or her.  Ms. Arthur says “sex is not a contract for pregnancy”[29] but she must not deny the fact that pregnancy is a natural result of sex (which, without technology, is the only way for human reproduction to occur).  Abortion is directly and intentionally killing a person who is living a normal life in the environment he or she should be in.

Ms. Arthur believes that “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.”[30]  Choices can be right, but they can also be wrong.  For example, slave owners were wrong in choosing to own slaves in order to maintain their plantations.  One’s freedom to choose does not include harming others to fulfill a certain desire.  Since the unborn are human beings, choosing abortion in order to maintain a certain lifestyle should not be accepted because it kills innocent human beings.

Proving the Unborn are Human Beings

In her essay Ms. Arthur criticizes the pro-life movement for assuming, but not proving, the unborn are human.  Below is a summary of evidence to prove the unborn are human beings:

Continue to next page