Human Life, Human Being, Personhood

I used to write frequently on political and social issues from the viewpoint of a Libertarian Christian. During that time, I wrote a four-part series on abortion that looked at the issue from the core belief of libertarianism that promotes the freedom of self-ownership. I’m re-posting these articles as we approach another anniversary of Roe V. Wade.
Part Two.

 Understanding the science of embryology can be imposing to non-scientists.

As a layperson, I will attempt to break down its terminology for the purpose of enabling us to discuss the issue with greater confidence and skill.

There is no excuse for Christians to remain ignorant of these facts. We must strive to communicate the pro-living message more effectively…and not just from theology.


Our vocabulary of life must reflect a basic, yet adequate grasp of science and philosophy. Moreover, I am convinced that if we use the latter viewpoint in civil discourse--coupled with the compelling inherent rights defense--we have the high ground.

Abortion debates usually begin with the question, "When does human life begin?" Actually, that question can be answered easily if we separate the terms "human life" and "human being".

The sperm contains human life, and  so does the oocyte (egg). However, these parts cannot produce a human being until they mature and are united. Alone, they each contain 46 chromosomes.

In the male, his sperm cells began maturing in puberty. Female oocytes are produced in the fetus' ovaries around the fifth month (about 7 million). By birth, only 700,000 to 2 million remain. By puberty, about 400,000 are left. The oocytes that are shed monthly during the menstrual period still contain 46 chromosomes. 1

Only at fertilization by the sperm does the oocyte reduce its number of chromosomes through a halving process known as Meiosis. Thus, for fertilization to be accomplished...

"A mature sperm and a mature human oocyte are needed. They each possess "human life," since they are parts of a living human being; but they are not each whole living human beings themselves. They each have only 23 chromosomes, not 46 chromosomes — the number of chromosomes necessary and characteristic for a single individual member of the human species.

Furthermore, a sperm can produce only "sperm" proteins and enzymes; an oocyte can produce only "oocyte" proteins and enzymes; neither alone is or can produce a human being with 46 chromosomes." 1

The fusion of the mature sperm with the mature oozyte results in a human zygote (being) with the number of chromosomes characteristic of an individual member of the human species.

From this point on, the zygote directs his or her development (not the mother). He or she produces human proteins and enzymes. Nothing else needs to be done for growth to occur.

The single-cell human embryo doesn't change into something else or become some other kind of thing. The embryo only divides and grows bigger. He or she is now biologically an individual member of the human species.

Some scientists, in an attempt to reduce the status of the embryo, have coined a term "pre-embryo", stating that the zygote is not developmentally complete until after fourteen days (when they claim twinning no longer can take place).They also look for the appearance of what is known as the primitive streak (the beginning of the neurological system). In other words, the zygote is considered void of inherent individuality and distinct spatial orientation.

As the zygote divides, a hollow ball of cells develop called the blastocyst, which attaches to the lining of the uterus between 5 to 8 days after fertilization.

"The wall of the blastocyst is one cell thick except in one area, where it is three to four cells thick; and it is the inner cells in the thickened area that develop into the embryo, and the outer cells burrow into the wall of the uterus and develop into the placenta.

"The wall of the blastocyst takes on the function of becoming the outer layer of membranes (chorion) surrounding the embryo. An inner layer of membranes (amnion) develops by about day 10 to 12, forming the amniotic sac, filled with a clear liquid called amniotic fluid that expands to envelop the developing embryo, which floats within it."  2

Clifford Grobstein, a frog embryologist, and Richard McCormick, S.J., invented the misleading term "pre-embryo" in 1979. Both men thought there could be no individual prior to 14 days because twins may form. They also postured that only the inner layer of the blastocyst would become a human adult because the outer layer is "all discarded" after birth.

These "pre-embryo" proponents said there is absolutely no relationship or interaction between these two cell layers of the blastocyst. The facts, however refute their claim:

"The chorion, the amnion, the yolk sac, and the allantois... develop from the zygote, but do not participate in the formation of the embryo or fetus — except for parts of the yolk sac and allantois.

Part of the yolk sac is incorporated into the embryo as the primordium of the gut.The allantois forms a fibrous cord that is known as the urachus in the fetus and the median umbilical ligament in the adult.  It extends from the apex of the urinary bladder to the umbilicus." (Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human) 1

In other words, they (the blastocyst cells) are genetically a part of the individual and are composed of the same germ layers." (Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology) 1

Therefore, since the concept of a "pre-embryo" is not scientific, can it be a cleverly fabricated political tool?

Remember, a zygote is a newly created human with 46 human chromosomes--23 contributed from the mother and 23 from the father. Already the sex is determined, thanks to the father.

If his spermatazoon contained 22 autosomes and an X chromosome, the embryo will be female. If it contains 22 autosomes and a Y chromosome, the embryo will be male.

The zygote's eye color, natural hair color, height, shoe size, propensities to disease, and other genetic factors are present.

"..it now seems that the mammalian embryo's spatial orientation is largely determined during the first days of development, perhaps by signals in the outer cell wall or trophoblast.

The most recent findings based on mouse embryos even suggest that "two axes of the blastocyst become specified in the single-cell embryo"; that is, that the embryo's axes determining right and left, up and down, are determined by the point where a sperm first penetrates the egg, and that important patterning information for this event may already be present in the egg before fertilization.

"Differentiation into cells with different roles and functions also begins with the very first cell division of the early mammalian embryo. These first two cells already have different roles in embryonic development--with one largely devoted to making the embryo proper, the other to developing the support structures (placenta etc.) needed for long-term survival.

Further development proceeds from this first differentiation along a definite plan – with one of the two cells dividing first, in accord with its distinct function, so that the embryo develops three cells, then four, then eight, and so on."  3

         
[Note: The human embryo does not divide synchronously like a frog.]

"At each stage this is no mere colony or aggregate of cells – much less a mere envelope full of genes – but an integrated, developing organism of our species.

"So radically different are our new findings about the embryo that a major science journal notes that they were "heresy" only a few years ago.

Human and other mammalian embryos were once thought to become organized and give their constituent cells definite fates only after implantation in the womb…

…now it is found that the embryo begins differentiation, and develops a "top-bottom axis" guiding future development almost immediately after conception.

The journal notes that from now on, "developmental biologists will no longer dismiss early mammalian embryos as featureless bundles of cells." 3

Let's try to summarize what scientific research is telling us:

1) The zygote being has 46 chromosomes--23 contributed from the human life of the mother, 23 from the human life of the father.

2) The Zygote is now completely human and self-directing; he or she only needs a secure place to grow and receive nourishment. He and his habitat are one.

3) One cannot ethically continue to use the 13 to 14 day appearance of the primitive streak as a time marker, for its indicators are already determined and operative within the single-cell zygote and as we now know, twinning can indeed occur after 14 days.

In addition, the outer wall--once considered the separation point--develops from the fertilized zygote and interacts with the inner wall as one, complete organism. Some of these outer wall cells grow into permanent tissue.

Now that we've separated human life from a human being, here's the follow-up question:

"When does the being become a person?" At this point, the debate gets heated because we must move more from science to a branch of philosophy known as ethics.

Some scholars claim personhood is recognized at viability--when the fetus can live a meaningful life on its own outside the womb. Others say at "brain birth", but that term is scientifically invalid. "Brain birth" is the very gradual acquisition of the functions of a developing neural system. This developing neural system is not a brain.

"Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal (before birth) and postnatal (after birth) periods, birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.

Development does not stop at birth.  Important changes, in addition to growth, occur after birth (e.g., development of teeth and female breasts).  The brain triples in weight between birth and 16 years; most developmental changes are completed by the age of 25." 1

Other people claim only the exercise of rational attributes or self-awareness denotes personhood. Yet we immediately see that these characteristics are variables, not constants. Who gets to define "meaningful" for the fetus? Won't that definition be subject to change in fluctuating political and cultural landscapes?

Furthermore, there are degrees of rationality and self-awareness. Again, who will set these standards for "good, better, and best"? Doesn't history warn us not to even entertain such ideas?

Can our capacities to think, feel, choose, and relate to the world around us change due to age, disease, or injury? Of course! If an adult begins to lose these capacities, is personhood also diminished? If he or she is no longer a person, do they lose their rights?

Don't we see the notion of diminished personhood already argued and played out in our society? The idea of there being a difference between a human being and a human person has frightening consequences.

I cannot address the issue of personhood any clearer or more convincingly than Doris Gordon, founder of Libertarians for Life:

"How should we define "person"? A definition that is accepted even by many abortion proponents, especially among libertarians, is that a "person" is an animal with the capacity for reason and choice. This capacity, this rational nature, is what establishes us as beings with the obligation not to aggress.

"Given this definition, the argument is:

1) animals with the capacity for reason and choice are persons;
2) human zygotes are animals with that capacity;
3) therefore human zygotes are persons.

"Many would respond: Nice syllogism, but in reality, it's impossible for human zygotes to have the capacity for reason and choice. Such skeptics apparently are using one meaning of "capacity" and are failing to notice it has two meanings:

1) root capacity for functioning (a thing's already existing nature, which is there from the beginning of its existence)

2) active capacity, actual functioning (a right-now demonstration of the root capacity).
The meaning of "capacity" relevant to the syllogism--and sufficient for human zygotes to be persons--is root capacity.

Another fact about the nature of personhood can help show why root capacity works, so let's digress to consider it.

Personhood: developmental or a constant?

Since the human body is a thing that develops and grows, many people assume that therefore, so does personhood. The fact is, however, personhood is not developmental; it's a constant.

If personhood were developmental, then the right not to be killed (commonly called the right to life) would have to be developmental, too. But how can this right be developmental? Think of it this way: A human being cannot be partially killed and partially not killed. To be a person is to have the right not to be killed. This right cannot be put on a scale of degrees; it is an either/or, just as alive or dead is an either/or.

A "developmental" approach to personhood makes no sense. If the so-called "potential person" may be killed at whim, it is simply a non-person. If it is a person, we may not choose to kill it on a whim. A potential, partial, or lesser individual right not to be killed that can be set aside is, in effect, a non-right. A being is a person or not; there is no in-between moral, or even logical, class of beings.

In Roe, however, the Court assumed that there is another category of human offspring: "potential life," which lies somewhere between "non-person" and "person." In the Court's view, with the increasing physical development of human beings, comes an increasing moral standing and, therefore, an increasing level of rights, until at some point in our development, we acquire "full rights".

Since human beings do not mature until adulthood, why not permit infanticide? Apparently seeking a time to start applying the brakes, Blackmun wrote, "With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the 'compelling' point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb."

But what is meaningful? By whose standard? In ordinary language, "viable" means "capable of living or developing in normal or favorable situations." To abortionists, "viable" requires survivability under hostile conditions. Either way, what does viability have to do with what an entity is, or with the right not to be killed?

The principle the Court advanced here is that if you need help, you can be killed, but if you can manage, you cannot be touched. Under viability, the more a child needs the womb, the less right she has to stay there.

Moreover, viability is not a stable point. Since Roe, the age at which prematurely born children survive in incubators has been lowered. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote, "The Roe framework, then, is clearly on a collision course with itself."

Given current medical technology, we can talk of viability at both ends of prenatal development. Zygotes in petri dishes and embryos in cold-storage are clearly living outside the mother's womb. Indeed, if artificial wombs are eventually perfected, many children might not ever reside in a woman's body..."

Viability is not a test of personhood; it is a test of the level of medical technology and of the competence of medical personnel. The fact that they lack the ability to maintain a life does not give them or anyone else a right to take that life. Their inability is irrelevant to whether another's death is a homicide or not.

Two meanings of "capacity"

Let us return to "the capacity for reason and choice." Abortion choicers often insist that "capacity" refers only to the second meaning given above--to the ability to demonstrate reason and choice right now.

If this were its only meaning, then what about people generally recognized as persons, such as people who are profoundly retarded, people in coma, stroke victims, and the senile? They might not be able to reason or choose at a given moment. In fact, under such a definition, we all have grounds to worry if we sleep too soundly.

Most abortion choicers probably oppose equating fetuses with comatose and retarded humans. "[W]e all agree that they [retarded humans] are persons and we cannot justifiably kill them," the Association of Libertarian Feminists took care to say.

Everyone begins life "mentally incompetent." But if life-long "mentally incompetent" humans are persons, why not humans whose incompetence is temporary? Immaturity is no libertarian test for rights. The Libertarian Party platform states: "Individual rights should not be denied [or] abridged...on the basis of...age." It has also opposed "government discrimination directed at any...artificially defined sub-category of human beings."

True, in one sense, capacity means a power that can be demonstrated right now. In another sense, however, capacity means a power that needs time to "warm up" or be "repaired."

Think of a computer program. It might have to undergo 167 steps before it can perform the task it was designed for. Still, we say this program has the capacity to function right from the beginning.

Capacity can refer to a being's natural, underlying power to actualize reason and choice. When a talent is undeveloped, it is still an actual talent. More strongly, even when one's capacity for reason and choice is undeveloped, one still has an actual capacity, an actual power.

Human beings begin life with the capacity to actualize reason and choice; this capacity is in our genes. To kill human beings early in life is to destroy their capacity for reason and choice as well as their lives.

However much we change during life, our rational nature, our personhood, is a constant. Such a position is Aristotelian. Consider what Ayn Rand, an admirer of Aristotle, saw fit to quote approvingly when reviewing John Herman Randall's book on him. Once again, it shows what views Rand held when not addressing abortion:

"Objecting to 'the...[view that] "anything may be followed by anything,'" Professor Randall writes: 'To such a view...Aristotle answers, No! Every process involves the operation of determinate powers.

“There is nothing that can become anything else whatsoever. A thing can become only what it has the specific power to become, only what it already is, in a sense, potentially. And a thing can be understood only as that kind of thing that has that kind of a specific power; while the process can be understood only as the operation, the actualization, the functioning of the powers of its subject or bearer.”

Making judgments and free choices are activities of persons. If only the present capability to do these things counted, then personhood would be, in the words of one abortion choicer, "a state humans grow into, perhaps months or even a few years after birth." Most abortion choicers, however, are not willing to admit even the mere possibility that choice on infanticide is a logical consequence of their argument...

What sets the person aside from the non-person is the root capacity for reason and choice. If this capacity is not in a being's nature, the being cannot develop it. We had this capacity on Day One, because it came with our human nature.

In other words, to be an actual person, human beings need do nothing but be alive.

We were all very much alive at conception. One-celled human beings are not "potential persons"; they are persons with potential.

When do human beings become persons? The answer is, human beings do not become persons; human beings simply are persons from Day One.^" 4

Future posts will look at the history of abortion in the United States prior to 1973. What changed after the Roe decision? What if individual states once again regulated abortion procedures? Additionally, we'll examine the host's claim to her own body and the right to aggress (evict), and the difference between inherent and legal rights.


Have you read Part One?  Christian, Libertarian, and Pro Life: A New Look at an Old Issue

 Resources:

1. "When do Human Beings Begin? Scientific Myths and Scientific Facts by Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D

2. Stage of Pregnancy Development: The Baby's Growth from Cell to Individual

3. Richard M. Doerflinger "Modern Embryology and the 'Pre-Embryo" 

4.Abortion and rights: Applying Libertarian Principles Correctly by Doris Gordon

Christian, Libertarian, and Pro Life:A New Look at an Old Issue

I used to write frequently on political and social issues from the viewpoint of a Libertarian Christian. During that time, I wrote a four-part series on abortion that looked at the issue from the core belief of libertarianism that promotes the freedom of self-ownership. I’m re-posting these articles over the next three days.

Every year about this time, the voice of the pro-life movement intensifies as America approaches the 22nd--the day in 1973 when the Roe Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the Constitution.

As a former conservative, I was heavily involved in pro-life organizations from sidewalk protests and vigils, counseling, education and legislative action. My participation stemmed not only from Christian convictions, but also from personal experience. I had an abortion in 1978 before I returned to the faith of my childhood.
 
How am I different today as a libertarian? Well, I am just as passionate about the life of the pre-born, but I just don't tote around an arsenal of preaching Scriptures.

My circle of friends has widened to include folks who don't sing in conservative or Christian choirs, so I'm honing my skills on topics such as personhood, biology, feminism, viability, and right to aggress in order to speak outwardly to more diverse audiences.

All libertarians agree that the Supreme Court had no business hearing the Roe case in 1973. Abortion is not a constitutional issue; hence, jurisdiction over any prohibitions or allowances should have remained within the states, according to the Tenth Amendment.

Many libertarians, however, will argue against legislation even at the state level. They will point out that libertarian philosophy centers around a person's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property; but for now, there is no legal consensus on when the fetus actually becomes a person. Therefore, the fetus does not qualify for unequivocal protection and remains the property of the host.

Nobody wants government at any level monitoring their personal choices and doling out consequences. Our tax money can be better spent if we divert it from criminal prosecution of voluntary, victimless pursuits. We should be able to eat as much fat as we crave, smoke whatever we want, drink sodas in New York, and marry whomever we desire in our non-theocratic state.

Notwithstanding, I believe the issue of abortion is critically different because it is not a victimless procedure.  My position is that abortion puts into tension the equal rights of two individuals to life, liberty, and the ownership of property (their bodies). Inalienable rights cannot be transferred or taken away based on someone’s size, location, appearance, or level of function.

In this series, I'd like to zero in on certain topics within the abortion debate. I want to be a better libertarian, able to speak intelligently to both sides of the issue WITHOUT automatically resorting to the Bible. Let me explain:

I spent years on the front lines of the Christian pro-life movement in the ˈ80s. We hurt our cause when fellow workers would frequently fall back on "Well, God says it's wrong, that's why" when asked to explain their position. Our credibility suffered even more when someone in the ranks would start bashing the morals of their pro-choice opponents.

I am certainly not ashamed of the Holy Scriptures, and I know very well the passages that speak of the sanctity of life. However, all pro-life Christians must educate themselves to speak the message in other arenas besides their personal faith.

Aside from my religion, I am compelled to give the fetus the benefit of the doubt after examining the scientific information we have so far regarding human conception. Abolitionists took a similar stand when the Supreme Court in 1857 declared slaves to be chattel (property). This meant that society could legally view slaves as non-persons, devoid of any rights to be acknowledged and subsequently protected.

This court decision did not stop abolitionists from speaking out and working within and (at times) against the system to free the slaves, despite the plantation owner's assertion that he could do what he willed with his property and no one had the right to invade his privacy (the pivotal point of the Roe v. Wade case). Normally, such a claim is honored, especially by libertarians, unless aggression is committed against innocent people while one is exercising his freedoms!

Thus, the entire debate seems to center on whether or not the fetus (Latin for young one) is already a person in utero.

In this series, we'll look at scientific evidence for life at conception, along with the interesting hormone the host's body naturally secretes to stop it from rejecting the fetus as foreign tissue. We'll delve into the issue of viability and potentiality. (Is the fetus biologically complete at conception, or is something added along the way to make “it” human? Does something happen at some critical point that gives us an "aha!" moment?)

The idea of the fetus as the ultimate immigrant and the host's claimed right to aggress at any stage of pregnancy will be explored. I'm eager to query the feminist reasoning on abortion when, after  years of monumental, historical struggles, a woman will aggress the basic rights of another woman who has yet to win her fight for equal status and opportunities under the law.

What has been the time-honored libertarian position on responsible parenting and the rights of the child? What about abortion and the free market principle?

Why was Roe v. Wade unconstitutional, and exactly how was the decree worded? What were the laws before 1973, and what would the abortion landscape look like across the United States if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned?

At some future point, I'll post parts of my personal story that speaks more to the Church. A report from the Guttmacher Institute indicates that although the overall abortion rate in the United States was dropping until recently, the rates for Christian women, which have yearly been proportionate with the rest of the abortive population, have NOT declined:

37% of abortive women identify themselves as Protestants
28% indicate they are Catholics
13% of abortions (approx. 170,000 per year) are performed on self-described
“Born Again” or Evangelical Christians

Alan Guttmacher Institute and Physicians for Reproductive Choice,
“An Overview of Abortion in the United States,” 2011

I'm convinced Christians must strive to model a more consistent, pro-life message across the board if we want to be taken seriously about our cause for the pre-born; and we must stop distorting facts and relying on scaremongering tactics.

As a whole, the Church has done a great job with crisis pregnancy support, aftercare, and adoption, but we can do more and do it better--particularly when it comes to helping women find educational and career opportunities that will enable them to make responsible choices for the future.

That brings me to another topic altogether. What about birth control? No, I don't intend to meddle. I simply want to ask, "Aren't we libertarians all about taking responsibility for our own actions and insisting others do the same?"

The Guttmacher Institute additionally reports that nine out of ten women having abortions claim to use birth control, but confess they do not use it as prescribed. Overall, 58% of the women having abortions claim a contraceptive failure; 31% had used a method in the past but were not using one during the month in which they conceived, and 11% had never used any method.

The majority of the women among the 42% who were not using a contraceptive method when they became pregnant had most recently relied on either the pill or the condom. Fifty-three percent of prior pill users and 76% of prior condom users became pregnant within three months of stopping use.

By the way, we're not talking about the contraceptive bungling of naive teens. Most women (56%) having abortions are between the ages of 20-24. They are legal adults in an information-saturated country whose government has poured billions of dollars for years into comprehensive sex education in their public schools--along with free condoms, pills, and complete instructions--all surrounded by a sexually driven culture whose exploits can be accessed with ease 24/7. In other words, there is no excuse for negligence.

Uncle Sam's track record is disappointing. In addition, faith-based abstinence programs are successful (depending on which poll you use) in only delaying the onset of sexual activity (usually by two years). However, even Guttmacher reports that once sex is initiated, religious young people are just as likely as their non-religious counterparts to use contraceptives.

So, here we are, America. Billions in government dollars later, thousands of innocent fetuses still pay for someone else's carelessness every day. What is libertarian about that?

Many women say that being forced to carry an unwanted fetus to term is tantamount to slavery--a very un-libertarian idea. Yet, if the authority to regulate abortions returned to the states, statutes would better reflect a community's conscience and vary widely. A clinic offering the kind of abortion procedures a woman desires would never be too far away.

By the way, the hype about returning women to the mercy of back alley abortions is a dishonest scare tactic.

Between 1965 and 1966, the period right before states began to legalize abortion, the numbers of total deaths were down to 120 per year--thanks to penicillin. (The majority of deaths weren't from botched procedures, but common infections. Abortive women today are given prescriptions for antibiotics after the procedure to ward off post-op complications.)

There is a difference between a self-induced or "back alley" abortion and an illegal one. According to a 1960 Kinsey study in 1960, 84 to 87 percent of all illegal abortions in the United States were performed by reputable physicians! Planned Parenthood once went on record to say that the percentage was as high as 90%.

Here's another topic to bring to light: if abortion laws returned to the states, would we have to fear women being arrested as murderers or is there precedence for them to be treated as co-victims? More on that in an upcoming post.

I know. Perhaps many of my anarchist friends will shake their heads in disgust and claim I haven't changed much at all because I still advocate government involvement--just on a smaller level. However, even in a voluntary community with mutually supported, private police and courts, there would still be standing laws that serve to protect people and their property when harmed.

Other libertarians will be in my corner. Conservatives may find me too legislatively weak. That's okay. The bottom line is that libertarianism, and its unswerving respect for the sovereign individual and his or her inherit freedoms--regardless of outward distinctions, limitations, or circumstances--has provided a clear call to my pro-living platform that will prove impossible to shake.

The Declaration of Independence, that enduring document that defines individual freedom civilly, states that all men (humankind) are created, not born equal.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Is there a difference between human life and a human being? That’s where we’ll go next.