Related Ideas

Review these ideas and then use the BACK key on your browser to go back to the page you were on.

Some writers believe that the crucial question is whether the embryo is alive, whether it is human, or whether it possesses human life. In defense of their answer, they usually describe the complex physical structure of the very young embryo, its genetic makeup, and so on.

Other writers believe that these questions do not capture the moral issue with which we are concerned. They agree that the embryo is alive, that it is a human embryo, and that it is a form of human life. But they claim that the dispute is not about these biological issues. Instead, they believe that the main question concerns the moral status of the embryo or fetus. To get to the moral issues, they believe we must talk about personhood, value, and individual rights. What do you think?

Here are some properties that you might use to define 'person':

  • Having 46 human chromosomes
  • Being conscious
  • Experiencing pleasure and pain
  • Having wants, needs, and desires
  • Having interests
  • Being self-conscious or conscious of oneself as a subject
  • Being able to reason in fairly complex ways
  • Being able to use language
  • Having memories connected with oneself and knowing it
  • Being able to think about one's life as a whole and plan it
  • Having a soul
  • Being made in the image of God
  • Having the potential for some or all of the above

You may choose to develop and defend a definition of a person. Why did you use the properties you did? You should also show how your definition applies to an embryo, a fetus, and an infant.

It might not be necessary to have a formal definition of a person at this point. That depends on the overall position you develop on abortion. If, for example, you could identify one feature that a being must have in order to be a person, and if you could show that the embryo did not have that feature, then you could conclude that it is not a person.

Remember this: It won't do to arbitrarily define 'person' in such a way that the embryo fits or doesn't fit. You must be able to supply reasons why others should accept your definition. To support your definition, you might look at the way we use the word and, starting with agreed upon cases, conclude that a definition must contain, or exclude, certain elements. (For example, a definition that excluded adults who could not talk would be unacceptable.) Then decide whether the embryo qualifies.

However you define 'person' it may not immediately imply that all persons (or some particular group of persons) have certain rights. That may require further argument.

You might try to resolve the question by defining any being with 46 human chromosomes as "human life". (This is the popular definition used by John and Barbara Willke in their writings.) This would include the embryo, but it would leave open the ethical questions at issue: (1) What rights, if any, does the embryo or fetus have? (2) What rights, if any, do all or some persons or human beings have? We need some general notions about moral rights to help us here. (It is not clear that counting chromosomes will be of much value, but you are free to use such facts if you can incorporate them in an ethical argument.)

Reference: Anti-abortion writers often rely on physiological facts about the embryo when building their arguments. For a detailed description of the human zygote and embryo, written from an anti-abortion point of view, see E. Blechschmidt's article "Human Being from the Very First" in the Hilgers, Horan, and Mall anthology.

You can find arguments intended to show that these biological facts are insufficient to decide the moral issues in Mary Warren's article in the Baird and Feinberg anthologies or in Joan Callahan's article in Baird.