In light of last week's "Pro-life: a fetal incoherence," I'd like to take this opportunity to express an atypical pro-life argument. It is not that fetuses are "almost human beings," but rather the fact that they are future human beings that gives them value.
For the sake of my atypical pro-life argument, unborn babies (embryos, fetuses, etc.) are not human beings. They are no more human beings than bacterial infections or flowers. Yet I take penicillin and pick dandelions in left field, so what is it about fetuses that are different?
In the field of developmental biology, fascinating research revolves around the manipulation of determined cells and resultant phenotypic anomalies in the adult organism. It is not considered immoral to experiment on fruit flies and sea urchins because they are not human, while there is a general consensus in the scientific community that it is unethical to perform a harmful experiment on a human being.
Interestingly enough, it is considered unethical to manipulate human embryos. This appears to be inconsistent with the pro-choice argument. If a fetus is not a life, we should be able to do whatever we want to it. If we terminate it, we should be able to manipulate it. If an embryo is not a human being, scientists should be able to move cells around and observe what happens. If we could perform such procedures, leaps and bounds would be made in embryology overnight. So why can't we exchange some embryonic cells and observe a child growing up with arms coming out of its back? It would be outrageous to cause a human such suffering.
So my pro-life argument is that while a fetus is not a human life, it is indeed a future human life. Ethical issues surrounding developmental biological procedures suggest we do indeed value future human life. What about sperm and eggs? Separate from each other, the two have no chance of becoming a human being. But at the moment of conception when a zygote is formed, the rapidly changing conglomeration of cells has the potential to be a human being. If scientists are unable to experiment with human gastrulas because we value their normal future, the fetus should not be terminated either.
That's my argument, and I don't expect one member of the pro-choice movement to change his or her mind, just as "Pro-life: a fetal incoherence" probably did not change the mind of any pro-lifers. We all grew up being taught that one way or the other was right. At some point in our lives we made a decision to close our minds to the other side. For example, the following conversation took place between a classmate and myself. I presented the same argument as above.
Me: But if it is currently not alive, and you can kill or terminate the cells than you should be able to do whatever you want to it.
Classmate: Yeah, but in the future it won't be normal.
Me: So you're admitting we value future human life? It won't live a normal life if we terminate it either.
Classmate: I guess, I just still believe a woman should be able to choose up to some point.
Me: Do you see the contradiction in your argument?
Classmate: I agree with you, it makes sense, I just don't agree; you should be able to choose up to a certain point.
Me: That doesn't make sense.
Classmate: I know.
Me: Well as long as you understand the irrational nature of your argument.
Classmate: People are irrational...
So my advice to both sides, as much as it pains me to say it: Stop trying to convince the other side. Our beliefs are often in sharp contradiction to the edicts of cold reason, leaving us too philosophically prejudiced to come to any logical consensus. Writing letters to the editor commenting on Zach Linhart's latest creation or solving the mystery of why the shower temperatures in the Tower are capable of changing up to 40 degrees in under a second may be more productive. Although it may be impossible to change the mind of the other side, I hope this offers a less than typical defense for the "pro-lifers" to any onlookers who are still undecided.
Brian Lockhart is a member of the class of 2008.