Lacey Slizeski

Philosophy 1120 Section 4

Professor Izrailevsky
December 1, 2016
The Beginning of Human Life
1. When does life begin? When do we as a society determine that a human life has begun,
and is to be valued as a sentient being rather than just a congealed mass of cells. When
does a person become a person? This is a major concern that needs to be pinned down
before discussing the moral implications of abortion.
(a) A person's understanding of life and what constitutes personhood, or sentience, is
usually defined by either scientific doctrine or religious teaching. And sometimes
a combination of the two.
(b) Major religions differ on the specific moment a fetus becomes a person. In Jewish
sacred literature, a fetus in the womb is considered a human life under
construction. The soul is usually described as arriving when the first breath is
taken at birth. The combining of a particular soul with the particular body it
enters, results in a particular and distinct individual human being. The soul
entering the flesh is considered the point where life begins.
i. According to the muslim faith, the soul enters the fetus at around 120 days,
or 4 months from conception. Religious scholars have based this timeline
on a Quranic verse and multiple Hadith or Islamic teachings. These
doctrines state that, Each one of us is constituted in the womb of the
mother for forty days, and then becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar
period, and then a piece of flesh for a similar period. Then Allah sends an
angel who breathes our own personal soul into us.
ii. A Hindu or Buddhist or Sikh might say what do you mean when does life

begin? When does life end? We are all in a cycle of reincarnation, and life
is made up of infinite momentary spans. Circles within circles within
circles.
2. However, if you choose to adopt a Christian perspective like the majority of religious
people in America, then you would contend that life begins at conception.
3. This view makes it much more difficult to justify any pregnancy's termination in terms of
moral philosophy, since many moral philosopher's have an aversion to limiting any other
living persons freedom. Most also are especially opposed to limiting an individual's
freedom through the use of violence.
(a) John Rawls and John Stuart Mill both said that a person should have unlimited
individual freedom, as long as they dont impinge upon the freedoms of another.
(b) Mill says that freedom does not apply to children, inside or outside of the womb,
in the same way that it applies to adults. Instead, in his view, children are
supposed to be protected. So his opinion on abortion would be very dependent on
whether a fertilized egg counts as a child. Or whether or not you adopt the
christian view. If it is not a person or child yet, then morally we should not inhibit
the individual freedom of the mother by dictating the choices she makes regarding
her own body. If the fetus is a child, then it should be given protections.
4. What does science say? In the realm of scientific thought, the definition of personhood
centers around the idea of viability. Viability does not necessarily imply sentience, since
we have no scientific way to determine that before a certain point. It merely means that a
fetal body could maintain biological independence. A fetus is viable when it is capable of
living outside of the mothers body.
(a) Over the past 30 years, viability has been continuously pushed up earlier and
earlier in the course of a pregnancy. Technological advancements have developed

medicines and machines which help assist a fetus' pulmonary, digestive, and
circulatory systems that aren't fully developed.
(b) Today, the survival rate of a premature baby at 23 weeks is only about ten
percent, and if the child lives, complications are so common that more than half of
the children will live with permanent disabilities. At 24 weeks the chance of a
fetal extraction producing a healthy child is about fifty percent, and complications
are still probable. Still 24 weeks is the current accepted point of fetal viability.
i. This is contrary to the medical data used in the Supreme Court's Roe v
Wade case in 1973, that implied that a fetus was not legally viable until 28
weeks.
ii. If science keeps developing, hypothetically the point of viability will
occur earlier and earlier. What implications does this have for abortion
during the second trimester? Where do we draw the line? Does the
development of brain function and its correlation with sentience need to
take more of a precedent as the age of viability keeps getting pushed back?
1. And why does it matter when personhood or life starts at all? Nietzsche contended that
our Western society is failing because of our weakness. Feminist values like care, love,
and unconditional sacrifice are ruining our world. Nietzsche argued that feminism and
Christianity are cultures that glorify the weak. Claiming that we need to extend
personhood and rights to a fetus at all stages of development is a great example of that
feminist mentality at work. Who is more vulnerable and weak than an organism that is
literally and utterly dependent on its host to survive?
(a) Someone who would subvert their own freedom for another, whether that entity is a
person or a mass of cells is the epitome of der untermensch (the under man). They are
a weak, soft, complacent, family type.

(b) Ayn Rand would also reject the idea of abortion as a moral issue.
i. Since a moral agent always has to have her personal interest as the fundamental
priority, the interests of an offspring should not be a primary concern, or even a
factor.
ii. Although Rand rejects violence as a viable means of promoting your own self
interest, she does allow for violence as self defense. If a fetus is in fact entitled to
personhood, I think she would view self defense as the appropriate framing for an
abortion.
iii. As indicated in Judith Jarvis Thomson's violinist example, it cannot seriously be
thought of as murder if the mother gets an abortion to save her life. In the violinist
example and in Ayn Rand's calculations, when comparing the fetal life to the
mothers, we must add to the mother's right to life her right to decide what happens
in and to her body. Therefore the sum of her rights now outweighs the fetus's right
to life.
iv. Both Nietzsche and Rand would be most concerned about the economic and
societal implications of the predominant Christian view.
6. If we define personhood as every human being from the moment of fertilization, then we
need to look at the practical complications that will arise.
(a) If we base laws or moral codes around a definition of personhood that is so broad, it
will affect a woman's ability to get the morning-after pill, or even birth
control/contraceptives that keep eggs from implanting.
i. It could make in vitro fertilization treatments more difficult because it would be
murder to dispose of the unused fertilized eggs.

ii. It could even mean women are condemned for the natural functioning of their
bodies. Since fifty percent of all fertilized eggs are sloughed off from the woman's
uterus within 2 weeks, women could be charged with negligence or manslaughter
simply for allowing nature to take its course.
(b) The progress of Medicine and science would also be impacted. No research could be done on
zygotes or embryos, since it would be considered non-consensual human testing.
iii. Under current standards, we draw the line for allowing medical research on a
fertilized embryo at 14 days. 14 days is when the embryos determine whether they
are singular or twins, and the Primitive streak develops. This is the shadow of the
spine that appears and gives symmetry and basic order to the cell bundle. This 2
weeks guideline was set in 1979, when the science was still young, and no
embryo had been cultured past day 7.
iv. Now we have found the right chemical cocktail to nurture embryos for longer
than 2 weeks, but we don't allow ourselves to study this important period in
human development because of the ethical ramifications
v. We can't take pictures of embryos in the womb until after 3 weeks, so we are
left with a gaping void in our knowledge of human development. So far no
scientist has seen what is happening in our cells during these crucial moments.
vi. What would Nietzsche think of us stifling that innovation? What would Rand
think of that kind of restriction of individual economic and cultural capacities?
7. Philosopher Emmanuel Levinas would spearhead a different conceptualization of the abortion
discussion.
(a) For Levinas it wouldn't matter is you were Muslim and believed the soul is imparted at 120
days, or if you were Jewish and believed the soul was inhaled while drawing your first breath

outside the womb.

(b) What would matter is whether or not you felt an intuitive connection to the fetus while it was
still developing inside the mother's body. Whether this entity was your other and in your mind
it was person enough to fulfill that role.
i. It would matter if you feel responsibility for this other, and his or her well-being.
And if this responsibility made your life meaningful.
ii. If so, then you would be expected to treat this responsibility as the foundation of
your morality.
iii. In Levinas' moral view you become a hostage to the other. Being hostage means
having extreme dedication to them, and willingness to sacrifice your self interest
for them. If you don't feel hostage to that particular other, represented by a
growing fetus, than you have no moral obligation to subvert your own self interest
for theirs.
When considering how to weigh the ethical dilemma of abortion, we must first decide
whether abortion is a moral issue at all. In my estimation, it only becomes a moral issue if the
entity being evacuated from a woman's body is considered a person. This is not to contend that
an embryo is not a human being biologically. However biological humanness and personhood are
different. You can look at any lump of flesh cut from a body and label it human, but without
certain characteristics and traits you would never claim it was a full person. If we allow for any
conglomeration of human cells to be considered a person, the willful destruction of those cells
becomes an act of murder. If a fertilized egg or embryo only becomes a person at some later
point in its development, then before that point destroying an embryo is not murder. Assigning
the same level of immorality to destroying a mass of cells as we do to killing a human being is
illogical. The morality, immorality, or amorality of an abortion depends entirely on our
conception of what constitutes a human life.