College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students Jobs and internships for students -

Abortion debate wrongly focused

For a more productive abortion debate, perhaps we need to reframe the question.

Published: Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Updated: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 02:03

The ever-raging abortion debate has made numerous headlines recently because of the near-constant protests by pro-life groups outside the Madison Surgery Center. As an avid proponent of a woman’s right to choose, I always react to these demonstrations with anger and disgust. Nothing is more insulting and disrespectful to the women who have made this difficult and emotional choice than crowds spitting misnomers like “murder” and holding poster boards displaying pictures of aborted fetuses. Just thinking about it infuriates me.

However, the pro-life crowd always spouts one fact that rings true: Life begins at conception. The pro-choice side of the debate often attempts to contend this point, citing experts on fetal nervous system development who valiantly try to hammer out at just what point the fetus can be considered truly “alive.” However, these explanations are truly in vain and ultimately weaken the pro-choice argument, instead of strengthening it.

The scientific definition of “life” does not require cognition or extensive nerve development, or even a recognizable fetus. Most biology textbooks give a definition of “life” describing an organism that engages in metabolism and reproduction (or cell division). Therefore this definition excludes things like viruses, which, though they possess genetic material, lack the ability to perform metabolism or reproduce outside of a host cell. However, the cell formed at conception fits cleanly and inarguably into the basic scientific definition of a living organism. At human conception, a sperm cell and an egg cell merge to form a zygote, a single cell with a completely unique genome. This zygote is capable of all of the functions that classify an organism as “alive,” so it must follow that the pro-life insistence that “life begins at conception” is true. Certainly this zygote only resembles a human life in its genome, because physically, it likely looks exactly like the zygote of a cat or a dog or a dolphin. However, this does not exclude it from the category of “living” organisms.
The real question then is: How relevant is this? Does the fact that life does, and indeed must, begin at conception make the pro-life side correct?

Of course not. The classification of a human zygote as “alive” has absolutely no bearing on the question of whether a woman should possess the right to exert control over her own body. This fact is a distraction, harnessed by the pro-life side of the debate, to try to make their argument seem more legitimate. However, the fact that the zygote is indeed alive should not affect a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her own body.

Dwelling upon the classification of the zygote as alive or not alive is an endeavor that the pro-choice side should abandon quickly. Rather, we must reconcile ourselves with the fact that, by definition, an abortion terminates a life, and specifically, a human life. This unfortunate fact does not negate the validity of the pro-choice argument by any means.

By jumping on the false issue of the definition of “alive,” we on the pro-choice side are losing sight of the real issue: the need to keep the control of women’s bodies in their own hands. We must focus our attention on the more important matter of maintaining women’s rights and avoid giving credence to the contrived debate over the definition of “life.”

Alyssa Lochen is a senior majoring in zoology and Spanish. We welcome all responses. Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com. 

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

17 comments

Amy
Tue May 25 2010 21:48
I appreciate your honesty. The real issue in the abortion debate is this: When is it morally acceptable to end a human life? I think we can safely say that it is acceptable to kill in the case of "self defense." After that, the logic becomes a bit fuzzy, and the justifications a bit murky.
What about consent of the victim? Can I end the life of a consenting human? Can I end the life of a non-consenting human?
What about the control of my own body? My body has rarely been under my own control. I recently cared for two helpless, dependent, comatose, cancer suffering in-laws in my home. I was unable to sleep, unable to relax, unable to care for my own health. I gained weight, developed shingles, and had a serious anxiety attack. I ended up in the hospital after exhausting myself. There was no way for me to control my body, as finances would not allow it and I would be legally negligent if I left the house with them still in it. I could have been arrested if their care suffered.
I must also say, that controlling my body since the birth of my children has also been impossible. I am tied to their care, and this drains me physically and emotionally. But I would not trade that, and neither would any other mother. But if I did choose to neglect them, I would be charged criminally.
The truth is, we are in control of our own bodies only as long as we can care for ourselves without harming those in our care. For example, if I took a much needed nap and my toddler got out of the house and got ran over by a car, there would be no sympathy for my "physical needs" and the need to "control my own body."
My husband does not control his own body. He works 80 hours a week to provide for his family. If not for those of us who are dependent upon his use of his body for us, we would get evicted and starve. A man never has a "choice" to control his body as it concerns a child, he is obligated to subjugate his body and his person to provide for that child or face "deadbeat" charges, even if he did not want the child.
I do have the control of my fertility, however. I have only had four "unprotected" sexual encounters in my entire life, and became pregnant three of those times. The rest of the time, I used the pill. Hey, works great. I recommend it.
In any case, I do not agree that the moral right to "control my body" extends into the realm of ending another life that is in my care, be it a child or an old person dying of cancer.
So, we need to find a better argument. Can you find one?
Anonymous
Tue Apr 20 2010 00:35
All these zygote, virus, alive or not alive, scientific logic arguments are simplistic and ignorant in regards to the abortion issue. The complexities of the argument go way beyond that. Religion, ethics, moral values and science all play a part. When you get right down to it, the right to perform or the responsibility not to perform an abortion comes down to each and every individual situation. One binding law WILL NEVER cover everyone in every situation. So everyone please get off your high and snubbish moralistic pedistals and join the real world where nothing is black and white.
Anonymous
Sat Apr 17 2010 13:24
"Keeping women's bodies in their own hands?" This is a logical fallacy of begging the question. You haven't shown the non personhood of the fetus you simply assume such. I don't recall an agreement to the equivocation of terminology.
Granny
Fri Mar 12 2010 15:14
I applaud the author for her courage to tackle the difficult complexities of this issue. All the Logic 101 and science text book definitions of "alive" vs. "life" are beside the point. It seems that some of you have fallen down the rabbit hole, for the zygotes in question are quite clearly not dead, and I believe that was the author's point. The question is, and always will be, one of rights vs. doing what is right. Do not be deceived by the simplicity of that statement. I submit that since the latter is inextricable from each unique and highly personal, subjective context, the only just position in this land-of-the-free is to defer to the mother. In my experience, of the 8 women I have known who have had abortions, none of them came to this decision lightly, nor was "control over their bodies" the first thing on their minds. In reality, most of them felt weak and voiceless themselves. All of them were sad, but, being unsupported for any other choice, relieved as well. That terrible conflict still haunts a couple of them. Yet for another woman in particular, a stranger-rape victim, relief only begins to describe it. There is no clean way to define ourselves out of this. M MD, you will have to make your peace with that idea because I guarantee that you will be faced with letting a life go sometime in your career. It is one of those issues that leaves everybody with dirty hands, including you two, Steve and Adam. Unless you can honestly say, upon close inspection of your own lives, that you have not also aided and abetted "murder" in some form, whether it was fast or slow, then blithering on about the sanctity of life is just so much hot air. You'll be entitled to your "shock" when you have adopted a baby, fed the poor, walked a woman all the way home at night, protested a war, spoken out about the death penalty, boycotted goods made at risk to the workers who produced them, babysat for a single mom, volunteered at a hospice, the list goes on! Get busy boys, and then maybe your outrage will have some credibility. In the end, this issue is not about sanitized definitions of convenience for the pro-choicers nor about the audacious luxuries of ideology for the pro-lifers. It's about what happens in REAL life to GOOD people and it's about minding your own damn business unless you came to help!
Follow your own logic
Fri Mar 12 2010 10:59
Media imitating life. Pro-lifers making incongruent logic, and changing the dialogue to off-topic generalizations when the flaws in their arguments become apparent.

Alyssa's article infers:
1. Organisms which lack the ability to perform metabolism or reproduce outside of a host cell are not 'alive.'
2. Viruses lack the ability to perform metabolism or reproduce outside of a host cell.
3. Therefore, viruses are not 'alive.'

When you plug an embryo into said logic...
1. Organisms which lack the ability to perform metabolism or reproduce outside of a host cell are not 'alive.'
2. Embryos lack the ability to perform metabolism or reproduce outside of a host cell.
3. Therefore, embryos are not 'alive.'

Adam
Thu Mar 11 2010 18:15
Media imitating life. The pro-lifers who are commenting are trying to argue and present facts (as the author also presented facts on why a zygote is a life) peacefully, and the pro-aborts come rude and harsh. The future abortion provider turning his argument into how masturbation is the loss of millions of potential lives, when having intercourse millions of sperm are released with only one being lucky enough to fertilize (thus, still millions of wasted potential), should stick to the debate at hand. And "logical" telling the author to "stfu" and alluding to her insanity. Sounds exactly like what happens in front of the MSC and other abortion locations, where the pro-lifers are peaceful and the pro-aborts are rude and trying to change the topic.
Follow your own logic
Thu Mar 11 2010 14:24
H, MD for president. Alyssa, you're clearly making the argument that viruses lack two abilities necessary to the semantics of life, and inferring this logic to embryos. Why else would you make that random statement in the middle of this article.

If you can't even follow the logic of your own reasoning, stfu about MY body.

One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.

Alyssa Lochen
Thu Mar 11 2010 09:10
No, that's not how I intended to define it at all. The second definition was only meant to apply to viruses, not zygotes. It was a simple error of sentence structure.
H, MD
Wed Mar 10 2010 23:45
Sure, if you want to define life in that manor, then the zygote can most certainly be considered "alive."

You, however, defined it as both "an organism that engages in metabolism and reproduction (or cell division)" AND "the ability to perform metabolism or reproduce outside of a host cell." A zygote cannot live outside of a host (medical school has enforced that fact very extensively, and I'm sure you can chat about with any other doc you know, too, since that point seems to have been brushed over in your zoo classes). I don't contend that a zygote cannot ever be considered to be "alive"; rather, it cannot be considered "alive" by the definition you articulated and argued here. Certainly, if you consider a diploid cell to define life, then a fetus is definitely a life. Unfortunately, you did not articulate your argument as such.

As a future abortion provider, I do appreciate the sentiment of the article, but misarticulated arguments only hinder a cause, not help it.

Alyssa Lochen
Wed Mar 10 2010 18:18
Sorry H, but you're wrong. A zygote is a diploid cell, and the cell is very widely considered to be the smallest unit of life. Therefore, a zygote is alive.

Ben, you're absolutely correct, and you bring up an important issue (which I thought about addressing but ultimately thought would make the article too lengthy): that is, that abortion is unfortunate, sad, and a very difficult choice for many women. The gravity of the situation often gets lost in the debate, but it shouldn't be forgotten. Thanks for bringing that up.

H, MD
Wed Mar 10 2010 17:37
The author's own statements completely disprove her claim that a fetus is a living organism. By her definition, a virus cannot be considered "living" because they "lack the ability to perform metabolism or reproduce outside of a host cell". A zygote possesses these exact characteristics. A zygote cannot survive outside of the host until 5+ months into the pregnancy. Until this point, it completely "lack[s] the ability to perform metabolism or reproduce outside of a host cell", and even after this point it cannot do so without extensive aid of machines and assistance. Embryos are parasitic in nature; they suppress the woman's immune system so she can't fight against it, it releases substances that breakdown the wall of the uterus so that it can embed itself, and proceeds to leach nutrients from the host while releasing its own hormones and altering hers to control its environment. Yet, despite all these incredible abilities that it possesses, it still cannot support itself outside of the uterus until the latter half of the gestation period.

Clearly, then, a zygote absolutely is NOT alive. It cannot survive on its own at the time of most terminations. Therefore, it is NOT murder. I completely agree that women deserve control over their own bodies, just like men -- how many times have you boys all jacked off? Those are thousands of wasted potential lives you flush down the toilet every time! And what about all those times you bought a drink for your girlfriend within three weeks of having sex? Exposure to alcohol during this time will terminate the pregnancy before you even realized she was pregnant at all -- think about all those "murders" you're responsible for!

Abortion may or may not be what you would choose, for a variety of reasons. But let's all get the facts, the proven science, straight. If we are going to define life as the ability to survive, to engage in metabolic activity and cell division outside of a host cell, then ZYGOTES ARE NOT "ALIVE." They are, by that definition, just like a virus.

As far as the "every life deserves a chance" argument, the majority of fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus, or self-abort early in the pregnancy due to numerous conditions, including the aforementioned exposure to alcohol. If every conception deserves a chance, then these women, and the men who buy them drinks, etc, are all guilty of "murder"; considering these women vastly outnumber those who seek medical abortions, you should probably start targeting them so all those potential babies get their fair chance too. Those women and men are clearly far more guilty of seeking to "subject the weak to the strong" as mentioned in another comment. That's quite the Holocaust they're all engaged in, yikes!

Anonymous
Wed Mar 10 2010 16:27
If the true reason that abortion should be allowed is that women should have the right to exert control over their own body, the I believe the pro choice argument is actually weakened. Women can exert control over their own body by using a condom- not only to prevent unwanted pregnancy but also to prevent STD's.
Anonymous
Wed Mar 10 2010 12:45
abortion is the definition of selfish murder. period. sorry!
Ben
Wed Mar 10 2010 11:47
I disagree with Adam's portrayal of the typical woman seeking an abortion. It is an evasive and unpleasant procedure, and I have yet to meet a woman who would lightly seek an abortion as a backup form of birth control. His comments trivializes what a woman has to go through when deciding whether or not to get an abortion. Also, I was also offended by his statement about women taking responsibilities over their bodies. There was no mention of the responsibility of the men in the woman's life. Just because women carry the sole physical burden of an unintended pregnancy does not make them the only ones responsible. I have a hard time believing anybody (especially men) can sincerely make comments like this after even imagining what it must feel like to have an unintended or life-threatening pregnancy and have to choose between abortion or pregnancy and delivery. I know I can't.

Abortion is already a difficult enough decision that it should be a personal choice, not one to be made by others. The pro-choice/life debate will be much more rational if both pro-choice and pro-lifers stopped trivializing the difficulty of the decision to go through the pain and suffering of delivering the baby (at risk of one's life) or going through an abortion.

Personally, I think that deaths due to malnutrition is a much greater travesty in this world, and should be addressed first.

Anonymous
Wed Mar 10 2010 09:31
I agree, whether or not a fetus is "alive" is not an issue- it is very clear. The issue is whether it is a person, or has rights as a person.

However, it seems disingenuous to criticize those standing up for their beliefs through peaceful and calm protests. Admittedly, the pro-life side has in the past taken things way to far, up to radicals bombing medical areas where abortions take place. But the people on the corner of Regent and Park that I have seen over the last two weeks have not been disrupting anyone.

In addition, in what I have seen, they have been protesting solely against late-term abortion, which to me is a separate issue. If we assume that a woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy late in the third trimester, I still do not believe she has a right to destroy the fetus. Once it is viable, the woman may have the right to her own body and to end her pregnancy, but the doctor should have responsibility for the life or potential for life that is the fetus. There is a difference between having the right to end the pregnancy and having the right to destroy the fetus, and I believe the second is clearly wrong.

Adam
Wed Mar 10 2010 09:29
Wow. At first I was reading a pro-choicer correctly argue that life begins at conception, and thought I had died and gone to heaven. But then I continued reading, and to see that even though the fact has been proven that life begins at conception, to still say that it should be okay to kill that life completely shocked me (okay, it wasn't really a surprise). Pro-choicers have continued to deny the fact that a zygote/fetus/unborn child should be protected for decades. Women claim they should be allowed to keep control of their own bodies, yet if they are not ready to have children but continue to live in a way in which becoming pregnant is a possibility, they really have no control to begin with. Birth control is never guaranteed, but people think it is a fail-safe. But when the fail-safe fails, people turn to abortion as the next best alternative. But really, abortion has become so popular because of the lack of control that women have over themselves, and denying themselves the fact that if they are going to put themselves in a situation in which a pregnancy could occur, they should take responsibility and control of their own life, and the life of their child, to allow it to be born. Whether you keep the child after birth or give it up for adoption, EVERY life deserves a chance.
Steve
Wed Mar 10 2010 07:59
In admitting that a fetus, embryo or zygotate is a living human being, you admit the real ideology held by proponents of "choice": that it is acceptable to subject the weak and voiceless to the will of those with more strength.

Thus, the pro-choice movement follows in the same ideological and intellectual lineage of other movements that sought to subject the weak to the strong: , slavery, the Holocaust, Apartheid, etc.







log out