Michelle Wolf, made famous for her ‘comedy’ routine last year at the White house Correspondents’ Dinner, has doubled down. In one of her episode’s of The Break, she makes a truly incorrigible attempt at defending abortions. At one point in the comedy routine she even exclaims, “God bless abortions and God bless America” while sporting her patriotic outfit. While invoking God’s blessing was probably meant only as a jab at Christians and Conservatives, it was perhaps only her 2nd largest blunder of the evening. In another portion of her show she claims, “Look, access to abortion is good and important,” Wolf claims. “Some people say abortion is killing a baby. It’s not. It’s stopping a baby from happening”.
There is one fatal flaw with that comment. It is important to point out where the crux of the whole abortion argument really lies or at least her argument. The focal point lies on how to define personhood, more clearly, at what point exactly does the child in the womb become a person? Is it at the point of conception? When a heartbeat is detected inside of the womb? Perhaps when the child becomes viable outside of the womb? While there may be many on the left who claim personal autonomy (E.g. The woman’s right to choose what happens to her body) is the sole reasoning needed for abortion, personhood contests that claimed fact. If a child in the womb is a person, that child’s right to live trumps the woman’s right to bodily choice as the child is a separate human being.
So, it would seem a clear distinction must be drawn on where exactly human life begins. It is traditionally the argument of Conservative’s and Christian’s that life begins at conception and it is the inverse argument of Liberals that life begins somewhere further down the line. We are building to a sort of climax – what does science have to say about when life begins?
There are many milestones within the womb which point to a child being alive, at around 3-4 weeks after conception modern medical technology can detect a heartbeat.¹ While a pregnant woman is unable to feel movement of the child in the womb till later, the child begins to move independently around 6 weeks post-conception.² However, no one is arguing that the child (Fetus would be the appropriate term for liberals to use) is not alive. It is obvious that the embryo within the womb possesses life. What really lies at stake is when personhood begins. When does the life that is in the womb pass from just being alive to a person?
It is very difficult for the left to point to a certain place or time when they believe personhood begins. For a moment let us indulge the left and pretend that the fetus is not a person. What is it then? Well, at the very least the fetus is some sort of potential human life. It does not seem very radical to argue or believe that a potential human life should be protected with vigor. The road becomes incredibly slippery when a pro-choice advocate tries to place a time stamp on when personhood begins. It is important to note that this is really a question that science is not able to answer. Science can certainly answer the question of where life begins, but as pointed out the real issue lies with personhood. Personhood is a question best answered as a metaphysical endeavor and not a scientific one. Ultimately, there are many who will posit that those in the womb are not deserving of personhood. The goal of those in favor of denying personhood to children should be to locate non-negotiable criteria for personhood. Then, they will ultimately include all those who are obviously persons and exclude those who they believe are not (The unborn).
Often, the claim that the unborn are less developed leads Pro-Choice advocates to claim that abortion is morally acceptable. One could receive various answers as to when a fetus becomes a person: viability outside of the womb, when the child breathes its first, etc. Most of their claims will rely upon some point of development for the fetus; namely meeting some criteria of development. It is obvious that an unborn child is less developed then an adult human. What is unclear, is how that disqualifies an unborn child from being given person status. For example, a 6-year-old girl can’t have a child because she is biologically unable to give birth. However, that does not disqualify the 6-year-old from holding personhood. The 6-year-old is obviously just as valuable as a woman who can give birth. The unborn child is less developed then the 6-year-old, but that has no bearing on the unborn having value. The unborn child should be viewed as having the same value as the 6-year-old.
These criteria are usually arbitrary, for example, Dependency. Pro-Choice advocates claim that since an unborn child is dependent upon the mother for life it does not qualify for personhood. Toddlers and newborns still rely entirely upon their mothers, yet no one is questioning the personhood of an infant. Just because an unborn depends upon a mother does not make it acceptable to end its life. Killing newborns, Alzheimer patients, and other dependents would be acceptable if you follow pro-choice logic on abortion. Often, in this specific vein of discussion some claim that the unborn is a “parasite”. There is one glaring issue with that claim; parasites find hosts unwillingly and leach off their resources. Whereas unborn children are placed willingly in the womb by the choice of the mother to have unprotected sex. That child in the womb certainly does not meet the criteria of being a parasite.
Pro-Choice advocates will argue that exiting the womb magically transfers personhood. The environment of the child or anyone for that matter has no bearing on personhood. Obviously, the unborn child is located in a different environment then an adult. An astronaut who is in orbit above earth retains his or her personhood. No one could deny his personhood based on him/her being in a radically different environment from the average human. Changing your environment cannot change your status as a human being. Neither can moving 7 inches through the birth canal turn a life with no value into a life with value. Location is not a good measurement of personhood.
Yet, the question has not been answered on when exactly personhood begins. Being alive is not at question, no one would argue that a child in the womb is not alive. Concerning a fetus, it is obviously biologically a human. Therefore, the pro-choice advocate must make a distinction between human beings and persons. Namely, they must claim that fetuses are humans but lack the requirements to be a person.
Another common thread hidden within pro-choice reasoning is the concept of functionalism. Functionalism is the attempt to define a person by how they function or behave. This type of definition is helpful within the scientific field so as to accurately predict and experiment. This concept is not nearly as relevant as reason and common sense when dealing with issues outside of the hard sciences, which leads to poor decision-making concerning morality. There is a huge difference between who a person is and how a person behaves, between being a person and functioning as a person.
It is impossible for a person to function as a person if they are not a person. However, someone can be a person without functioning as one. For example, if one is in a coma or deep sleep – or infanthood – it is almost universally recognized that they are humans despite the lack of reason or language. The function we have as persons can be an obvious sign that we are persons. However, the mistake that functionalism makes is confusing this concept of functioning as a human being as the only criteria that makes one a person. There is more value to humans then their ability to function, value can be found in the nature and essence of being human. Humans have souls and that gives an undefinable value. Functionalists are confusing the smoke with the fire, attributing the smoke to be the only point of importance and totally disregarding the fire as being important.
As already stated, functionalists identify humans as being persons only if they function according to their criteria. What is it that makes one function well enough to meet the criteria of personhood? This line is drawn by those who possess the power to enforce their will. When it is the desire of those in power to kill the innocent, they simply need to define them as not possessing personhood. Nazi’s did it to six million Jews and abortion advocates to do it to children in the womb. Humankind constantly reminds us of the evil it is capable of, one simply needs to turn on the news. Given that humans are tinted with evil, the decision to abort children becomes easy – especially when it is based upon self-interest.
Kreeft outlines three major reasons why this functionalism is so dangerous: 1. It is demeaning to human dignity in that it treats humans like trained dogs, 2. It is elitist in nature, it punishes those who are less than perfect, and 3. It is a power play that is attempting to use sleight of hand to rationalize the act of abortion. Why do doctors kill babies in the womb and not the reverse? Simply, doctors have the ability to use power to end lives in the womb. If babies possessed scalpels, suction devices, and poisons, abortion would be viewed very differently.3 Simply, defining a human being as functioning only when certain criteria are met is dangerous.
A patient in a coma is not doing anything radically different from what a fetus is. Yet, that patient is granted personhood because it looks different and meets certain physical criteria (fully formed, etc). Despite this hypothetical patient being devoid of higher brain function; not possessing logic or reason, in this functionalistic approach it would be totally acceptable to kill the coma patient because he/she lacks mental functioning ability. This truly shows the inconsistency of this functionalistic approach, it makes it acceptable to kill anyone who does not function within certain criteria. It just seems that the only people who get killed are those who cannot defend themselves – the unborn.
So, if functioning as a human is not the way to define personhood, what is? It is obvious that there are multiple facets to personhood – a physical body, consciousness and use of logic, etc. Not being fully developed does not subtract from one’s personhood, as discussed earlier. Being a human only minutes after conception or being an 80 year old human is irrelevant – both are persons. What then makes one human besides the possession of a physical body in some stage of development? A pro-choice advocate would claim a fetus is only a potential person. However, it must actually be something in order to be a potential person. What then is a potential person, to use the vocabulary of pro-choice advocates? That term is logically inconsistent, because there are no potential persons any more than there are potential horses. All persons, no matter their stage of development or level of mental cognition are persons. Actual horses are potential gallopers, and actual persons are potential teachers. The being is actual, whereas the functioning is potential. The confusion arises when a potential person is mistaken for a potentially functioning person; again, functionalism rears its ugly head.
Being a human at any stage of development makes one a human. Evidenced by the earlier discussion that a human being is just as human when an infant or young child as an adult. Mental cognition is again not the best identifier of personhood, because those who are in a coma or asleep do not have conscious mental cognition. When one looks at the main arguments of pro-choice advocates, they are usually arguing on the basis of bodily development or mental cognition. When one argues that bodily development and mental cognition are the end all in personhood argumentation, we have shown that a large segment of the population would not meet those criteria. That means if you cannot apply it across the spectrum on born people then it is unfair to apply it to the unborn. When the two arguments using development and mental cognition are seen through the pro-choice worldview, that unborn are only potential persons, it is obvious that their criteria cannot be fully applied across all humans because it would include the right to kill people who do not meet their criteria (Those in comas, etc).
Human beings, no matter their level of cognition of development are humans because there is no such thing as being potentially a person – all humans are persons. Michelle Wolf is pushing a viewpoint that does not treat humans as human, and would do good to change her ideas.4
- Keith Moore, T.V.N. Persaud, and Mark Torchia; The Developing Human, 10th Edition: Clinically Oriented Embryology, (Saunders), 2015.
- Development,http://www.ehd.org/prenatal-summary.php, accessed 3/9/2017. See also the “Prenatal Timeline.”
- https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/abortion/human-personhood-begins-at-conception.html
4.Ibid.
Chandler Fayard 
Great work!