“The fetus isn’t really a person until they have sentience.”
As we continue in our series of pro-life apologetics, let’s address the argument from sentience.
This is perhaps the most common argument in favor of abortion and an introduction to a more philosophical series of justifications. Often you will hear sentience and consciousness used interchangeably, the following refutations apply to both.
Lets start by defining what they mean.
Sentience: “Capable of sensing or feeling : conscious of or responsive to the sensations of seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, or smelling” (per Merriam-Webster.) This can be generally summarized as the ability to have subjective experiences and interact with or process the world around you.
At its core, this argument attempts to make a distinction between that which is human, and that which is a person. To most of us, those terms are interchangeable, however, to understand this pro-abortion argument we have to recognize why they say this. The example they will often give is that an individual human skill cell has human DNA yet we would not consider it murder to scratch your arm and kill millions of skin cells.
Further fleshed out, the pro-abortion argument goes something like this:
A fetus isn’t really a person and has no moral worth and no rights until it becomes sentient. What we value is not human DNA, but human experience. Being human doesn’t mean someone has personhood. Only once the fetus gets sentience, the ability to experience, feel, etc, should it be legally protected.
The first among several glaring issues with this position is that sentience is not unique to human beings.
If sentience alone is the sole determining factor of who/what has the right to life, then a wide array of animals must be deserving the right to life. For example, even pigs have been shown to be sentient creatures. To be consistent the abortion advocate would have to believe that it is equally wrong to kill a pig or a squirrel as it is to kill a human being. Put into practice that would require manslaughter charges for anyone who runs over a squirrel on the road, an obvious absurdity.
If the abortion advocate claims that it is not sentience alone, but a combination of being human plus sentient, their argument doesn’t fare much better.
This can be proven with a simple question. What is the value of $1,000,000 plus a chewed piece of gum?
The answer, it is worth $1,000,000 as the chewed piece of gum adds no value to the equation. Much like the cash in the analogy, humanness is where all the value comes from when we ask, “what is the value of humanness plus sentience?”
If this were not true, then five adult pigs would be of greater moral significance than one human newborn as adult pigs are far more sentient than a newborn.
Additionally, the argument from sentience justifies killing innocent people outside the womb as well as inside the womb.
For example, each year millions of people go under general anesthesia, during that time they are not sentient. They are not thinking, feeling, or experiencing the world around them. Would it be morally justifiable to have them dismembered and killed while they are under anesthesia? Of course not!
When confronted with this, the well-studied pro-abortion advocate will often make a second arbitrary claim. This time they will say that it is not permissible to kill the person under general anesthesia because they have past sentience.
Even though they may not currently be experiencing anything, they already have in the past. From this view, the first time you gain sentience you gain personhood, and losing sentience in the future does not negate your personhood. However, it stands to reason that if sentience is the required ingredient to have the right to life, losing it should result in the loss of the right to life. Additionally, they cannot explain why past sentience would be more relevant than future sentience, after all the unborn baby will soon be sentient.
The pro-abortion position from sentience fundamentally misunderstands what it means to be a person.
You are not a person based on what you can do or what you have done. You are a person based on what you are. If you are a human being, you are a person with the right to life. (See the foundation of the pro-life position for more.)
Attempting to deny the personhood of human beings has only ever led to evil. Take, for example, those who claimed black people were human beings, but not persons worthy of equal rights. Personhood begins at fertilization when the new person is created.
As we continue to expand our growing catalog of pro-life answers to pro-abortion arguments, please feel free to submit suggestions at info@lifeissues.org. We will happily refute any arguments that you need help with.
Leave a Reply