FREE ESSAY ON IF THE FOETUS IS NOT A PERSON, DOES IT FOLLOW THAT ABORTION IS MORALLY NEUTRAL?

IF THE FOETUS IS NOT A PERSON, DOES IT FOLLOW THAT ABORTION IS MORALLY NEUTRAL?

One reason the debate about abortion goes nowhere is that each side focuses on a different
topic. We make no progress because we are not talking about the same thing. The
pro-abortionist focuses on a woman's rights and life, and the anti-abortionist focuses on
a foetus' rights, and protecting its life. There is actually much agreement between the
opposing views. Most on both sides would agree that the life of a child is a precious
thing that deserves full protection of the law. There might be nearly universal agreement
that it is a woman's exclusive right to make decisions concerning her body. So where's
the disagreement? The entire complex issue comes down to these questions: 
Is the foetus a person?
If so, is it always a person, or does it somehow become one (and when and how might this
happen)? 
If not, does it follow that abortion is morally neutral?
'person, n. an individual human being: the outward appearance, living body (exclusive or
inclusive of clothing) of a human being' 
What is a foetus if it is not a person? It is not simply a bunch of cells of the mother's
body, for what identifies the mother's cells is their DNA, and this bunch of cells
doesn't share that DNA content. If it is not a bunch of the mother's cells, then what is
it? It is a new organism, because it contains a completely original set of DNA, and it is
simply called a foetus. Animals , plants, and single cells are all alive, but not people.
If we work from the premise that the foetus is not, in fact, a person, we have to
consider the value of life when it is not that of a human being, and then decide what
value we give to the life of a foetus. The moral weighting of abortion must be based on
that value. 
Is killing an animal morally neutral? Many people strongly disagree. If someone were to
murder your dog for the sheer fun of it, that person would be considered sick in the
mind; if you accidentally killed your poor hamster, you would probably feel pretty
terrible; animal rights organisations fight to raise awareness of animal suffering. These
indicate that although these animals obviously aren't persons, they nevertheless are
alive, and the emotions attached to their death indicate that we hold some sort of
respect for life other than that of a person. 
Is killing a plant morally neutral? Most people would probably think so. If you go out
into your garden and pick some flowers to give to your mother, few people would consider
you sick in the mind; if you accidentally stepped on a pretty flower whilst out walking
in the forest, you might be sorry because you have destroyed something that was
beautiful, but you're unlikely to agonise over it. Yes, there are societies that work to
protect plant-life, but their motive is different than that of animal rights
organisations - they are not trying to raise awareness of plant rights, or how much
plants suffer, but rather of the danger of extinction of species of plants. Research is
being done in an attempt to find out whether or not plants feel pain, but generally this
isn't taken particularly seriously because we hold a different attitude towards the lives
of plants than we do towards those of animals or people. 
Is killing a cell morally neutral? We tend to think so. If you scratch your arm, I don't
think anyone would consider you sick in the mind; if you accidentally bump the side of a
table, you are extremely unlikely to worry about the cells you have just killed. There
are no organisations fighting for a cell's right to life, or trying to raise awareness of
a cell's suffering. This seems absurd, because we hold little or no respect for the life
of a cell.
Animals, plants, and cells all scientifically classify as living. What is it that makes
us have such a different attitude towards animal life than towards plant and cell life?
The obvious difference that distinguishes animals from plants and single cells is the
presence of a brain. This makes it possible for them to have character, to be irritable,
bad-tempered and violent, or gentle and patient. Some animals seem to be able to learn to
understand us, and effectively communicate with us. The more the animal has these
qualities, the more we keep them as pets and grow fond of them , and the more value we
tend attach to its life.
So, what value do we attach to the life of a foetus? A foetus of a week or two old is so
small that it has no brain. It is a bunch of cells, but it is so early in development
that, if it were an organism found in the wild, we would care very little for it and not
consider its life very valuable, and abortion at this stage might easily be considered
morally neutral. However, the foetus is ever developing, and a month later its brain has
started to form. We would now consider it to be on par with a small-brained organism, and
its life is therefore beginning to gain value. As the foetus continues to grow, its brain
develops and the foetus, as from two months, begins to feel pain and react to it. This is
when we start to value its life much more, and the abortion of the foetus is no longer
morally neutral.
So, if we work from the premise that the foetus is not a person, the value we give to the
life of a foetus varies as it develops. There is obviously a morally significant
difference between a two-week embryo and a newly born baby, and we value its life
accordingly. It is morally neutral to abort a two-week-old embryo, for it means little
more than a plant at that stage, but as it grows and forms a brain, develops simple
emotions and feels pain, abortion becomes a lot more serious. The foetus' life gains
importance, until it is born and qualifies as a person, at which point killing it is
classified as murder.