THE DNA FALLACY AND POTENTIAL PERSONHOOD REVISITED

Some get their morals from intuition, some from philosophy and others from religion.  Ms Carmen Zammit (who, she informs us, has a Master’s Degree in Theology), writing to The Times (January 13) clearly gets her morals from religion, which is fine as long as religious beliefs are not imposed on anyone who does not share her beliefs.

Ms Zammit, in her opinion piece entitled “My body, not my choice”, tells us that “though (she is) a woman of faith, (she) is not writing from a faith perspective…(she) is writing on the basis of reason – a capacity unique to human beings and one which we should use more often in the way we dialogue with each other”.  Yet, Ms Zammit fails to even attempt to put forward any rational philosophical arguments in support of her biased and prejudiced opinions which she takes as unquestioned and unquestionable facts.  And while she brings up scientific facts, she fails to give any philosophical argument on the moral relevance or otherwise of such scientific facts, as I will show. One must always keep in mind that on moral questions, science without philosophy is as useless as philosophy is without the relevant scientific facts.

Ms Zammit tells us that the motive behind her stand against abortion is “because science has proven…that human life begins at conception, and that, from conception onwards, we are dealing with a human individual with her/his own unique genetic makeup (DNA)”  Ms Zammit goes on to tell us that “this individual is a human being with potential…and not a potential human being.  That is what science confirms…(therefore) that human individual has the basic human right to life”. While Ms Zammit is correct about the science (but incorrect about how it applies to philosophy), she commits various fallacies and makes several unsupported assumptions which she takes as unquestionable facts.  For instance, she assumes (without providing any argument in support the claim) that just because a body is human, it must have rights; that “unique” DNA (theDNA fallacy) gives us rights; and that potentiality matters.  Let me tackle each in its turn.

That life begins at conception is a reasonable claim to make (although I would argue that it starts even before that – sperm is very much alive).  However, life by itself, is no sufficient attribute for assigning rights, otherwise killing plants would be murder. What makes being human or alive so special to warrant protection through rights?  Like I said here, claiming that human life must be protected because it is human is just a circular argument, and any preconceived opinion that is not backed by rational arguments applicable to relevantly similar cases, is just prejudice. It only makes sense to speak of granting rights to individuals to whom those rights matter.  And for a right to be both possible and matter, the individual to whom the right is granted must be capable of having an experiential welfare that may fare better or worse. A being without an experiential welfare, and without even the capacity to know it exists, let alone have feelings and desires, cannot be harmed. 

The science which Ms Zammit ignores tells us that “the sophisticated network of highly interconnected components (nerve cells)” and “its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, (only) begins to be in place between the 24^th and the 28^th week of gestation” (Scientific American). This essentially means that before the 24^th week of gestation, the foetus is not even aware it exists, and has only the potential of developing into a person with interests, and therefore rights. Until Ms Zammit (and others of similar views) addresses these facts, her opinion, despite her claim, is one based completely on the religious belief that “embryos and foetuses have rights from conception” which essentially translates to "they do because they do" or "they do because my religion said so". No argument at all.

Let us now turn to the DNA fallacy. As I have already said in more detail here, foetal DNA is not even necessarily unique, distinct and unrepeatable (identical twins share the same DNA). But in any case, DNA is just an “information code” whose function is to build and maintain a body. It is our brain, and not our DNA, that gives us a personal identity and enables us to have any kind of personal experiences, desires and interests.  It is these attributes that make a body a person as opposed to just living flesh. Lacking a sufficiently developed brain (not before 24 weeks of gestation), a body couldn’t even care whether it exists or not, or whether it would eventually develop into a sentient, conscious and thinking being with an experiential welfare.  Before that, a foetus does not even know it exists. It cannot have personal interests and therefore cannot be harmed.

Ms Zammit tells us that all embryos and foetuses are individual human beings with potential, and not potential human beings. While this is factually true, each of the millions of sperm that do not make it and are therefore killed, could also be considered, by her own criteria (human DNA and being human), as individual human beings (they are human – not of another species – and living beings) with potential. But I suppose Ms Zammit does not have any concern for them at all. Her updated religious beliefs (I presume she is not opposed to contraception, but one can never be too sure) tell her that “human beings” only matter from conception onwards, and like I said, until she provides rational philosophical arguments on why pre-conscious and pre-sentient foetuses matter, hers, despite her declaration to the contrary, is just a religious belief. And in a secular democracy, religious beliefs should never be imposed. More on potential personhood here.

Ms Zammit tells us that she disagrees with the slogan “my body, my choice” because “the core of the issue is that here we are not speaking of one individual, the pregnant woman but, scientifically, we are speaking of two human individuals…and both have the right to live”. Ms Zammit, again, misapplies the science because she ignores the philosophy, and where, when and if that science is applicable. The slogan, taken in isolation, would truly not make sense.  However, the slogan assumes (correctly) that what we are dealing with here, is one actual person's rights versus one potential person with no rights (as I have already shown). That both are “human” is not morally relevant until she provides a rational philosophical argument that shows that unaware, pre-sentient, pre-conscious bodies with no interests and that are not even aware they exist, have rights. Until she does, her opinion is just prejudiced religious opinion that she is welcome to keep but cannot expect and should not demand to be imposed on the rest of us. Ms Zammit, as do many other anti-choice people, misapplies the term individual and assumes it is synonymous with personhood. The science she ignores shows us that embryos and foetuses cannot sensibly be described as persons, at least not until the 24^th week of gestation.

Ms Zammit concludes by appealing for people to “dialogue in a civil and reasonable way, free from politics, with the sole purpose of making decisions in favour of the well-being of each human individual”. If we are to make decisions in favour of the well-being of each human individual, then it necessarily follows that “individuals” who cannot even have well-being because they have no sufficiently developed brain that gives them experience, sentience and consciousness, not to mention awareness of even existing at all (therefore effectively being just bodies with only the potential of becoming persons) may be excluded from concern for any imaginary “well-being”. Until Ms Zammit (and others of a similar mind) makes a reasoned case backed by science that would show that rights should be assigned to beings who cannot have interests, she may keep her beliefs, but should not expect a secular state to legislate on personal religious beliefs and opinions.