Is an embryo human?

Is an embryo human?

This is a difficult question to answer.  I'm a theologian, not a biologist and I make no pretense to being an expert in the latter field.  Nevertheless,  I hope to contribute meaningful ideas into the discussion.  First of all, I think the question is insufficient.  It should be, Is an embryo in a woman's womb, human by nature?.  The initial question isn't complete since we normally think of a human to be anything from a baby to an old man, or woman.  The revised question deals more honestly with the issue of the nature of the life in the womb and broadens the discussion.
     In order to answer the question, we need to define what it means to be human.  I think the answer lies in understanding two main concerns:  the physical aspect and essence of humanness.  By physical, I mean the obvious external appearance and function of the human body governed and constructed by biological distinctions.  By essence of humanness, I mean that part of the human that is essential to being human apart from the physical aspect.  Ill explain more on this later.

The Physical
 

Physically, we are bilaterally symmetrical. That is, the human body can be divided vertically into two haves that are mirror images of each other.  We have 46 chromosomes, walk erect, have large brains, opposable thumbs, etc.  We are similar in structure to primates, but different in several areas such as brain capacity, reasoning capacity, complex language ability,¹  locomotion by walking erect, etc.  Though various animals share aspects of human qualities to much lesser degrees, people are superior to animals in these areas.

 

Essence of being human

     The issue of the essence of what makes a  person a human is more difficult an issue.  Instead of the cut-and-dry science of physical definition, determining the essence of want makes someone human requires a more reasoned, and even philosophical approach .  Let me illustrate.
     If a person were involved in an accident and lost both arms and legs, would he still be a human?  Yes, of course.  Let's also say that he lost his genitalia. He is still human by nature, though without the ability to reproduce  Therefore, it is clear that being a human is more than simply having arms and legs and genitalia.  Lets further say that the same person is also in a coma in a hospital.  Is the person still human?  Again, yes.  Just because he is not functioning properly, i.e., talking, walking, eating, etc., does not mean he stopped being human.  Even the fact that he is completely dependent upon others for his very life, does not mean he is not human.  He still has human nature even though he is depending, without knowing it, on others to remain alive. Therefore it is obvious that there is more to being human than physical qualities.  There is an essence to being human that cannot be covered by mere physical descriptions and functions and that is independent on certain physical and functional qualities.  Humanness is innate and this innateness must be included in the discussions of taking the life in the womb.

When does this humanness begin?
 

     The question then becomes, When does this humanness begin?  I cannot give an authoritative answer.  But, I see two further issues that now require examination. First, if we don't know when the life becomes human, why take a chance in killing it?  If it is not known when the life in the womb "becomes human," then it is better to be safe than sorry.  Second, undoubtedly, the thing in the womb is alive, whether it be a single celled zygote or a fully developed baby.  Its nature, then, is human.  It has human DNA and is alive.  By necessity, it is human by nature.  Is the life in the womb that of a dog, or cat, or ape, or fish, or bird, etc.?   Obviously not.  Obviously, it is a human embryo.  Of course, the objection that abortionist will raise is that the embryo is only a potential human and not a full human because it is not capable of living independently of the mother.   To answer that, lets go back to the illustration above concerning the accident victim.
     If you remember, the man in the hospital has no arms and legs and is in a coma.  He is completely dependent upon others.  The only real difference between him and an embryo is that he is alive and has been born.  But, in this case he is completely dependent upon others to live.  Does this disqualify him from the title of human?  Of course not.  Therefore, we can see that the claim that the life in the womb isn't human because it is completely dependent on its mother is not a sufficient reason to deny its humanity.   So, is an embryo human in nature?  Yes.  Is it alive?  Yes.  Therefore, we have a life that is human by nature, growing in the mothers womb. Is it right, then, to kill it? 


_______________
1.  I am aware of the experiments with apes regarding sign language.   To some extent, they are able to communicate, convey ideas, and even reason.  These abilities are very limited and pale in comparison to human capacities.