VFL event links abortion, human rights

JHU Voice for Life (VFL) hosted a fetal development display as part of Students for Life of America’s When Should Human Rights Begin? national tour on the Keyser Quad on Tuesday.

The display featured several displays of different developmental stages of a fetus, ranging from fertilization to birth. VFL members spoke to students with the aim of educating them about the human rights of fetuses.

“We thought it would be good to poll students and promote discussion on when human rights should begin along the stages of human development,” VFL Co-President Andrew Guernsey said. “We had students put tabs on the display, voting along the trimester of development. Half of [students] fell in the first trimester. This is a much more accurate reflection of the actual opinions of where Americans fall, which tend to be more supportive of restrictions on late-term abortions.”

According to Guernsey, students were asked to defend the placement of their tabs, and some changed their opinions after listening to their peers’ opinions.

“We had a healthy discussion with a lot of different students from different points of views, some of whom modified their views or found themselves moving their sticky notes based on discussions about why they chose it and where,” Guernsey said.

Guernsey said he believes that the human rights of a fetus can be determined using scientific methods.

“There is a serious question of science here about when biological human life begins that should influence our discussion on whether all human [beings have rights] regardless of their stages of development,” Guernsey said.

Several students shared their perspectives on this controversial matter.

“If there is a hypothetical situation in which, at any state of pregnancy, medically you can only save one and if both of them have equal rights, how do you choose which one to save?” graduate student Anubha Nagawat asked. “Probably the rights of the mother supersede the rights of the fetus until birth.”

Michele Hendrickson, the regional coordinator of Students for Life of America, commented on this moral dilemma.

“[In] a life of the mother scenario, really, there is only one medical condition that would require an abortion: ectopic pregnancy,” Hendrickson said. “Some alternative to abortion in that scenario would be, from pro-life doctors, to cut around the fallopian tube and remove the fallopian tube.”

Freshman Anshel Kenkare discussed his experiences from working in a neonatal care unit.

“I used to work at the neonatal care unit in Detroit where a lot of drug addicts’ children were born early because of their drug habits. A lot of them wouldn’t survive or would grow up and maybe survive until five because of complications,” Kenkare said. ”They’ve lived lives, but I can’t say whether it was worth having them live that life or not. At what point [does] the quality of life become so bad that it’s not worth having the life at all?”

In contrast, Guernsey said that each human being is unique.

“People would argue it’s just a clump of cells. But it’s not just any clump of cells; it is a unique organism that has its own set of DNA,” Guernsey said. “Everything about you was set in the blueprint of yourself that came to exist at fertilization when your father’s sperm and your mother’s egg united to form a new human being.”

Felicia Flemming, a graduate student, argued that fetuses should be aborted if they have terminal medical conditions.

“If it has some disability that will kill my child when it’s 20, why can’t I finish when it’s still in the cell form?” Flemming said.

Alyssa Brann, a member of VFL, argued that all human beings, including fetuses, should have equal rights.

“We want everyone to be valued equally,” Brann said. “I think human rights begin at conception. It’s not your right to make the decision for someone else.”

Guernsey thinks that it is important to discuss the human rights aspect of the abortion debate.

“The framing of the discussion in terms of when human rights begin equally has been a very effective way of getting people to think and re-think their views on this subject. In my opinion, it has been very successful,” Guernsey said.

Brann also discussed what she viewed as the societal disparity between the duties of child support of men and women.

“A man, if the woman chooses to have the child, has to support [the child]. That’s a law. So why is it that the woman then has the right to not support the child when the man has to?” Brann asked.

Guernsey also commented on the dilemma of choosing between mother and child.

“There is the classic formulation where doctors would have to treat two patients, the mother and the child. Whose rights ought to be valued equally? We hope that medicine would try to save both lives as much as possible,” Guernsey said.

Brann said concerns also arise after a child is born, particularly if the child is not wanted by his or her parents.

“I think a large part is improving the lives of the children who are born who aren’t necessarily wanted or who are born into families where they are wanted but will suffer,” Brann said. “I know there is a pregnancy clinic right near here that will help mothers find a place to live [and] get free diapers, babysitters and jobs. We need that widely available.”