Related Ideas

Review these ideas and then use the BACK key on your browser to go back to the page you were on.

Some writers who consider the embryo a person define 'person' in strictly biological terms. For example, it is sometimes said that since the embryo or fetus has 46 human chromosomes it must be a person. There are many objections to this view, however. For one thing, the concept of a person existed long before our knowledge of chromosomes. Talk about 'persons' 100 years ago made perfect sense but it wasn't about chromosomes. What was it about?

Consider the possibility that 'person' is not a biological concept. Trying to define it in biological terms may be like trying to define 'criminal,' or 'saint,' or 'employee' in biological terms. You should develop your own position, but if you use biological facts you must show how they link to the moral questions at issue.

Another approach might be to argue that whatever the embryo's other features, it has a soul. This, you might argue, makes it a person or gives it a certain moral status.

To make this argument you must clarify the concept of a soul and give evidence for its existence. Does the soul exist prior to the embryo (as some New Age philosophers believe)? Does it come into existence at the time of conception? At some later point? (Is timing crucial?) How do we know the answers to these questions? What method should we use to decide?

A number of Christian writers have argued that the embryo bears the image of God and is therefore morally equivalent to you or I. This argument is usually based on scripture. We will come to it again later.