Often I find myself grieved over something that many of us don’t even notice. You could say it’s a “microaggression” although I’m not a big fan of that term. For me, the grievance is over a subtle but deliberate discrimination. Now, it’s not a huge deal, so I’m not trying to make it out to be more than it is. But I do notice it. My grievance is over the way we refer to fetal humans as merely a “fetus.”
I don’t mean to gripe, but…
When I get in conversations with people about abortion, eventually we reach for a word to describe what is being killed in an abortion. I avoid “trigger” words like “baby,” and “person” – those terms invite more contention than is necessary to get the point across. But I do not surrender to just any verbiage, from the pro-choice side, such as “clump of cells,” “or parasite,” or “tissue.” I have a duty to truth, and so, it would not be accurate to describe an organism as if it’s an undifferentiated mass, like a tumor; or act as if the fetal human is a parasite, when, in reality, parasites are a different species from the parent.
I favor expressions that are technically precise, having scientific or legal support. In a subject as heated and disputed as abortion, it’s important to use clear words wherever we can. For example:
- “fetal human” or “human fetus” – the biological kind plus the stage of development
- “homo sapiens” – the genus and species
- “child-in-utero” – the legal title established in the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (2004).
- “him” or “her” – the biological sex-specification of the fetal human; instead of just saying “it” or “that.”
However, there is one term that I try to avoid even though it’s probably the most common term for the child-in-utero. This word, I suggest is a faint microaggression. The word is “fetus.” The word “fetus” is inadequate for several reasons.
Problems with the word “Fetus”
First, “fetus” is just a stage of development and does not say what kind of thing is at that stage of development. We can rightly ask, “what kind of fetus?” There are horse fetuses, and cow fetuses, and cat fetuses. Refusing to identify what kind of thing is at issue in the abortion debate can work very differently if we are jumping to different species. If someone doesn’t want to admit what kind of fetus is being killed, then perhaps he or she isn’t really owning up to the consequences of their pro-choice position.
Second, the term fetus is ambiguous. It refers to a range of different levels of development, ambiguating early, middle, and late stage fetal humans when, for pro-choice advocates, the degree of development is critically important. Many prochoicers oppose middle or late stage abortion because they understand fetal-pain to be a legitimate dividing line, or they understand consciousness as being a legitimate dividing line. By, pulling the “humanity” out of the term and just saying “fetus” we are losing the potentially clarifying quality of “humanity” leaving only the ambiguous “fetal” status to inform our conversation and concepts.
Third, it’s medically wrong for all unborn children prior to week 8 of gestation. The “fetal human” from weeks 1-7 isn’t called a fetus but a zygote. Now, this doesn’t change the fact that it’s customary to treat fetal humans like non-humans, and referring to them just as “fetus” regardless. But customs can be wrong, misleading, and even discriminatory. I think we can find a better custom to follow.
Fourth, it’s a discriminatory microaggression. Chronically referring to fetal humans, as mere “fetuses” runs the risk of dehumanization. Literally, it is suppressing that individual’s humanity by reducing or denying attention to his or her humanity. It would be like referring to black humans beings only as “the blacks.”
If we are going to be consistent in our compassion, we do well to remember that dehumanization is a common bias in the abortion debate, and that even popular and common discrimination is still discrimination. We can do better than that. We can refer to children-in-utero without suppressing their humanity.