It is a simplistic argument to state that because the fetus in a woman's womb is of human origin and is a living thing then therefore it is a human being. Very few people would disagree with such an argument. Or rather, very few people would disagree that the fetus is a being of human origin. However, to call the fetus a human being is to imbue it with certain rights, privileges and obligations that the fetus can neither recognize or fulfill. Consider, for example, what would happen if the fetus were situated in such a way that the mother's life was in danger. Could one then charge the fetus upon birth with the reckless endangerment of another human being's life? What if the mother dies? Is the fetus to be charged with murder?
The question remains "What does such an argument establish?" More than likely, the proponents of such an argument would use it to support their argument that abortion is wrong because it results in the death of a human being. But this argument ignores the fact that the fetus, even if it is a human being, is incapable of making its wishes known and is wholly unable to live on its own outside the mother's womb. Consequently, merely to argue that the fetus is a human being does not answer the question of what positive rights and privileges does such a human being have in relation to the rights and privileges of the human being in whose body it is housed or, indeed, to society in general.
No one can say for certain that the fetus is not a human being because it is a being of human origin. However, human beings in society have certain rights, privileges and obligations that they must recognize and fulfill to be considered responsible members of society. Persons who argue that abortion is wrong because it results in the killing of another human being recognize that people do have certain obligations to other members of society. They have the obligation not to kill another person unless their own l...