Abortion and Personhood

(I wrote this years ago but since this is now my "opinion" blog I figured I'd post it here too.) :)

A few thoughts related to abortion: When does one person have the right to harm another?

• Personhood

  1. Most people supporting abortion do not base their definition of “personhood” on whether or not a fetus is human. Their definition depends on a human’s stage of development.

     1. I have heard pro-choice individuals argue that the product of a human womb is not actually human but is in fact a maggot or fish, etc. (Yes I have actually heard this argument used.) I take the liberty of assuming that anyone replying to this post does, in fact believe that the contents of a human womb, those contents that eventually grown into people, are, even in their not-so-human looking forms, still genetically human. If you disagree, please say so up front so as to avoid confusion.

  2. Most people opposing abortion base their definition of a “person” on the species that the fetus/zygote/etc is. In this case, a human is a “person” from the moment that that human has its own unique DNA, aka, conception.

  3. Personhood is a concept, or label, not a scientific definition or developmental stage. Thus far, there is not a test or procedure currently employed to discover the “personhood” of an individual. There are merely opinions based on beliefs. (These beliefs may or may not have supporting evidence to back their stand and that applies to beliefs on both sides of the argument.)

• Rights of a person

  1. Most people agree that one person’s rights stop when another person’s rights are infringed upon.

  2. The debate over terminating a pregnancy rages on because “personhood” has not culturally been accredited to humans pre-birth. (I use the term “pre-birth” to mean any and every stage between conception and birth. I am aware that there is some debate among pro-choice individuals as to when abortions should be preformed, ie: not after quickening, not once gestation has reached the third trimester, not once a fetus reaches viability, etc. I am lumping all those people into one group since they all share the belief that there is a developmental point prior to which humans are not “people” and should not be afforded rights.)

  3. If I were to advocate the right of a mother to terminate her offspring post-birth, I doubt I would be taken seriously by the majority of the population in the US since we, culturally, have given post-birth humans the status of “personhood.”

  4. “My body, my choice” makes sense as long as there are no other bodies (people) involved. Men in our country do not have the right to use their bodies to rape. This would be their choice infringing on another person. As long as the “personhood” of pre-birth humans is debated, there will be doubt as to whether or not a woman’s choice to abort her offspring pre-birth involves another person. (As per argument #1, I believe we all agree that the contents of a human womb are human, we disagree as to whether or not that human is a “person.”)

• Consequences of denying personhood to specific groups of humans: (I know we are a far cry from most of these, but it’s a slippery slope, denying person hood.)

  1. Slavery denied the personhood of blacks claiming that while they were human, they were a lesser form of humanity.

     1. Many people who are against abortion think this sounds remarkably similar to denying rights to pre-birth humans.

  2. The holocaust began by denying personhood to the “undesirable” members of society. They began by removing individuals that were a burden to society and did not contribute, ie the handicapped, the mentally retarded, etc and from there moved on to other “undesirable” people groups.

     1. Currently American doctors are already pressuring parents whose pregnancy involves a human with down syndrome to abort.

Any thoughts, comments, concerns? Brilliant insights are welcome! ;-)