Replies

Pretty good, though at the end you seem to fall into using utilitarian reasons to argue against continued abortion.

That underlines the whole argument for me; many people simply do not know. They are either unknowingly ignorant of the nature of the fetus, or they choose not to learn.

No, they know. As long as women have been getting pregnant and giving birth, they know they have a human child inside them. It's just that at times they choose to consider killing it to be less costly to themselves than allowing it to live. In earlier days, the point at which they could get away with it has gone from leaving newborns exposed to the weather and wild animals to killing it before it before it can leave the relative safety of the womb.

Should the Unborn be Considered Human?

Unborn humans are human. Someone who uses an occasion after which a human individual goes from complete dependence on one person to complete dependence on the same or another person as a means of defining humanity of that individual is just looking for an excuse to off him with impunity while simultaneously absolving herself of guilt.

Personhood, in terms of a unique personality and self-awareness, is an aspect of being human that develops somewhere between conception and the first few years of life. It's inherent in our nature but, like sexual maturity, is something that develops in its own due course. It's something that can be altered or destroyed by drugs or disease (both genetic and otherwise); however, it's not something upon which stands or falls one's right to life.

This distinction is misused by those who call for pulling the plug on brain-dead adults and then reason that the lack of adult-like brain activity in a fetus is sufficient reason for pulling its plug. They reason superficially. The reason that pulling the plug on the post-birth brain-dead is seen by many as acceptable is because it's virtually certain that the brain-dead will never again regain consciousness (though there have been notable cases in which they have recovered full consciousness). However, in the case of the fetus, it's virtually certain that it will become conscious, become aware, develop a personality, and be able to enter into relationships with other people. It's a natural consequence of development. But its humanity underlies and precedes its personhood. Its right to life is based on its being human, not just being a person.

This is why people want to shift the focus to 'person', such as when they ask, "Just when does a fetus become a person with Constitutional rights?" They've begged the question. They play off the qualitative aspect of defining a 'person' in order to ignore the absolute fact of life. This qualitative game has always been used by people in power to define others out of existence. Such a distinction should be acknowledged for the purpose of showing up their 'quality of life' game for what it is--a means of having things their way regardless of the consequences for others.