Personhood in abortion

[SteveGC]

What you are ignoring is that a pre-viability fetus cannot be separated from its mother without killing it. It’s part of the woman in a sense that it’s practically inseparable.

I’m not ignoring it. Viability and dependency does not determine personhood. If that were the case, then we could argue that all children up until about the age of 2 years could be killed arbitrarily. They are fully dependent on others for survival. They will not live if left indefinitely outside of the womb in the delivery room by themselves. Why is that not ok, but it’s ok for mom to kill the child while he/she is dependent on her while inside her?

That aside, where does the material the fetus is made of comes from? The mother’s body.

Mom’s and dad’s, to be precise. Following that logic, dad’s should be able to trump a mom’s decision to abort. Do they have that right? Regardless, what does that matter? That only describes biology, not personhood.

Yes! See images here: dana.org/news/brainhealth/detail.aspx?id=10050

A 3rd trimester fetus looks very much like a newborn (and is able to survive premature birth), but during the 1st trimester it looks completely different.

Ok? So, you’re making my point for me? Of course it looks different. That’s my point. The problem with the pro-abortion crowd is that they fail to see that the 1st trimester baby is exactly the same person as the 3rd trimester baby, regardless of it’s recognizability as such. If they could see this truth, 1st/2nd trimester abortions would decrease in the same fashion as 3rd trimester abortions.

You’re overemphasizing the importance of DNA. If DNA was the sole criterion, then monozygotic twins shoud be a one person no? Obviously, they are not. Also, what about cloning? If a woman is pregnant by the way of cloning herself, then by your logic that child would not be a (separate) person.

I’m not overemphasizing DNA. It was one small point with the larger context of my thought. I’m comparing one baby to it’s mother. And I’m not suggesting DNA alone be the sole criteria. Actually, it is the endowment of a soul at conception that defines personhood. But I knew that many do not subscribe to that thought, especially when no science can observe the soul. So, I was appealing to a more universally accepted mode of contrasting a mother’s being with a separate being within her. Certainly in no case will a mother’s DNA be the same as the child(ren) within her.

 

[pnewton]

I’m not ignoring it. Viability and dependency does not determine personhood. If that were the case, then we could argue that all children up until about the age of 2 years could be killed arbitrarily. They are fully dependent on others for survival. They will not live if left indefinitely outside of the womb in the delivery room by themselves. Why is that not ok, but it’s ok for mom to kill the child while he/she is dependent on her while inside her?

Or, for that matter, the severly ill or disabled, includint the elderly. Without assistance, Stephen Hawking could not survive. Is he less of a person for that?