What Is Personhood? Does It Matter?

The concept of personhood is central to the abortion debate. Pro-choice advocates often argue that personhood begins at birth or at a later stage of fetal development, not at conception, and thus the fetus does not have the same moral status as a fully born human being. This argument is used to justify the right to abortion at various stages of pregnancy. However, there are several logical and philosophical issues with this viewpoint that warrant serious consideration. In this article, we will critically examine and debunk the pro-choice personhood argument.

One of the most significant problems with the pro-choice argument regarding personhood is the arbitrary nature of defining when personhood begins. Pro-choice advocates often place personhood at birth or at some point later in fetal development, such as when the fetus is capable of feeling pain or viability outside the womb. However, these distinctions are not based on objective criteria but are rather arbitrary lines drawn for convenience. For instance, if we define personhood as beginning at birth, we face the issue of defining why birth is the point at which a fetus transitions from being a non-person to a person. Birth is, in essence, a biological event, not a moral or philosophical one. The fetus is genetically distinct and human from the moment of conception, and its development is continuous throughout pregnancy. The idea that a fetus is a non-person before birth but a person afterward is an arbitrary and unconvincing distinction. It lacks a solid moral or logical foundation. Similarly, proponents of the "viability" argument, which claims that personhood begins when the fetus can survive outside the womb, face the challenge that viability is not an intrinsic feature of personhood but rather a reflection of medical technology and the ability to sustain life outside the womb. The development of medical science changes the threshold for viability, and relying on it to determine personhood fails to provide a consistent and universally applicable standard.

From a scientific perspective, human life begins at conception. At the moment of fertilization, a zygote is formed, containing a unique set of DNA that is distinct from both the mother and the father. This zygote begins dividing and developing immediately, and throughout its growth, it follows a continuous path that eventually leads to birth and beyond. Personhood is not something that can be suddenly granted or denied at a specific moment, as the pro-choice argument suggests. It is an ongoing process of development that begins at conception and continues throughout the entire pregnancy, birth, infancy, childhood, and adulthood. The transition from "non-person" to "person" is not an event that occurs at a single, arbitrary moment but a gradual process that begins with conception and develops through the stages of life. Thus, arguing that personhood begins only after a certain point in development fails to account for the continuity of life. From conception, the fetus is a distinct and living human being, and its development into a fully realized person is a gradual process that does not involve a clear-cut distinction between "person" and "non-person."

Another key argument against the pro-choice position is that personhood can be defined biologically by the presence of human DNA. The fetus, from the moment of conception, possesses a unique genetic code that is distinct from both the mother's and father's. This genetic code carries the potential for full human development, and it is this unique genetic identity that makes the fetus a human being. To argue that the fetus is not a person simply because it has not yet reached a particular stage of development is to disregard the fundamental nature of human biology. By definition, human beings are members of the species Homo sapiens, and this classification begins at conception. The genetic argument suggests that personhood does not depend on the fetus's stage of development but rather on its genetic makeup, which inherently makes it a human being.

Moreover, if we take the position that personhood is based on a particular developmental milestone, we must confront the ethical dilemma of what happens to human beings who, due to medical conditions, do not achieve those milestones or do so at a delayed pace. For instance, people with severe disabilities or those born prematurely may not reach certain developmental milestones as expected. Do they lose personhood under the pro-choice framework? This highlights the inconsistency and ethical problems in using arbitrary milestones to define personhood.

A key flaw in the pro-choice argument on personhood is the moral inconsistency it creates. Pro-choice advocates argue that the fetus is not a person and thus does not deserve the same moral consideration as a born human being. However, they often struggle to justify why a fetus is not deserving of basic human rights, such as the right to life, based on developmental stages alone. If personhood is granted only at certain developmental stages, then this implies that some human beings are more "human" than others based on their level of development. This creates a moral hierarchy among human beings, a dangerous precedent that has been historically used to justify the dehumanization of certain groups. For example, throughout history, various groups (such as slaves, indigenous peoples, and women) have been denied full moral consideration based on arbitrary distinctions. The argument for fetal personhood is not too dissimilar from these past practices of denying rights based on perceived inferiority. Moreover, if personhood is based on development, it leads to uncomfortable implications for how society treats individuals who may not achieve certain developmental milestones, such as those with significant disabilities. If a human being can lose personhood due to not reaching certain stages of development, then the door is open to similar reasoning in the treatment of those with special needs, elderly individuals, or people in comas—those who are unable to care for themselves at a certain level. This undermines the principle of equality that forms the bedrock of modern human rights.

A common pro-choice argument is that the fetus does not have full personhood because it has "potential" to become a person. This argument is based on the idea that the fetus, while biologically human, is not a person until it reaches a certain stage of development where it can fully engage with the world. However, this argument is flawed because it fails to recognize that all human beings, including the unborn, have the potential to become fully realized persons. The notion of "potential" should not strip away the intrinsic value of human life. Just as a newborn child has the potential to grow into an adult, and an adult has the potential to age and experience further life events, a fetus, from the moment of conception, has the potential to become a fully realized person. The potential argument undermines the value of all human beings by suggesting that only those who have reached a particular threshold of development are worthy of moral consideration. This is a dangerous line of reasoning that can be extended to justify the mistreatment or dehumanization of other groups in society.

The pro-choice argument regarding personhood is fundamentally flawed because it relies on arbitrary definitions of when a human being becomes a person. It ignores the continuity of life from conception and fails to provide a solid moral or scientific basis for distinguishing between "non-person" and "person." Furthermore, it creates moral inconsistencies and opens the door to the dehumanization of vulnerable populations. In contrast, a pro-life perspective based on the idea that personhood begins at conception offers a more consistent, ethical, and scientifically sound approach to understanding the value of human life.

The debate over personhood is not just a matter of legal rights; it is a question of the inherent dignity and worth of every human being, regardless of age, stage of development, or circumstances. The pro-life position, grounded in respect for human life from conception, offers a framework for protecting the rights of the unborn and ensuring that all human beings are valued equally. This article outlines several reasons why the pro-choice argument regarding personhood lacks moral, scientific, and philosophical consistency, while advocating for the pro-life perspective that personhood begins at conception.