parable

Abortion is legal because fetuses, although recognized as being human in nature and living, are not recognized as persons and hence do not possess rights that must be protected. This leads to questions of personhood, and, more importantly, humanity.

Unprecedented advances in biotechnology demand that we re-examine not just what it means to be a person, but what it means to be human. For example, its not clear why a human clone, successfully delivered, would or would not be a person; is it simply by virtue of having a full complement of human DNA or is something else involved? Or, what if all the DNA is not human, as in a chimera, i.e. a genetic blend between species? What fraction of human DNA is necessary to legally qualify for personhood? Is DNA the issue? The answers will be determined by what we choose, as will the fate of many yet-to-be-created organisms, or persons, as the case may be.

In like manner, any point in fetal development selected to define personhood is, at best, arbitrary. Some hold that personhood begins at conception, while the law holds it is established at birth, whatever that means. With the advent of the modern c-section, our notions of what constitutes "birth" had to be revised. Note that in so called "partial birth" abortions, most of the fetus is actually outside the mother at the time the fetus is destroyed, although at 5 or 6 months, the fetus is not viable. But what if modern medicine learns how to keep a 3-month preemie alive until it is viable, what then?

Abortion is controversial because notions of personhood are either relative or absolute, and these are almost always mutually exclusive and deeply held moral convictions. Yet, history repeatedly shows that relativism regarding personhood can lead to dehumanization, which by definition, distinguishes an "us" from a "them". This distinction has always preceded killing on grand scales. (Hence, the argument that abortion is genocide.) Ironically, it is the perpetrators of genocide who are dehumanized, not their victims, by the self-induced alienation from humanity needed to perpetuate the psychological distinction between themselves and their victims. In the case of abortion, the fetus, person or not, has been distinguished from humanity to the extent that each year there are 1.25 million abortions in the US and 50 million worldwide.

The question here is not what a fetus is or is not, but rather, what "we" have become in order to kill so many of "them". The decision about personhood goes beyond abortion or choice. Our understanding of personhood determines not only who we are, but also what we will become. I hope that given a choice about what it means to be a person, those who currently qualify will choose wisely.

In the context of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, someone once asked “If killing an unborn baby by accident is manslaughter, what is killing it on purpose?" Clearly, intent is thought to be relevant.

But, this act is predicated on the notion that the mother alone has the right to determine the fate of the fetus. Under the law, a fetus has no rights because a fetus is not recognized as a person. To underscore the rights of the mother, specific provisions of the Act prevent prosecution of the mother in any case, even if the mother survives a suicide attempt, but the fetus does not.

What one person may call "hypocrisy" with respect to intent in the case of abortion, is more properly called "arbitrary" with respect to personhood. In order to resolve the controversy surrounding abortion, it will be necessary for us to reach consensus about what it means to be a person.

__________________
"If you aren't confused, you haven't been paying attention."