- Joined
- Feb 12, 2017
- Messages
- 48
- Reaction score
- 11
There seems to be a common perception among both sides of the abortion debate that establishing personhood for the unborn, from conception onwards, necessarily entails the outlawing of abortions as a concomitant. Understandably, this excites the pro-life side, and worries the pro-choice side. Pro-lifers seize upon it as an opportunity to ban abortion via legislation, while pro-choicers are petrified of it as something that, in their view, would take away legal abortions. However, both sides are equally flawed when it comes to their perceptions of and reactions to this issue.
In reality, the issue of antenatal personhood is separate from the issue of whether abortion is legal or illegal. This is because there are many cases I can think of in which governments not only allow the killing of legal persons, but, sometimes, even sanction it or carry it out themselves.
The death penalty. Military service. No one denies that death row inmates and war conscripts are indubitably persons, despite the fact that governments routinely allow their killing.
So is it really too far-fetched to propose that the unborn can receive the proper respect and dignity due to them by being legally granted personhood, while women still have the right to abort if they wish to do so, so as to preserve the principle that no one can survive directly off of someone else's body against their wishes?
Yes, the pro-choice movement is right that women are autonomous persons whose right to control their own bodies should be respected. And, yes, the pro-life movement is also right that zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are organisms whose right to be recognized as persons ought to be granted, and whose right to live ought to be respected.
So why not a bit of a compromise here? Why not keep abortion legal, while granting the unborn personhood from conception onwards, and while attempting to save as many unborn lives as possible by utilizing increased access to contraception, sex education (not just abstinence-only sex ed, by the way), and increasing awareness among the public about the truth regarding the nature and the value of prenatal life? I think this is a perfect solution to the whole controversy.
In reality, the issue of antenatal personhood is separate from the issue of whether abortion is legal or illegal. This is because there are many cases I can think of in which governments not only allow the killing of legal persons, but, sometimes, even sanction it or carry it out themselves.
The death penalty. Military service. No one denies that death row inmates and war conscripts are indubitably persons, despite the fact that governments routinely allow their killing.
So is it really too far-fetched to propose that the unborn can receive the proper respect and dignity due to them by being legally granted personhood, while women still have the right to abort if they wish to do so, so as to preserve the principle that no one can survive directly off of someone else's body against their wishes?
Yes, the pro-choice movement is right that women are autonomous persons whose right to control their own bodies should be respected. And, yes, the pro-life movement is also right that zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are organisms whose right to be recognized as persons ought to be granted, and whose right to live ought to be respected.
So why not a bit of a compromise here? Why not keep abortion legal, while granting the unborn personhood from conception onwards, and while attempting to save as many unborn lives as possible by utilizing increased access to contraception, sex education (not just abstinence-only sex ed, by the way), and increasing awareness among the public about the truth regarding the nature and the value of prenatal life? I think this is a perfect solution to the whole controversy.
Last edited: