• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Personhood For Prenates ≠ Outlawing Abortion, & Vice-Versa

Troodon Roar

New member
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.
 
Last edited:
Philosophically I don't think something that doesn't posses a mind should have personhood. But you are speaking legally so I will address that.

You are right in that our government deprives persons of life. But that entails due process. If you grant an embryo personhood then you are stuck with the little "problem" of the Constitution.
 
in my mind a fetus becomes a person once it is capable of survival outside the womb, so like maybe 5 or 6 months or so, whenever the baby can be delivered premature and have a reasonable expectation of surviving is where the cutoff should be.
 
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.

An interesting question. Very simply, viability can bridge this paradox.

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.

If prolifers would do all this then I would have a lot more respect for them. I mean, if you really believe that an embryo is a living, breathing person, then you're gonna fight tooth and nail to keep it alive. But for whatever reason, in general they oppose comprehensive sex ed, they oppose affordable and easily accessible birth control, they oppose anti-poverty measures. All of these are measures known to keep abortion numbers down.

And yet, the prolifers fight them tooth and nail. This can only lead to one reasonable conclusion: Minimizing the number of abortions was never their goal. It's a smokescreen of "OH MY GAWD THINK OF THE BEHBEHS!!1!" while they seek to let the government control women's and girls' reproductive choices as much as they possibly can.

Fellow prolifers on this forum, I urge you to refute my post with facts, and non-cherry-picked facts at that. Attempting to refute it with emotions and feeble insults will only make my point for me.
 
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.
AT THE VERY LEAST IT MAKES OBTAINING AN ABORTION MORE DIFFICULT. Do you have any Objectively Valid rationale for making abortion more difficult to obtain? If not, then this whole Thread is just a thinly disguised excuse to arbitrarily assign personhood to mere-animal entities that don't actually need to have personhood assigned to them (not brainy enough to be able to do anything with it!).
 
Look, if one aborts a fetus, one aborts a potential human being. We don't need the vague concept of personhood at all in this matter.
The abortion of a potential human being is a moral question. It should not have been made a legal question, but historically it had to be made a legal question, so it is now a legal question as well as a moral question.
So abortion must be legal, and the moral choice must be left to the person carrying the potential human being.
I personally think aborting a potential human being is immoral, unless the life of the person carrying that potential human being is endangered by carrying to term.
But abortion must remain legal and the moral choice left to the pregnant woman.
That's the long and the short of it.
One's personal moral choices are one's own to make and live with, and not anyone else's business.
 
Last edited:
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.

The problem with this is that killing someone who is a person requires due process. Even if we do somehow allow fetuses to be killed through due process, that's a slow process. It's unlikely that a trial could happen and render a verdict fast enough to matter. And give that there are over a million abortions a year, that would be a huge strain on our legal system.

And granting personhood to a baby from the moment of conception has some pretty bad unintended consequences.
 
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.

If prenatal humans are declared persons, then the reasons for killing them will need to be more greatly justified. We don't allow the legal killing of persons in the USA or here in Canada for social or economic reasons which comprises what most abortions are done for.
 
If prenatal humans are declared persons, then the reasons for killing them will need to be more greatly justified. We don't allow the legal killing of persons in the USA or here in Canada for social or economic reasons which comprises what most abortions are done for.

When someone is without adequate healthcare, underemployed, and already caring for a child at home.....being pregnant can not just be an economic threat....but a threat to the safety and wellbeing of the pregnant woman and her family.
 
When someone is without adequate healthcare, underemployed, and already caring for a child at home.....being pregnant can not just be an economic threat....but a threat to the safety and wellbeing of the pregnant woman and her family.
Do you agree with me if prenatal humans are declared persons, the justification needed to kill them will be greater?
 
The problem with this is that killing someone who is a person requires due process. Even if we do somehow allow fetuses to be killed through due process, that's a slow process. It's unlikely that a trial could happen and render a verdict fast enough to matter. And give that there are over a million abortions a year, that would be a huge strain on our legal system.

And granting personhood to a baby from the moment of conception has some pretty bad unintended consequences.

Yep.

There's a fairly long list of unintended consequences by granting personhood to a "zygote" up. I spent a bit of time researching what those unintended consequences would most likely be. And you're right, they're pretty bad.

But: Sorry, I have to disagree with the term or word "baby" as a legitimate descriptor of any stage of development that's not capable of surviving outside the womb, assisted or not. And actually, I don't subscribe to that term or word unless a fetus has exited the womb.

But your legal perspectives I agree with 100%.
 
Do you agree with me if prenatal humans are declared persons, the justification needed to kill them will be greater?

If personhood was declared, then yes, the law would have to adapt. I just don't see that ever happening.

But the unintended consequences of declaring a zygote, embryo or fetus a person are massive. Now pardon me while I have a fertility center harvest my last remaining eggs and get those suckers fertilized and on deep freeze. Cause I am feeling the tax savings for my 20 dependents!

But do you think having abortion declared illegal would massively slow down abortions? The moment they were declared illegal.....the pushers would have a new cash cow RU486.
 
Legal or illegal, abortion will continue. Give them personhood or not it will still continue. If personhood is granted by society they will then have to be responsible for that life.

That will never happen.
 
But: Sorry, I have to disagree with the term or word "baby" as a legitimate descriptor of any stage of development that's not capable of surviving outside the womb, assisted or not. And actually, I don't subscribe to that term or word unless a fetus has exited the womb.

I'm not in the slightest bit interested in debating terminology. It's a pointless debate that has nothing to do with the actual issues related to the abortion debate.
 
I'm not in the slightest bit interested in debating terminology.
THEN YOU ARE MISSING SOMETHING IMPORTANT. Terminology allows "loaded questions" to be asked --and be refuted.

It's a pointless debate that has nothing to do with the actual issues related to the abortion debate.
IT HAS A GREAT DEAL TO DO WITH ARGUMENTS PRESENTED. For example, consider the argument on this linked web page, and the definitions presented. By defining "human being" in terms of biology, instead of personhood, that debate-participant has "loaded the dice" in favor of the argument presented. But what a human being **actually** is, is a human that also just happens to be a person. Just like, say, an "extraterrestrial alien being" would be an extraterrestrial alien that also just happens to qualify as a person --the average extraterrestrial alien entity is probably just a regular-type plant or animal, after all! Not every human entity qualifies as a human being/person, like hydatidiform moles and brain-dead adults on life-support --and unborn humans don't qualify, either. Terminology is important!
 
Legal or illegal, abortion will continue..

We all know that activities will continue to happen legal or not.

Give them personhood or not it will still continue.

Yes we know that murder will continue to happen (assuming that prenatal humans have personhood in a hypothetical) but that doesn't mean we make ''murder'' legal right?


If personhood is granted by society they will then have to be responsible for that life.

Society will make the parents responsible for the ''new person'' the woman is pregnant with. If the parents can't afford the ''person in the womb'' with their own income, then society will step in to help.


That will never happen.

Give pro lifers the slack they need and it will happen. People who are often undecided about what side they want to be on will come and look at the debate. If pro lifers lay out there arguments and pro choicers give half ass responses to them, those people will most likely become pro life. And the more and more pro lifers there are, the easier it will be for them to elect pro life people into office and it will slowly go downhill there for pro choicers.
 
If personhood was declared, then yes, the law would have to adapt. I just don't see that ever happening.

Good you agree with me that declaring prenatal humans ''persons'' will make them more harder for the women to kill. I don't see that happening either but it can happen though.

But do you think having abortion declared illegal would massively slow down abortions? The moment they were declared illegal.....the pushers would have a new cash cow RU486.

Declaring abortion illegal will see a slow down in abortions done. If it will be massive or not is speculation. And yes we already know that ''murder'' happens despite it being illegal to do so. That doesn't mean we make ''murder'' legal now does it? (assuming prenatal humans have personhood in a hypothetical.)
 
Good you agree with me that declaring prenatal humans ''persons'' will make them more harder for the women to kill. I don't see that happening either but it can happen though.



Declaring abortion illegal will see a slow down in abortions done. If it will be massive or not is speculation. And yes we already know that ''murder'' happens despite it being illegal to do so. That doesn't mean we make ''murder'' legal now does it? (assuming prenatal humans have personhood in a hypothetical.)

I beg to differ.

I believe if abortions become illegal, that it will be a short wait before the drug pushers make RU486 readily available. Frankly, I have to wonder if this occurrence will make abortions even cheaper and more available.

Many on the pro-life side lack any insight into why women chose abortion. What they call "abortion for convenience" really is abortion to keep themselves and their born children safe and secure. many will likely not hesitate to buy a few pills from their local pusher.

Pregnancy (even before a baby is born) can thrust a woman deeper into poverty - which means questionable living situation, losing heat, losing phone service, crappy access to quality food...etc.

Less legal abortions in your scenario? Sure. Less abortions.....not so sure.
 
Back
Top Bottom