Why do so many people implicitly grant to pro-lifers the philosophically crucial claim that "human being" = "person", forcing themselves to argue for the bizarre contention that a (human) fetus is not a human being?

Human beings become persons, to whom moral consideration is due, in the course of their (normal) development. Seriously -- what is the great conceptual hurdle here?

What about the other POV; Why do so many pro-choice people call the fetus 'just a lump of cells' or imply a fetus is just like skin cells?

I agree with your course of development take; i.e. starts with egg and sperm, moves on to cells, move on to fetus and at some stage moves on to 'person'. WHEN 'it' becomes a 'person' is the subjective part.

Then the next logical question is 'does WHEN matter in the abortion debate'? To most people it does; i.e. most people do NOT support a women's right to terminate a 'person'. This is why most people are OK with restrictions on late term abortions (because 'it' has become 'person' by then).

But lets say a panel of 1,000 doctors was formed to determine this WHEN. They come up with some specific criteria. Would the pro-choice folks accept this WHEN and be OK with outlawing all abortions after this WHEN?

Note that I'm pro-choice and I don't support any restrictions imposed by the state but maybe science could get me to refine my positon and support bans on abortions after this WHEN.

Except I said nothing at all about when in the course of development a human being becomes a person. Maybe it's at conception (though I do think that is wildly implausible). My question is solely about the mysterious conflation of the two concepts: "human" and "person."

Even if the two things were co-extensive (they picked out all the same things in the world), surely they are not the same concept, and surely it is the concept of being a person that matters for the permissibility of abortion (which is not to say that it automatically settles the question). And surely the rational pro-choice strategy is to argue that they are not co-extensive, that personhood comes later, rather than to grant that they are the same and then get pulled into crazy arguments about whether the fetus is human.

Why use such a strawman as 'maybe it's at conception' and then throw that idea under the bus (but I do agree that is wildly implausible).

Why didn't you use 8 months as an example? Is the fetus a person at 8 months? Days before a women gives birth? Hours? OR is 'it' only a person after it has left the women's body?

Why do you dance around the WHEN and the quesition of whether WHEN matters in the abortion debate?

This is where I see my fellow pro-choice people breakdown when it comes to abortion restrictions related to WHEN (e.g. late term abortions).

Would you support a law that outlaws abortion after 6 months unless the women's life is truely at harm? What would be your reason for supporting \ not supporting such a law?

jazzguitarman:

Why use such a strawman as 'maybe it's at conception' and then throw that idea under the bus (but I do agree that is wildly implausible).

One, because I was trying to emphasize that this basic conceptual point is distinct from the question of when/how personhood begins. I might just as well have said "age 30." And two, because I was trying to say that even if the two terms pick out the same set of things, they do not mean the same thing, and so there is at least a question of whether they pick out the same or different sets of things.

Your "when" questions certainly do matter in the debate. Indeed, they are the principal substantive issue. (Though not the only one -- there are important arguments that abortion is permissible even if the fetus is a person.) But people have difficulty even addressing them when they start off by conflating the two concepts. I have (mistakenly) debated pro-lifers in public, and they will literally open up a biology textbook to "win" the argument, and pro-choice people let them do this by perpetuating this basic confusion.

Anyway, I guess I'm sort of starting to answer my own question. People simply do not see this issue.

------

In brief answer to your last question, I might support such a law if it solidified the right to an abortion before six months. I doubt seven month old fetuses are persons in any morally weighty sense of the term, but there is room for reasonable debate in this territory (primarily in terms of emerging brain function).

We are kind of talking apples and affadavits, here. "Human being" is a biological term, right, member of the species homo sapiens. "Person" is a legal term referring to someone's (or some corporation's) status as a legal entity.

I would say "human being" begins the moment there is unique DNA, and continues until the corpse is completely decomposed. One starts as an embryonic human being, is born and is a living human being, dies and is a dead human being.

Personhood, however, only lasts from birth until death.

Freki

What magically turns a group of cells into a person at birth? A baby begins to have a sense of its own existence sometime around one year of age. Why not set that date as personhood and permit the child to be killed any time before then?

KevClark64:

What magically turns a group of cells into a person at birth? A baby begins to have a sense of its own existence sometime around one year of age. Why not set that date as personhood and permit the child to be killed any time before then?

Because we can see and interact with a baby before one year of age.

It may not be rational, but that's the reason.

I am somewhat confused by the willingness of people on both sides of the issue to push for legislation that includes exceptions to abortion bans when the mother's life is in danger. Philosophically, it seems to me that if abortion is wrong, it's wrong period. But I'll allow the possibility that people are willing to accept this kind of legislation as a compromise. But what I don't understand, is how you would turn such vaguely worded laws into practice. How much in danger does the mother's life have to be? 60% risk of death from carrying the pregnancy to term? 100%? And how would you enforce that? Do you need a doctor to sign a letter before a judge? What do you do if a pregnant woman comes into an emergency room with a complication and there's no time for the court order?

It's probably clear what my stance on the issue is, but I'm curious if other people have thought about this and how to enforce such a law. My take is that it's political pandering that cannot really be put into practice...but I'd be interested to know if someone has suggestions on how it could work.

"I am somewhat confused by the willingness of people on both sides of the issue to push for legislation that includes exceptions to abortion bans when the mother's life is in danger. Philosophically, it seems to me that if abortion is wrong, it's wrong period. But I'll allow the possibility that people are willing to accept this kind of legislation as a compromise. But what I don't understand, is how you would turn such vaguely worded laws into practice. How much in danger does the mother's life have to be? 60% risk of death from carrying the pregnancy to term? 100%? And how would you enforce that?"

The reason to allow an abortion in case of danger to the life of the mother is similar to allowing self-defense when a stranger breaks into the home and threatens your life. And such a situation is too subjective to have a statistic tied to it. I mean, if someone breaks into my house wielding a knife I've got pretty good cause, but if someone is walking behind me at night while I'm going home, that in and of itself isn't enough reason for me to turn around and shoot him. But what is? Well, that's what trials are for. Of course, a trial wouldn't be practical in the case of a pregnancy, but maybe some type of review board, and the answer would be just as subjective as a trial could be. I think enforcing it would be simple enough, since a doctor wouldn't be willing to lose his license and risk a jail term over terminating a pregnancy - that's why we have Roe v Wade to begin with. I could be wrong, but the woman seeking an abortion isn't tried for that, it's always the doctor. Anyone out there who knows different feel free to correct me here.

The aggregation of laws does. It always has been an arbitrary and political decision. Born children used to be considered property and not persons as well. Birth is an easily determinable point, one that is consistent with over a thousand years of jurisprudence as well as international law.

And what if the review board doesn't agree with the woman's decision? We then have a case the explicitly violates the 13th Amendment. so much for the Constitution.

Heh. The draft explicitly violates the 13th Amendment, but that didn't stop it.

Just sayin'.

The Draft is in the Constitution in the "call forth the militia" clause.

Similarly taxation is an explicit amendment.

Where is the text that allows regulation of the bodies of residents?

Where is the text that allows compelled organ donation?

I'm not afraid that if women were leally allowed to kill their baby up to one year that we would see a lot of women doing so.

Again, why do you have no faith in the character of women?