Abortion

To start off, I will define two words that will come up later in my arguments. Human: (n. ): A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens. (adj. ): Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals. (1) Person: A human or organization with legal rights and duties. (2) Arguments Human vs. Person In order for my arguments to make sense, there must first be a distinction between what is human and what is a person. This may seem counterintuitive, as the term human is generally considered equivalent to a person, but it's actually more complex than this. First, a human who ceases to have brain activity is not a person, even if the non-brain parts of the body is still functioning using life support. Once a person stops having brain activity, the person is considered officially dead (3). Next, various things that are human are still not persons. Individual cells, DNA, and body parts are human in nature, but are not protected as people under law. These things make up a person, whom would be protected by law. Finally, sperm cells and egg cells are not people. They are human, and have the potential to create a person, but are not protected under law individually. Personhood With these terms clarified, we can now discuss what ought to be considered a person. There are many thresholds which people have come up with to determine when personhood begins, but it is still very much in debate today. You believe abortions should be illegal "unless the mother is a condition in which she can't handle the pregnancy. " I can infer from this that you believe the point of conception, or the fusion of gametes to initiate the development of a human, is the beginning of human personhood, and therefore entitled to the right of life. Also, the only justification in aborting the newly-formed zygote is if a person of equal value, the mother, would be at risk of death from attempting to give birth to the would-be baby. So, why not choose fertilization as the starting point? My argument for brain activity as the beginning of personhood is founded on that idea that our minds are what make us ourselves. Our individuality, consciousness, characteristics, and livelihood are not just simply attached to the genetic and cellular foundations from fertilization. We require more than that. An active brain is needed for us completely fulfill these ideas of being a person. Not only does brain activity make a good indicator for when we are living people, but it is consistent with our definition of when we are dead. As I explained earlier, our definition of death is dependent on when brain activity ceases. If this is when we consider someone dead, why not be the determiner of when someone is alive? The most reasonable thing to do is to have a consistent set of ethics and make brain activity the beginning of personhood. Conclusion For all the ideas of when personhood should begin, brain activity would be the most reasonable. To quote a doctor named John Goldenring, "By accepting a functioning brain as a medical definition for humanness, one can achieve a very reasonable, scientifically grounded and consistent view of human life. Such a definition allows us to look at all of life from the development of a single cell to the death of the last cell in a body in the same way. We need not encounter any logical dilemmas if we apply a brain-life test and we can use it as an instrument to aid policy and ethical decisions. "(4) I look forward to your response! Sources 1. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 3. . http://pntb.org... 4. . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...