Children's Web magazine...
Entertaining , Educational, Fun,Informative and MORE

“Capacity to communicate, ability to reason, self-awareness and consciousness” – these are four of the five characteristics that Mary Anne Warren used to define “personhood”- four characteristics that a foetus, arguably, does not possess. However, many would feel uncomfortable with the dismissal of a foetus’ personhood due to its inability to fulfil these criteria. Is a foetus really a person?

In 1991 the abortion limit was set a 24 weeks, yet at 22 weeks, a foetus can scratch, pat, feel paint and arguably, communicate. In a 2005 edition of national geographic, it was described that a foetus will “smile, recognize their mothers voice, and maybe even dream”.  Whilst one may not believe that a foetus is a person at conception, or even upon the development of a nervous system at 17 days, surely, regardless of its inability to reason or communicate, a moving, smiling, feeling being must have personhood.  The viewpoint that personhood is gained at a certain point between conception and birth was even shared by St Augustine, who believed God breathed a soul into a human at a certain point in development. Whilst a bundle of cells does not seem to have much of a person about it, I find it difficult to dismiss a being that smiles and feels as anything less than a person.

Where Anne warren’s definition of personhood fails is its accordance of personhood to functionality. If a person is no more than its ability to reason or communicate, then do we have any intrinsic value at all? Warren’s “personhood” is dangerous in that it would not only dismiss the personhood of a foetus, but of a person under general anaesthetic, or even in a coma. Upon ignoring the value that out own humanity gives us as a “person”, we tread into dangerous grounds.

One stating that a foetus is not a person must take into account potential personhood. Saying that a foetus is not a person as such does not necessarily go hand in hand with abortion – but the potential personhood of the foetus must give it the right to live (arguably). Many say that, whether a foetus is thought of as a person or not, nothing must degrade its value as a potential human being. In the same way that we would value someone unconscious, or under anaesthetic, as a person regardless of their inability to communicate, we should value a foetus. The potential of a person waking up from a general anaesthetic is similar to the birth of the child, in that whilst in the present, they cannot communicate or be self-aware; they have the potential to be. Due to the natural human emotional attachment, many would tend to agree with personhood being gained at a certain point in development. However, many are also very uncomfortable in setting a limit for this.

This leaves many undecided on the topic of personhood – an uncomfortable atmosphere which leaves much difficulty in deciding laws on the sensitive issues of abortion. Are we as pro-choice as we seem to think we are?