Personhood argument on abortion not logical

In the abortion debate, the crucial question to ask is: “Are embryos and fetuses persons?” For now, let's examine the embryo.

In order to be a “person,” an organism must be capable of thoughts, feelings and self-awareness in order to make choices. Not only does an embryo fail to meet these criteria, but if we altered the definition to categorize an embryo as a person, it would result in absurd implications.

We now perform amniocenteses on blastocysts (groups of undifferentiated cells that form after fertilization) in which a single cell of the group is removed and tested for genetic diseases. But once the cell is removed, it can continue to develop on its own and become an identical twin. Some of the other cells become the placenta. Does the blastocyst contain dozens of different people waiting to be set free? Are the cells that will differentiate into the placenta people before differentiation? In addition, many fertilized embryos never implant in the uterus, thus pregnancy never occurs, and these embryos are passed as a regular monthly cycle. What should we do to stop these abortions performed by nature/“God”?

This doesn't mean embryos or fetuses having no moral standing, but that pro-lifers must present a more logically satisfying argument than an appeal to personhood.

Jordan Goforth

Cedar Rapids